The first thing I want to do is say thank you to all of you. The second thing I want to do is introduce my co-author and dear friend and co-teacher. Ken and I have been working together for almost 40 years. That's Ken Sharpe over there.
Se pari, dua t`ju falenderoj te gjitheve. Se dyti, dua te prezantoj bashkeautorin, mikun e dashur dhe kolegun tim. Ken dhe une kemi punuar bashke per pothuajse 40 vjet. Para jush Ken Sharpe.
(Applause)
(Duartrokitje)
So there is among many people -- certainly me and most of the people I talk to -- a kind of collective dissatisfaction with the way things are working, with the way our institutions run. Our kids' teachers seem to be failing them. Our doctors don't know who the hell we are, and they don't have enough time for us. We certainly can't trust the bankers, and we certainly can't trust the brokers. They almost brought the entire financial system down. And even as we do our own work, all too often, we find ourselves having to choose between doing what we think is the right thing and doing the expected thing, or the required thing, or the profitable thing. So everywhere we look, pretty much across the board, we worry that the people we depend on don't really have our interests at heart. Or if they do have our interests at heart, we worry that they don't know us well enough to figure out what they need to do in order to allow us to secure those interests. They don't understand us. They don't have the time to get to know us.
Shume njerez -- nder ta une dhe shumica e njerezve me te cilet flas-- kane nje fare pakenaqesie kolektive per menyren si funksionojne gjerat, per menyren si funksionojne institucionet tona. Mesuesit e femijeve tane duket se po i marrin ne qafe ata. Doktoret tane nuk e dine kush dreqin jemi ne, ata nuk kane mjaft kohe per ne. Ne sigurisht nuk mund t`i besojme bankiereve, dhe me siguri nuk mund t`i besojme komisionereve. Ata pothuajse e shkaterruan te gjithe sistemin financiar. Dhe edhe kur ne e bejme punen tone, shpesh, e gjejme vetem se duhet te zgjedhim midis te berit te asaj qe ne mendojme eshte gjeja e duhur dhe te berit e asaj qe pritet, ose ate qe kerkohet, ose ate qe ka fitim. Keshtu qe kudo qe shikojme, praktikisht gjithandej, ne shqetesohemi qe njerez nga te cilet varemi nuk i kane interesat tona perzemer. Ose nese ata i kane interesat tona perzemer, ne shqetesohemi qe ata nuk na njohin mire te kuptojne se cfare duhet te bejne ata ne menyre qe te na lejojne te sigurojme ato interesa. Ata nuk na kuptojne. Ata nuk kane kohe te na njohin.
There are two kinds of responses that we make to this sort of general dissatisfaction. If things aren't going right, the first response is: let's make more rules, let's set up a set of detailed procedures to make sure that people will do the right thing. Give teachers scripts to follow in the classroom, so even if they don't know what they're doing and don't care about the welfare of our kids, as long as they follow the scripts, our kids will get educated. Give judges a list of mandatory sentences to impose for crimes, so that you don't need to rely on judges using their judgment. Instead, all they have to do is look up on the list what kind of sentence goes with what kind of crime. Impose limits on what credit card companies can charge in interest and on what they can charge in fees. More and more rules to protect us against an indifferent, uncaring set of institutions we have to deal with.
Ka dy tipe pergjigjesh qe ne japim per keto pakenaqesira te pergjithshme. Nqse gjerat nuk ecin mire, pergjigja e pare eshte: Le te krijojme ca rregulla, le te krijojme nje set me procedura te detajuara per t`u siguruar qe njerezit do te bejne gjene e duhur. T`i japim profesoreve nje udhezues per t`u zbatuar ne klase, keshtu qe edhe nqs ata nuk e dine cfare bejne dhe nuk jane te interesuar per mireqenien e femijeve tane, per sa kohe ata ndjekin udhezuesin, femijet tane arsimohen. Jepi gjykatesve nje liste me denime te detyruara te vendosin per krimet, keshtu qe ti nuk ke nevoje te bazohesh ne gjykimin e gjykatesve. Ne vend te kesaj, gjithe ajo qe ata kane per te bere eshte te shikojne ne liste cfare denimi i perket nje krimi te tille. Vendos limite ne interesat qe kompanite e kartave te kreditit mund te kerkojne si interes dhe ne cfare ata mund te bejne te paguash si komision. Gjithmone e me shume rregulla te na mbrojne kundra nje grupi institutesh qe jane indiferente dhe nuk duan t`ja dijne dhe me te cilat duhet te japim e te marrim.
Or -- or maybe and -- in addition to rules, let's see if we can come up with some really clever incentives so that, even if the people we deal with don't particularly want to serve our interests, it is in their interest to serve our interest -- the magic incentives that will get people to do the right thing even out of pure selfishness. So we offer teachers bonuses if the kids they teach score passing grades on these big test scores that are used to evaluate the quality of school systems.
