Some accounts say that over the decades, organizations spent close to a billion dollars fighting Jim Crow laws and passing the Civil Rights Act. But how was it funded? Tanisha Ford is the author of “Our Secret Society: Mollie Moon and the Glamour, Money, and Power Behind the Civil Rights Movement” joins Tavis to explore this part of history.
Timestamps(00:00:02) Introduction (00:01:01) Healthcare Risk Management Experience (00:02:18) Fair Housing Act Explanation (00:08:15) Prohibition of Disability Discrimination (00:15:57) Understanding Essential Requirements (00:23:15) Rules Around Common Accommodations (00:29:42) Risks & Fair Housing Marketing (00:34:55) Legalities for Assisted Living Services (00:40:17) FSA & Housing Education (00:43:22) Rules Disregard in Senior Living (00:47:41) Risk Tolerance Discussion (00:49:06) Risk Management in Senior Living So as you mentioned, I did medical malpractice defense for a number of years in New York,and then I moved to Pennsylvania because I was getting married and my husband was fromout of state.And when I moved, I decided to switch hats, and I decided to do healthcare risk management.So I was tasked with starting up a risk management program for FSA.At the time, we started with 12 organizations, nonprofit, faith-based communities, generallyin the Philadelphia area.Since then, we've expanded quite a bit, and we now have 37 sites in six states.And so I give guidance and consultation on risk management issues.So today, we are going to talk about marketing risks, but I'm going to talk about it frommy perspective, you know, from a risk management perspective and a fair housing perspective.Okay.So thanks for that background.So let's get right into it.What is the worst-case scenario if someone says, you know, I'm going to market howeverI want to market?I'm going to say what I want to say, do what I want to do.What have you seen as like a worst-case scenario of someone has done this and this horribleoutcome has happened?Great question.Nothing like the fear factor right from the beginning.So what I'm going to preface that question with is an explanation of why there are risksin this venue, in this area.And so in 1968, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act, which was what I like to callthe third leg of the stool for civil rights litigation, legislation rather.And so we had the Civil Rights Act, then the Voting Rights Act. And then in 1968, they passed the Fair Housing Act.And that precluded discrimination in housing choices and lending based upon what we callthe protected class status.So started out with race, religion, national origin, color, gender, which now includesgender identity and sexual orientation, and national origin.In 1988, Congress amended the act to include two additional protected class categories.Familial status, meaning that you are not supposed to be able to discriminate againstfamilies with children.And of course, there is a carve-out for our senior living settings.And the one for purposes of our discussion today, which will be very pivotal, is it sayshandicapped, but it's what we would refer to as disability.So you have now protections under the Fair Housing Act, and we just call it FHA for boththe Amendments Act and the original act for all those protected classes, which actessentially as a floor, not a ceiling.So state and local jurisdictions can also add an additional protected class categories,like, for example, maybe marital status, saying that, you know, you can't discriminateagainst somebody because they're unmarried or, you know, because they cohabitatetogether, for example, or source of income is another one that's fairly common.So I think for a lot of senior living communities, they don't necessarily recognizethat they are covered by this act as a housing provider, because I think for a lot ofcommunities, they say justifiably, well, we're not a housing provider because we do somuch more than that. And you do.However, in the eyes of the government, you are a housing provider and you are subject tothe Fair Housing Act.And so there are lots of risks that come along with that.Now, if you choose as an organization just to decide that you're going to market any wayyou want to and you're not going to pay attention to various marketing risks, includingfair housing risks, what's the worst case scenario?The worst case scenario is that you end up being in litigation, sued by potentially afederal government. So it's now the United States of America versus, you know, seniorliving community, A.B.State. You are in litigation with the government.You are being sued for housing discrimination.Almost always that ends very badly for the community.Almost always winds up in a monetary settlement.Many times there is also a settlement compensation fund where the community has toadvertise in multiple places for people that have been subject to what they've just beenfound by the government to be illegally doing.Let's just say discriminating against those with scooters, for example.And so they would have to advertise for anyone that's been impacted by that to give themmoney. In addition, there's almost always what we call a consent decree that comes withthat. It's sort of, if you're familiar with the world of compliance, it's similar toa CIA or a corporate integrity agreement whereby the government puts you into thisconsent decree.And the consent decree not only sets out the exact amount of money that you're going tohave to pay and how you would advertise to those who have been subject to yourdiscriminatory practices to give them money.But there's also usually quite onerous burdens that are placed on the community,including things like they get to and the government will review your actions for aperiod of time. Usually it's about five years.And so they will oversee and have to approve the policies, put policies in place forwhatever the particular topic is, change contracts, sometimes hire a fair housingofficer to perform acts to training and education for the staff on an ongoing basis.And again, being overseen by the government