Ose -- ndoshta dhe --- pervec rregullave, le te shikojme nqs mund te nxjerrim ca nxitje vertet inteligjente keshtu qe, edhe nqs njerezit me te cilet kemi te bejme nuk duan t`ja dijne ti sherbejne interesave tona, eshte ne interesin e tyre t`i sherbejne interesave tona -- magjia e nxitjeve qe do ti beje njerezit te bejne gjene e duhur edhe pse kjo ndodh prej nje egoizmi te paster. Keshtu ne i ofrojme bonuse mesuesve nqs femijet qe ata mesojne marrin nota te larta ne testet e gjata qe perdoren per te vleresuar cilesine e sistemit shkollor.
Rules and incentives -- "sticks" and "carrots." We passed a bunch of rules to regulate the financial industry in response to the recent collapse. There's the Dodd-Frank Act, there's the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that is temporarily being headed through the backdoor by Elizabeth Warren. Maybe these rules will actually improve the way these financial services companies behave. We'll see. In addition, we are struggling to find some way to create incentives for people in the financial services industry that will have them more interested in serving the long-term interests even of their own companies, rather than securing short-term profits. So if we find just the right incentives, they'll do the right thing -- as I said -- selfishly, and if we come up with the right rules and regulations, they won't drive us all over a cliff. And Ken [Sharpe] and I certainly know that you need to reign in the bankers. If there is a lesson to be learned from the financial collapse it is that.
Rregulla dhe nxitje -- "shkopinj" dhe "karrota". Ne krijuam shume rregulla per te kontrolluar industrine financiare si pergjigje te deshtimeve te fundit. Akti Dodd-Frank, Agjencia per Mbrojtjen Financiare te Konsumatoreve qe eshte perkohesisht e drejtuar per se prapthi nga Elizabeth Warren. Ndoshta keto rregulla do te permiresojne ne fakt menyren si sillen keto kompani. Do te shikojme. Pervec kesaj, ne jemi duke luftuar te gjejme disa menyra te krijojme nxitje per njerezit e industrise se sherbimeve financiare qe t`i bejme ata me te interesuar per t`i sherbyer interesave afat-gjate te kompanive te tyre, ne vend qe te sigurojne perfitime afat-shkurtera. Keshtu qe nqs gjejme nxitjet e duhura, ata do te bejne gjene e duhur -- sic e thashe -- ne menyre egoiste, dhe nqs ne vijme me rregullat e duhura dhe ligjet, ata nuk do te na cojne te gjithe ne ne humnere. Une dhe Ken [Sharpe] e dime qe ti duhet te mbreterosh mbi bankat. Nqs eshte nje mesim per t`u mesuar nga kolapsi financiar ky eshte ai.
But what we believe, and what we argue in the book, is that there is no set of rules, no matter how detailed, no matter how specific, no matter how carefully monitored and enforced, there is no set of rules that will get us what we need. Why? Because bankers are smart people. And, like water, they will find cracks in any set of rules. You design a set of rules that will make sure that the particular reason why the financial system "almost-collapse" can't happen again. It is naive beyond description to think that having blocked this source of financial collapse, you have blocked all possible sources of financial collapse. So it's just a question of waiting for the next one and then marveling at how we could have been so stupid as not to protect ourselves against that.
Por cfare besoj, dhe ai qe bejme fjale ne liber, eshte qe nuk ka nje set rregullash, sado i detajuar, sado specifik, sado i monitoruar ne menyre te kujdesshme dhe i detyruar, nuk ka nje set rregullash qe do te na jape ate qe kemi nevoje. Pse? Sepse bankieret jane njerez te zgjuar dhe, si uji, ata gjejne te cara ne cdo set rregullash. Ti dizenjon nje sere rregullash qe do ta bejne te sigurt qe arsyeja per te cilen sistemi financiar pothuajse u shkaterrua nuk do te ndodhe me. Eshte naive pertej pershkrimit te mendosh qe duke e bllokuar kete burim te nje kolapsi financiar, i ke bllokuar te gjitha burimet e kolapsit financiar. Keshtu qe kjo eshte vetem nje ceshtje e te priturit te kolapsit tjeter dhe pastaj te habitemi si mund te ishim aq budallenj qe nuk arritem dot te mbroheshim ndaj kesaj.
What we desperately need, beyond, or along with, better rules and reasonably smart incentives, is we need virtue. We need character. We need people who want to do the right thing. And in particular, the virtue that we need most of all is the virtue that Aristotle called "practical wisdom." Practical wisdom is the moral will to do the right thing and the moral skill to figure out what the right thing is. So Aristotle was very interested in watching how the craftsmen around him worked. And he was impressed at how they would improvise novel solutions to novel problems -- problems that they hadn't anticipated. So one example is he sees these stonemasons working on the Isle of Lesbos, and they need to measure out round columns. Well if you think about it, it's really hard to measure out round columns using a ruler. So what do they do? They fashion a novel solution to the problem. They created a ruler that bends, what we would call these days a tape measure -- a flexible rule, a rule that bends. And Aristotle said, "Hah, they appreciated that sometimes to design rounded columns, you need to bend the rule." And Aristotle said often in dealing with other people, we need to bend the rules.
Ajo qe ne kemi nevoje ne menyre te deshperuar, pertej, ose me mire, bashke me rregulla me te mira dhe nxitje te zgjuara te arsyetueshme eshte qe ne kemi nevoje per virtut. Ne kemi nevoje per karakter. Ne kemi nevoje per njerez qe duan te bejne gjene e duhur. Dhe ne vecanti, virtuti qe kemi me shume nevoje eshte virtuti qe Aristoteli e quajti "zgjuarsi praktike". Zgjuarsia praktike eshte detyra morale per te bere gjene e duhur dhe aftesia morale per ta gjetur cila eshte gjeja e duhur. Keshtu, Aristoteli ishte shume i interesuar si mjeshtrat rreth tij punonin. Dhe i bente pershtypje si ata mund te improvizonin zgjidhje te reja per problemet e reja -- probleme qe ata nuk i kishin parashikuar. Keshtu qe nje shembull eshte qe ai i shikon keta punonjes te gurit duke punuar ne ishullin e Lesbos, dhe ata duhet te masnin kolonat cilindrike. Nqs mendohesh per kete, eshte shume e veshtire te masesh kolonat cilindrike me vizore. Keshtu qe cfare bene ata? Ata krijuan nje zgjidhje te re te problemit. Ata krijuan nje vizore qe perkulet, qe sot do ta quanim meter -- nje rregull fleksibel, nje rregull qe perkulet. Dhe Aristoteli tha, "Ha, ata e kuptuan qe ndonjehere te dizenjosh kolona cilindrike duhet te perkulesh rregullin." Dhe Aristoteli tha shpesh kur ke te besh me njerez te tjere, duhet te perkulim rregullat.
Dealing with other people demands a kind of flexibility that no set of rules can encompass. Wise people know when and how to bend the rules. Wise people know how to improvise. The way my co-author , Ken, and I talk about it, they are kind of like jazz musicians. The rules are like the notes on the page, and that gets you started, but then you dance around the notes on the page, coming up with just the right combination for this particular moment with this particular set of fellow players. So for Aristotle, the kind of rule-bending, rule exception-finding and improvisation that you see in skilled craftsmen is exactly what you need to be a skilled moral craftsman. And in interactions with people, almost all the time, it is this kind of flexibility that is required. A wise person knows when to bend the rules. A wise person knows when to improvise. And most important, a wise person does this improvising and rule-bending in the service of the right aims. If you are a rule-bender and an improviser mostly to serve yourself, what you get is ruthless manipulation of other people. So it matters that you do this wise practice in the service of others and not in the service of yourself. And so the will to do the right thing is just as important as the moral skill of improvisation and exception-finding. Together they comprise practical wisdom, which Aristotle thought was the master virtue.
Te kesh te besh me njerez te tjere kerkon nje fare fleksibiliteti qe asnje set rregullash mund te perfshije. Njerezit e zgjuar dine kur dhe si te perkulin rregullat. Njerezit e zgjuar dine si te improvizojne Menyra si une dhe bashkautori Ken flasim per te ata jane pak a shume si muzikantet jazz Rregullat jane si notat ne faqe, dhe kjo te ben te fillosh, por pastaj duhet te vallezosh rreth notave ne faqe, te krijosh kombinimin e duhur per kete moment te vecante me kete set te vecante te muzikanteve. Keshtu per Aristotelin tipi i perkuljes se vizores, i gjetjes se perjashtimeve te rregullave dhe improvizimi qe shikon ne mjeshtrat eshte egzakt cfare mungon per te qene nje mjeshter i moralshem Dhe ne veprimet me njerezit, pothuajse gjithmone, ky tip fleksibiliteti eshte i nevojshem. Nje person i zgjuar di kur te perkule rregullat. Nje person i zgjuar e di kur duhet te improvizoje. Dhe me e rendesishmja, nje person i zgjuar e ben kete improvizim dhe perkulje te rregullave ne sherbim te qellimeve te duhura. Nqs ti je nje improvizues i mire dhe dikush qe perthyen rregullat per t`i sherbyer vetes, ajo qe sjell eshte manipulim i paskrupullt i njerezve te tjere. Keshtu qe ka rendesi qe ti te besh kete praktike te zgjuar ne sherbim te te tjereve dhe jo ne sherbim te vetes. Keshtu deshira per te bere gjene e duhur eshte po aq e rendesishme sa detyra morale per improvizim dhe gjetja e nje perjashtimi. Bashke ato perbejne zgjuarsine praktike te cilen Aristoteli mendoi se ishte virtuti master.