for a period of time.In addition, I would also say that you don't want to be the poster child for that.So again, I happen to mention scooters.And one of the pivotal cases in the world of, you know, communities that have been suedfor improper restrictions on scooters is a community called Twining Village.And I don't like to use them, you know, but that that case is out there and everybodyknows about it. So you don't want to end up having the reputational damage in our worldof, you know, senior living where it's like, oh, that's the Twining Village case.And so, you know, everybody knows based on that case, you know, some of the policiesthat you have to have in place and the no-nos, the things that you shouldn't be doing.You don't want to become the poster child for that, which can very easily happen.Well, so a couple of questions.Thank you for that. I mean, that's quite an overview.So it were someone to actually go ahead and let me just back up.So you're saying that there's the fair housing law, which puts nursing homes together inthat category. So therefore, they have these discrimination laws like you've outlined.So is this, first of all, is this specific to marketing?Are we talking about someone denies a patient because we don't take we don't want patientswith scooters because patients with scooters are dumb or whatever.Yeah. So I'm speaking broadly about senior living communities.Right. So it's anywhere that a person lives.Okay. So if you are running a short term rehab only, then potentially you are excluded fromthe Fair Housing Act because that's not someone's home.The intention is to treat them for a brief period of time with the intention to dischargethem. However, it does apply clearly.All the case law is very clear on this.It does apply to settings like CCRC, independent living, assisted living, personal care,long term care. So all of those things, you know, adult foster care, it does apply to allthose settings. It is questionable whether it would apply in the context of a short termrehab strictly.Okay. So let's back up.If I don't have if I have a regular store and I sell chocolate and desserts and flowers andwhat else? I can discriminate all I want?No. There are other laws.There are other laws that prohibit you from from doing that, that we're not necessarilyspeaking about today. But again, when it comes to housing, we are under the auspices ofmultifamily housing specifically, which means four or more people in a unit or, you know,four or more units, I should say, not four more people.Then you are subject to the Fair Housing Act.So. Okay.So the Civil Rights Act says that you can't discriminate.Right. Suggested.I understand that. So my point is that you have extra laws when it comes to if you'remanaging or you own a home that has multiple families, say for like you said, four unitsor more. So then you have you have extra focus.So now let's assume someone has an assisted living facility, a long term care facility,really can be an apartment building, too.But we're saying even senior living facilities and they're going to and then theydiscriminate against someone.So does that mean that they refuse admission to someone?Okay. So that's a great question.So discrimination can take multiple forms.It can be just as you said, refusal of admission or refusal to someone, an applicant tobe denied admission.That can be a form of discrimination.It can also be a form of discrimination, which is very common.Probably the most common form of discrimination is the refusal to grant what we call areasonable accommodation for disability.And that's where the scooters would come in, for example.So if I was disabled and I had a mobility impairment and I required a scooter to enableme to get around and to meet what we call the essential requirements of tenancy.And you, as the provider, refuse to allow me to have that scooter or, for example, thatservice animal, like you have a no pet policy and I wanted to come in with a serviceanimal. Well, that's not a pet, that's a service animal.That's for my disability. That's a reasonable accommodation.So you can refuse and then you could again potentially be sued for that.But in addition to also refusing to admit somebody, which is a form of discrimination,there are a multitude of other forms of discrimination under the act.And it can be I come in and I'm able bodied when I come in.And after I'm a resident at your community for some period of time, I now becomedisabled. And again, I've asked for reasonable accommodation, whatever that may be.And you now refuse to give me that reasonable accommodation or you are discriminatingagainst me and saying, because let's say I had a let's say I had a fall.I lived in independent living and I had a fall.And you say, well, now you're not independent anymore.And so you need to move to assisted living because you had a fall.You can't from a legal standpoint, from a fair housing standpoint, they'd have to be waymore to it than just forcing me to move up through the continuum for something like whatI just described. And then additionally, I would also say that, you know, there areagain, just treating that it's essentially under the Fair Housing Act, we don't want totreat anyone worse, which is the more common thing to do.We also can't treat anyone better because of their protected class status.So if so, again, we serve primarily faith based communities.So if I had a community that was, for example, a Quaker community and they said, becausewe are a Quaker community, we want to give preferential treatment in admission to Quakers.You don't have to meet the same kinds of financial requirements as we require from everybodyelse. You can't do that either.Right. So, again, it's admission, but it's also discriminating against somebody oncethey're there.OK, so there's also what's the line?And I guess this is where the gray area comes in between providing reasonableaccommodations in this type of living setting versus we have a noscooter policy, let's say, because of a certain maybe safety concern that we have due toour building. Or