So I'll give you an example of wise practice in action. It's the case of Michael. Michael's a young guy. He had a pretty low-wage job. He was supporting his wife and a child, and the child was going to parochial school. Then he lost his job. He panicked about being able to support his family. One night, he drank a little too much, and he robbed a cab driver -- stole 50 dollars. He robbed him at gunpoint. It was a toy gun. He got caught. He got tried. He got convicted. The Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines required a minimum sentence for a crime like this of two years, 24 months. The judge on the case, Judge Lois Forer thought that this made no sense. He had never committed a crime before. He was a responsible husband and father. He had been faced with desperate circumstances. All this would do is wreck a family. And so she improvised a sentence -- 11 months, and not only that, but release every day to go to work. Spend your night in jail, spend your day holding down a job. He did. He served out his sentence. He made restitution and found himself a new job. And the family was united.
Keshtu qe do t`ju jap nje shembull te zgjuarsise praktike ne veprim. Eshte rasti i Michael. Michael ishte nje djale i ri. Ai kishte nje rroge te ulet Ai mbante gruan dhe nje femije, dhe femija shkonte ne shkollen parokiale. Pastaj ai humbi punen. Ai hyri ne panik sepse nuk do te ishte ne gjendje te mbeshteste familjen. Nje nate ai piu shume dhe grabiti nje shofer taksie -- vodhi 50 dollare. Ai e grabiti me revole. Ishte nje revole loder. Ai u kap, u gjykua dhe u denua Udhezimet per denimet ne Pensilvani kerkuan nje denim minimal per nje krim te tille prej 2 vjetesh, 24 muaj. Gjykatesja e ketij rasti, Lois Forer mendoi qe kjo nuk kishte kuptim. Ai nuk kishte bere kurre nje krim me perpara Ai ishte nje burre i pergjegjshem dhe baba Ai ishte perballur me rrethana te deshperuara Dhe gjithcka qe kjo do te bente ishte te shkaterronte familjen. Keshtu ajo improvizoi nje denim -- 11 muaj, dhe jo vetem kaq, por edhe lirine cdo dite per te shkuar ne pune. Kalo naten ne burg, kalo diten ne pune. Ai e beri. Ai e mbaroi denimin. Ai beri ndryshim dhe gjeti nje pune te re. Dhe familja u bashkua.
And it seemed on the road to some sort of a decent life -- a happy ending to a story involving wise improvisation from a wise judge. But it turned out the prosecutor was not happy that Judge Forer ignored the sentencing guidelines and sort of invented her own, and so he appealed. And he asked for the mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery. He did after all have a toy gun. The mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery is five years. He won the appeal. Michael was sentenced to five years in prison. Judge Forer had to follow the law. And by the way, this appeal went through after he had finished serving his sentence, so he was out and working at a job and taking care of his family and he had to go back into jail. Judge Forer did what she was required to do, and then she quit the bench. And Michael disappeared. So that is an example, both of wisdom in practice and the subversion of wisdom by rules that are meant, of course, to make things better.
Dhe dukej ne rrugen e nje fare jete decente -- nje histori me fund te lumtur qe perfshin improvizime te zgjuara nga nje gjykates i zgjuar. Por doli qe prokurori nuk ishte i kenaqur qe Gjykatesja Forer injoroi udhezimet e denimit dhe pak a shume shpiku te vetat, keshtu qe ai apeloi. Dhe kerkoi denimin minimal per grabitje te armatosur. Ai kishte nje pistolete loder. Denimi minimal per grabitje te armatosur eshte pese vjete. Ai e fitoi gjyqin. Michael u denua me 5 vjete ne burg. Gjykatesja Forer duhej te ndiqte ligjin. Dhe me qe ra fjala, ky gjyq u be pasi ai kishte mbaruar se sherbyeri denimin keshtu qe ai kishte dale nga burgu dhe ishte ne pune dhe kujdesej per familjen dhe ju desh te shkonte mbrapsht ne burg. Gjykatesja Forer beri cfare duhej te bente, dhe dha doreheqjen. Dhe Michael u zhduk. Ky eshte nje shembull, i te dyjave, zgjuarsi ne praktike dhe e kunderta e zgjuarsise nga rregullat, qe jane krijuar, sigurisht, t`i bejne gjerat me mire.
Now consider Ms. Dewey. Ms. Dewey's a teacher in a Texas elementary school. She found herself listening to a consultant one day who was trying to help teachers boost the test scores of the kids, so that the school would reach the elite category in percentage of kids passing big tests. All these schools in Texas compete with one another to achieve these milestones, and there are bonuses and various other treats that come if you beat the other schools. So here was the consultant's advice: first, don't waste your time on kids who are going to pass the test no matter what you do. Second, don't waste your time on kids who can't pass the test no matter what you do. Third, don't waste your time on kids who moved into the district too late for their scores to be counted. Focus all of your time and attention on the kids who are on the bubble, the so-called "bubble kids" -- kids where your intervention can get them just maybe over the line from failing to passing. So Ms. Dewey heard this, and she shook her head in despair while fellow teachers were sort of cheering each other on and nodding approvingly. It's like they were about to go play a football game. For Ms. Dewey, this isn't why she became a teacher.
Tani konsideroni Ms. Dewey. Ms. Dewey eshte nje mesuese ne shkollen elementare te Texas. Ajo u gjend nje dite duke degjuar nje konsultant qe po mundohej te ndihmonte mesuesit te rrisnin rezultatet e femijeve, qe shkolla te mund te arrinte kategorine elite ne perqindjen e femijeve qe kalonin teste te medhaja. Te gjitha keto shkolla ne Texas konkurrojne me njera tjetren te arrijne keto pikesynime dhe ka bonuse dhe benefite te tjera qe vijne nqse ti arrin te mundesh shkollat e tjera. Keshtu, ketu ishte keshilla e konsultantit: e para, mos harxhoni kohen me femijet qe do te kalojne testet cfare do qe te beni. E dyta, mos shpenzoni kohen me femijet qe nuk mund te kalojne testet cfaredo qe te beni ju. E treta, mos harxhoni kohen me femijet qe levizen ne kete lagje shume vone qe notat e tyre te numerohen. Perqendroheni te gjithe kohen dhe vemendjen ne femijet qe jane ne fllucke -- ata qe quhen 'femije fllucke'-- femije per te cilet nderhyrja juaj mund t`i beje ata qe te kalojne vetem nje cike kufirin nga te deshtuarit ne te kaluar. Keshtu Ms. Dewey e degjoi kete, dhe tundi koken ne deshperim kurse mesuesit e tjere po gezonin me njeri tjetrin dhe tunding koken ne aprovim. Eshte sikur ata jane duke luajtur nje loje futbolli Per Ms. Dewey, nuk eshte kjo arsyeja qe ajo u be profesore.
Now Ken and I are not naive, and we understand that you need to have rules. You need to have incentives. People have to make a living. But the problem with relying on rules and incentives is that they demoralize professional activity, and they demoralize professional activity in two senses. First, they demoralize the people who are engaged in the activity. Judge Forer quits, and Ms. Dewey in completely disheartened. And second, they demoralize the activity itself. The very practice is demoralized, and the practitioners are demoralized. It creates people -- when you manipulate incentives to get people to do the right thing -- it creates people who are addicted to incentives. That is to say, it creates people who only do things for incentives.
Tani Ken dhe une nuk jemi naive, dhe ne e kuptojme qe ti duhet te kesh rregulla. Duhet te kesh nxitje. Njerezit duhet te fitojne per te jetuar. Por problemi me bazimin mbi rregullat dhe nxitjet eshte qe ato demoralizojne aktivitetin profesional dhe ato e demoralizojne aktivitetin profesional ne 2 kuptime. E para, demoralizojne njerezit qe jane ne kete aktivitet. Gjykatesja Forer iku, dhe Ms. Dewey e ka humbur komplet besimin. Dhe e dyta, ata demoralizojne aktivitetin vete. Praktika vete eshte e demoralizuar, dhe praktikuesit jane te demoralizuar. Krijon njerez -- kur manipulon nxitjet per t`i bere njerezit te bejne gjene e duhur -- krijon njerez qe jane te varur tek nxitjet. Kjo per te thene, krijon njerez qe bejne gjera vetem per nxitjet.
Now the striking thing about this is that psychologists have known this for 30 years. Psychologists have known about the negative consequences of incentivizing everything for 30 years. We know that if you reward kids for drawing pictures, they stop caring about the drawing and care only about the reward. If you reward kids for reading books, they stop caring about what's in the books and only care about how long they are. If you reward teachers for kids' test scores, they stop caring about educating and only care about test preparation. If you were to reward doctors for doing more procedures -- which is the current system -- they would do more. If instead you reward doctors for doing fewer procedures, they will do fewer. What we want, of course, is doctors who do just the right amount of procedures and do the right amount for the right reason -- namely, to serve the welfare of their patients. Psychologists have known this for decades, and it's time for policymakers to start paying attention and listen to psychologists a little bit, instead of economists.
Tani ajo qe te shokon ketu eshte qe psikologjistet e kane ditur kete prej 30 vjetesh. Psikologjistet i kane ditur konsekuencat negative te nxitjeve te cdo gjeje per 30 vjet. Ne e dime qe nqs i jep dhurata femijeve per vizatimin, ata ndalojne te merren me me vizatimin dhe i japin rendesi vetem dhuratave. Nqs i jep dhurata femijeve per te lexuar libra, ata fillojne te pushojne se menduari cfare ka ne libra dhe t`i japin rendesi sa te gjate jane ata libra. Nqs kompenson mesuesve per rezultate ne testet e femijeve ata fillojne te pushojne se menduari per arsimimin dhe i japin rendesi vetem pergatitjes se testeve. Nqs kompenson doktoret per te bere me shume procedura -- qe eshte sistemi i tashem -- ata do te bejne me shume. Nqs ne vend te kesaj, ti i kompenson doktoret per te bere me pak procedura, ata do te bejne me pak. Ajo qe duam eshte sigurisht, qe doktoret te bejne sasine e duhur te procedurave dhe te bejne sasine e duhur per arsyen e duhur -- domethene, t`i sherbejne mireqenies se pacienteve. Psikologet e dine kete prej dekadash dhe eshte koha per ata qe bejne rregullat te fillojne te mendojne dhe te degjojne nje cike psikologet ne vend te ekonomisteve,
And it doesn't have to be this way. We think, Ken and I, that there are real sources of hope. We identify one set of people in all of these practices who we call canny outlaws. These are people who, being forced to operate in a system that demands rule-following and creates incentives, find away around the rules, find a way to subvert the rules. So there are teachers who have these scripts to follow, and they know that if they follow these scripts, the kids will learn nothing. And so what they do is they follow the scripts, but they follow the scripts at double-time and squirrel away little bits of extra time during which they teach in the way that they actually know is effective. So these are little ordinary, everyday heroes, and they're incredibly admirable, but there's no way that they can sustain this kind of activity in the face of a system that either roots them out or grinds them down.