maybe we don't allow service animals, even though it's not a pet, becausewe have residents with advanced dementia and they view service animals as monsters.They're going to eat them up or any other sort of reason, assuming that it's trueor even if it's not true.I mean, you get a good attorney to make something up, but the reasonable accommodationsversus actual practical reasons why that it's not discrimination, but there's anactual ramification of being, you know, let's see your example.Someone was in an independent living and suffered from a fall and now can no longerambulate safely in that setting.And they want to say, OK, now you have to move on.You know, CCRCs, you have to move on to the assisted living.Like, I don't want to go to the assisted living.Well, over here, you can't take a shower.You can't, you know, prepare your food.You physically can't do any more.We're not discriminating because we don't like people who fall, people who are old orpeople who are weak.We're just saying that we feel that this is not appropriate.So is that where, and obviously the other side is that, no, I'm fine.It's just because I fell.Don't tell me I need to move on.Let me get some therapy.Let me go to the doctor.Let me let this thing heal and I want to stay where I am.So is that where, is that why people like you have jobs?Right.So, yeah, perhaps that's why people like me have jobs.But what I would say to you is, you know, there are parameters around certain things.So let's talk a little bit about that.So, again, when we talk about disability, we, there is a requirement under the law thatsays that in order to live someplace, whether that's just in the community at large, youknow, an apartment building or in a senior living setting, the tenant or the residenthas to meet what we call the essential requirements of tenancy, no matter what.Disability, no disability, you still have to meet the essential requirements of tenancy.So what are those?First and foremost is paying your rent and fees on time.Number two is keeping your unit in a safe, clean and sanitary condition.Now, you know, I think that reasonable people may differ as to what's safe, clean andsanitary. Right.Also obeying the reasonable community rules.Okay. Unless, of course, there has to be an exception made because of the reasonableaccommodation because of somebody's disability.But again, generally speaking, you should have a set of reasonable community rules becausepeople have to obey those rules.You also cannot have excessive damage to the unit.Okay. Normal wear and tear is okay.If I scrape the walls because of my scooter, that's okay.But if I decide to, you know, take a hammer and make holes in the walls, that's not normalwear and tear. Also not unduly disturbing the peace and tranquility of others.Okay. And the last one, which is very important, is not being a direct threat to thehealth and safety of others.Now, in my opinion, and this is not in the law, this is not in the essential requirementsof tenancy. When you are in a senior living community, I feel that it is reasonable tosay you cannot be a direct threat, a direct threat.That's very important language.Not speculative, a real direct threat to your own health and safety.Okay. So, but that's not been tested in the courts yet.That's Christina's theory.But I think it's a good one.And so.Hold on, let me talk about that for a second.If someone's, and they're a threat to themselves, and certainly if they're a threat tothemselves, even if they're not, if they're trying to physically harm themselves, they'retrying to slit their wrists, they're trying to jump out a window, they're trying to, Idon't know, whatever, anything else that's unsafe.And the facility has done everything that they can to prevent, stop, intervene, assist.So there's a question, there are those who say that, no, you cannot, let's say, Section12, you cannot send them out to the hospital because that would be discrimination.Is that even a possibility?Well, no, under the scenario that you just described, you're not evicting them.You're not getting them out permanently.You're just sending them out.So I would say, no, that's reasonable.But there have been situations, I like the examples that you use because they are extremeexamples. And I would argue, if I was a provider, that there is no reasonable accommodationthat will diminish that threat.But that's always going to be a question because tying in with meeting the essentialrequirements of tenancy, which everyone has to do no matter what, that's where thereasonable accommodations come in.So if I have a disability and I ask for a reasonable accommodation or you become awarethat I need a reasonable accommodation, then it should be granted because the reasonableaccommodation is generally what's going to help me meet those essential requirements oftenancy. Now, going back just to the example that you used.Someone who's suicidal or homicidal, even.The, you know, I could say I can't handle, I don't have, I'm not equipped to handlepsychiatric issues and I certainly can't, you know, protect my other residents from thishomicidal individual or I can't protect them from themselves because there's so manyways that they could attempt suicide.And so they are not meeting the essential requirements of tenancy because they are adirect threat. There have been occasions and there have been some cases.Where in circumstances like that, the courts have said, well, and it's not specific tosenior living, it's just general housing.Well, you should try a reasonable accommodation first.So, for example, if you send that person out, you know, to be involuntarily, you know,incapacitated in a psych facility for a period of time.And let's say that they have been given medication that would, you know, presumablycontrol their behaviors.Then the resident or the tenant in this case would be able to say, well, my reasonableaccommodation and I should be allowed to stay because I can remain on this medicationregimen and then my behaviors are controlled.But I know of a case from a number of years ago, multifamily