Dhe nuk duhet te jete ne kete menyre, Ne besojme, Ken dhe une, qe ka vertet burime shprese Ne identifikojme nje set njerezish ne gjithe keto praktika te cilat ne i quajme perjashtime. Keta jane njerez te cilet, duke u detyruar te bejne punen ne nje sistem qe kerkon te zbatohen rregulla dhe krijon nxitje, gjejne nje menyre te anashkalojne rregullat, gjejne nje menyre te transformojne rregullat. Keshtu qe ka mesues qe kane udhezues per te ndjekur, dhe ata e dine qe nqs ndjekin kete udhezues femijet nuk do te mesojne asgje. Dhe ajo qe bejne eshte te ndjekin udhezuesin, por e ndjekin udhezuesin ne kohe te dyfishte dhe mundohen te heqin menjane copeza kohe gjate se cilave mesojne ne menyren qe ata e dine eshte me efektive. Keshtu keta jane heronj te vegjel, te zakonshem, te perditshem, dhe jane ne menyre te pabesueshme te admirueshem, por ata nuk mund ta vazhdojne kete aktivitet perpara nje sistemi qe ose i nxjerr nga rrenjet ose i bluan.
So canny outlaws are better than nothing, but it's hard to imagine any canny outlaw sustaining that for an indefinite period of time. More hopeful are people we call system-changers. These are people who are looking not to dodge the system's rules and regulations, but to transform the system, and we talk about several. One in particular is a judge named Robert Russell. And one day he was faced with the case of Gary Pettengill. Pettengill was a 23-year-old vet who had planned to make the army a career, but then he got a severe back injury in Iraq, and that forced him to take a medical discharge. He was married, he had a third kid on the way, he suffered from PTSD, in addition to the bad back, and recurrent nightmares, and he had started using marijuana to ease some of the symptoms. He was only able to get part-time work because of his back, and so he was unable to earn enough to put food on the table and take care of his family. So he started selling marijuana. He was busted in a drug sweep. His family was kicked out of their apartment, and the welfare system was threatening to take away his kids.
Keshtu perjashtimet nga rregullat jane me mire se asgje, por eshte e veshtire te imagjinosh qe perjashtimet mund te jene zgjidhje per kete ne nje periudhe te vazhdueshme. Me shpresedhenes jane njerezit qe ne i quajme ndryshues te sistemit Jane ata njerez qe shikojne jo te manipulojne sistemin por te transformojne sistemin, dhe ne flasim per disa. Nje ne vecanti eshte nje gjykates i quajtur Robert Rusell. Dhe nje dite ai u perballua me nje rast te Gary Pettengill. Pettengill ishte nje veteriner 23 vjec qe kishte planifikuar te bente nje karriere ne ushtri, por u plagos keq ne Irak, dhe kjo e detyroi ate te linte sherbimin. Ai ishte i martuar, priste nje femije te trete, vuante nga PTSD, pervec dhimbjes se mesit, dhe anktheve qe riktheheshin, dhe ai kishte filluar te perdorte marijuana per te lehtesuar disa nga simptomat. Ai ishte ne gjendje vetem te bente pune part-time per shkak te kurrizit, dhe keshtu ai nuk ishte ne gjendje te siguronte ushqim te mjaftueshem dhe te kujdesej per familjen. Keshtu ai filloi te shiste marijuana. Ai u kap ne nje shitje droge dhe familja e tyre u debua nga apartamenti, dhe sistemi i asistences sociale po i kercenonte per t`i hequr femijet.
Under normal sentencing procedures, Judge Russell would have had little choice but to sentence Pettengill to serious jail-time as a drug felon. But Judge Russell did have an alternative. And that's because he was in a special court. He was in a court called the Veterans' Court. In the Veterans' Court -- this was the first of its kind in the United States. Judge Russell created the Veterans' Court. It was a court only for veterans who had broken the law. And he had created it exactly because mandatory sentencing laws were taking the judgment out of judging. No one wanted non-violent offenders -- and especially non-violent offenders who were veterans to boot -- to be thrown into prison. They wanted to do something about what we all know, namely the revolving door of the criminal justice system. And what the Veterans' Court did, was it treated each criminal as an individual, tried to get inside their problems, tried to fashion responses to their crimes that helped them to rehabilitate themselves, and didn't forget about them once the judgment was made. Stayed with them, followed up on them, made sure that they were sticking to whatever plan had been jointly developed to get them over the hump.
Nen proceduren normale te denimit, Gjykatesi Rusell nuk do te kishte rruge tjeter por te denonte Pettengill me shume vite burg si shperndares droge. Por Gjykatesi Rusell kishte nje alternative. Dhe kjo sepse ai ishte ne nje gjykate speciale. Ai ishte ne nje gjykate te quajtur Gjykate e Veteraneve. Ne Gjykaten e Veteraneve-- kjo ishte e para e ketij lloji ne SHBA Gjykatesi Rusell krijoi Gjykaten e veteraneve, ishte nje gjykate vetem per veteranet qe kishin thyer ligjin. Dhe ai e krijoi egzaktesisht sepse denimet e detyrueshme po merrnin ne dore gjykimin per te gjykuar. Asnje nuk donte qe njerezit qe nuk ishin violente-- dhe sidomos veteranet jo-violente-- te perfundonin ne burg. Ata donin te benin dicka rreth asaj qe ne e njohim mire, si nje ure ne sistemin gjyqesor te krimeve. Dhe ajo qe Gjykata e veteraneve beri, ishte te trajtonte cdo kriminel si nje individual, mundohej te hynte ne problemet e tyre, mundohej te gjente pergjigjet per krimet e tyre qe t`i ndihmonte ata te reabilitoheshin, dhe nuk i hidhte pas kraheve pasi gjykimi ishte kryer. Rrinte me ta, i ndiqte hap pas hapi, sigurohej qe ata ndiqnin cfaredo plani qe kishin zhvilluar se bashku per t`i bere ata te kalonin problemet.
There are now 22 cities that have Veterans' Courts like this. Why has the idea spread? Well, one reason is that Judge Russell has now seen 108 vets in his Veterans' Court as of February of this year, and out of 108, guess how many have gone back through the revolving door of justice into prison. None. None. Anyone would glom onto a criminal justice system that has this kind of a record. So here's is a system-changer, and it seems to be catching.
Tani kemi 22 qytete qe kane Gjykata te veteraneve si kjo. Pse u shpernda kjo ide? Ne fakt, nje arsye eshte qe Gjykatesi Rusell ka pare tani 108 veterane ne Gjykaten e Veteraneve deri ne shkurt te ketij viti, dhe prej ketyre 108, gjejeni sa kane shkuar per here te dyte nepermjet dyerve rrethore te drejtesise ne burg. Asnje. Asnje. Cdokush do t`i jepte vemendje nje sistemi gjyqesor te krimeve qe ka kete lloj rekordi. Keshtu, para jush keni nje ndryshues sistemi, dhe duket qe po perhapet.
There's a banker who created a for-profit community bank that encouraged bankers -- I know this is hard to believe -- encouraged bankers who worked there to do well by doing good for their low-income clients. The bank helped finance the rebuilding of what was otherwise a dying community. Though their loan recipients were high-risk by ordinary standards, the default rate was extremely low. The bank was profitable. The bankers stayed with their loan recipients. They didn't make loans and then sell the loans. They serviced the loans. They made sure that their loan recipients were staying up with their payments. Banking hasn't always been the way we read about it now in the newspapers. Even Goldman Sachs once used to serve clients, before it turned into an institution that serves only itself. Banking wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be this way.
Eshte nje bankier qe krijoi nje banke komuniteti qe inkurajoi bankieret - E di qe kjo eshte veshtire te besohet -- inkurajoi bankieret qe punonin atje te vepronin mire duke bere me te miren per klientet e tyre me te ardhura te vogla. Banka ndihmoi ne financimin e rindertimit te dickaje qe ndryshe ishte nje komunitet ne zhdukje. Edhe pse klientet e kredive te tyre ishin me rrezik te larte sipas standardeve te zakonshme, deshtimet per te paguar kredine ishin jashtezakonisht te uleta. Banka kishte fitim. Bankieret vazhduan me klientet e tyre te kredive. Ata nuk bene kredi dhe pastaj te shisnin kredite. Ata i sherbyen kredive. Ata u siguruan qe klientet e tyre te kredive vazhdonin te paguanin. Sistemi i bankave nuk ka qene gjithmone ne menyren qe lexojme sot neper gazeta Edhe Goldman Sachs dikur i sherbente klienteve, perpara se te kthehej ne nje institut qe i sherben vetem vetes se vete. Sistemi i bankave nuk ka qene gjithmone keshtu, dhe nuk duhet te jete keshtu.
So there are examples like this in medicine -- doctors at Harvard who are trying to transform medical education, so that you don't get a kind of ethical erosion and loss of empathy, which characterizes most medical students in the course of their medical training. And the way they do it is to give third-year medical students patients who they follow for an entire year. So the patients are not organ systems, and they're not diseases; they're people, people with lives. And in order to be an effective doctor, you need to treat people who have lives and not just disease. In addition to which there's an enormous amount of back and forth, mentoring of one student by another, of all the students by the doctors, and the result is a generation -- we hope -- of doctors who do have time for the people they treat. We'll see.
Keshtu ka shembuj te tille ne mjekesi -- doktore ne Harvard qe po mundohen te transformojne arsimimin mjekesor, qe mos te kete nje erozion etike dhe mungese empatie, qe karakterizon shumicen e studenteve mjeksore gjate trajnimit te tyre mjeksor. Dhe menyra per ta bere kete eshte t`i jepet studenteve te vitit te trete paciente qe ata i ndjekin per nje vit te tere. Keshtu qe pacientet nuk jane sisteme organesh, dhe nuk jane semundje; ata jane njerez, njerez me jete. Dhe per te qene nje doktor efektiv, ti duhet te trajtosh njerez qe kane jete dhe jo vetem semundje. Pervec kesaj, ka nje sasi e madhe shkembim informacioni duke trajnuar nje student nga nje tjeter student, sesa te gjithe studenteve nga doktoret, dhe rezultati eshte nje brez -- shpresojme -- i doktoreve qe kane kohe per njerezit qe kurojne. Do te shikojme.
So there are lots of examples like this that we talk about. Each of them shows that it is possible to build on and nurture character and keep a profession true to its proper mission -- what Aristotle would have called its proper telos. And Ken and I believe that this is what practitioners actually want. People want to be allowed to be virtuous. They want to have permission to do the right thing. They don't want to feel like they need to take a shower to get the moral grime off their bodies everyday when they come home from work.
Keshtu ka shume shembuj te tille per te cilet flasim. Secili prej tyre tregon qe eshte e mundur te ndertosh dhe te kujdesesh per karakterin dhe te mbash nje profesion te vertete ne misionin e tij -- ajo qe Aristoteli do ta kishte quajtur telosi i tij. Dhe une me Ken besojme qe kjo eshte ajo qe praktikuesit ne fakt duan. Njerezit duan te lejohen per te qene virtuoze. Ata duan te kene lejen per te bere gjene e duhur. Ata nuk duan te ndihen sikur ata kane nevoje te bejne nje dush per te hequr papastertite morale nga trupat e tyre perdite kur kthehen nga puna ne shtepi.
Aristotle thought that practical wisdom was the key to happiness, and he was right. There's now a lot of research being done in psychology on what makes people happy, and the two things that jump out in study after study -- I know this will come as a shock to all of you -- the two things that matter most to happiness are love and work. Love: managing successfully relations with the people who are close to you and with the communities of which you are a part. Work: engaging in activities that are meaningful and satisfying. If you have that, good close relations with other people, work that's meaningful and fulfilling, you don't much need anything else.
Aristoteli mendonte se zgjuarsia praktike ishte celesi per lumturine, dhe ai kishte te drejte. Tani ka shume kerkime ne psikologji ne ate qe i ben njerezit te lumtur, dhe dy gjera qe dalin ne dukje ne studime --E di qe kjo do t`ju shokoje -- dy gjera qe jane me te rendesishme per lumturine jane dashuria dhe puna. Dashuria: te menaxhosh ne menyre te sukseshme lidhjet midis njerezve qe jane afer me ty dhe te komuniteteve qe ben pjese. Puna: te perfshihesh ne aktivitete qe kane kuptim dhe te sjellin kenaqesi. Ne qofte se ke kete, lidhje te mira me njerez te tjere, pune qe ka kuptim dhe qe te kenaq, nuk ke nevoje per shume te tjera.
Well, to love well and to work well, you need wisdom. Rules and incentives don't tell you how to be a good friend, how to be a good parent, how to be a good spouse, or how to be a good doctor or a good lawyer or a good teacher. Rules and incentives are no substitutes for wisdom. Indeed, we argue, there is no substitute for wisdom. And so practical wisdom does not require heroic acts of self-sacrifice on the part of practitioners. In giving us the will and the skill to do the right thing -- to do right by others -- practical wisdom also gives us the will and the skill to do right by ourselves.
Ne fakt, te duash mire dhe te punosh mire, ti ke nevoje per zgjuarsi. Rregullat dhe nxitesat nuk te tregojne si te jesh nje mik i mire, si te jesh nje pacient i mire, si te jesh nje bashkeshort i mire, ose si te jesh nje doktor i mire ose nje gjykates i mire ose nje mesues i mire. Rregullat dhe incentivat nuk zevendesojne zgjuarsine. Ne fakt, ne argumentojme, qe nuk ka zevendesues per zgjuarsine. Dhe qe zgjuarsia praktike nuk kerkon akte heroike per vete sakrifikim nga ana e praktikuesve. Duke na dhene ne deshiren dhe aftesite per te bere gjene e duhur - per te bere mire nepermjet te tjereve - zgjuarsia praktike na jep gjithashtu deshiren dhe aftesite per te bere mire nepermjet vetes tone.
Thanks.
Ju falemnderit.
(Applause)
(Duartrokitje)