housing out in Connecticut,and an individual had psychiatric issues and actually went after the landlord with a bigbutcher knife and threw him down to the ground and started to stab him.That gentleman was arrested and then the landlord sent notice, you know, you're herebyevicted. You know, after he got out of jail, after he spent some time in jail and cameback, he realized that he couldn't come back to the apartment because he had beenevicted and he sued and he said, you're discriminating against me.And the court in that case actually said, well, you have to try.Let him have his reasonable accommodation.And, you know, but I think that's not, in my view, that wouldn't be a reasonableaccommodation. It's not reasonable to allow someone who has, you know, extremebehaviors like that, you know, again, that's a direct threat that we can't keep otherpeople safe or that even that resident, we can't keep them safe.So that's the extreme example.But, you know, most cases are not as extreme and most cases you're going to have to trythe reasonable accommodation and sometimes multiple reasonable accommodations beforeyou would say you're violating the terms of the resident contract or the lease or theagreement, whatever it is that we have.And now you're going to have to leave or move up to a higher level of care.You're going to have to try a few different reasonable accommodations to be safe beforeyou can generally do that or you'll risk potentially a fair housing claim.Well, that's very messed up, just to realize that for everybody, because to see thatsomeone who physically attempted to murder their landlord was jailed for it and nowevicted, reasonable accommodation, that sounds crazy.But I agree with you on that.I wholeheartedly agree.I think that's fair.But I just felt like I, you know, I had to, you know, kind of raise that to say it's notnecessarily a slam dunk.But generally speaking, yeah, when somebody is a direct threat and it's not speculative,it's not fear that something might happen, it's something did happen.Right. So I want to be clear about something.When it comes to reasonable accommodations, as a provider, you can and should haverules. You don't have to make it willy-nilly, but you are allowed to have reasonable rulessurrounding common accommodations, reasonable accommodations.So, for example, let's use the scooters again.It would be probably very high risk if you just said we don't allow scooters.But it's OK if you said we allow scooters, but we have these rules.A rule, I always encourage my communities to have reasonable rules.A rule might be that you have to sit with therapy and review the rules of the communityto use a scooter first.You know, get educated on it and then sign off that you're agreeing, you understand allyour questions have been answered and you agree to abide by the rules.And those rules might be things like you can only drive your scooter as fast as anon-disabled person can walk.You don't have the right to drive your scooter around like Speed Racer.Right. It may say you have to have a horn and lights if you're going to drive outside.You have to obey the rules of the road on campus.You have to have a flag.You can't park and block fire exits.You can't block mailboxes.If you're going to drive into the dining room, you have to have room.And I want to touch on something that you mentioned a few moments ago, saying mycommunity is older and it's not equipped for these big SUV scooters that people havenow. Under the ADA, which also sometimes can tie in with the Fair Housing Act, thereare also construction requirements.So the ADA went into effect in March of 1991.So did those construction requirements.So if you have construction that occurred after March of 1991 or if your building isolder than that, but you've done any kind of a renovation on your building and the termrenovation is pretty flimsy and loose.It could be even like redecorating can be considered a renovation.You then have to comply with the dictates of the ADA in terms of the physicalrequirements. Like so, for example, it talks about thresholds.You can't have, you know, a big where someone can't come up on the scooter, you know,because of the thresholds or, you know, with their walker, that's an issue.Thresholds, grab bars, lowering cabinets in handicap accessible units.A certain number of your units should be made handicap accessible.That depends on how many units you have.It's a percentage.And simple things like aisles wide enough for people to use their scooters.And arguably in our setting, you know, knowing that many, many people do have mobilityimpairments, it's even more important, you know, to make sure that your community hasabided by the rules and the Department of Justice, you know, and lots of fair housinggroups. And HUD also has put in a tremendous amount of money to talk about people'sfair housing rights and to make sure that providers and architects and contractors areaware of what the physical requirements are for spacing and things like that andthresholds. And they've spent a tremendous amount of money talking about that andmaking sure that people are aware.So it becomes very challenging in these days.Every month a case will come out at least once a month on, you know, again, the ownerof multi-family housing, the owner of senior housing, a municipality, you know, manydifferent types for failing to construct their buildings in accordance with therequirements of the ADA.So you have to be careful about that.But there are reasonable rules.So have them about service animals.You know, you can have about scooters, you know, any other kinds of reasonableaccommodations. You should have, you know, rules around the private duty aides.They're another reasonable accommodation that you should have rules about.Got it. Sometimes we see this, the application of these rules, you know, don't seem soreasonable. I know a particular construction project that was not required to have anelevator, but was required to have handicapped accessible bathrooms on the secondfloor. Go figure.Right. Right.I don't know how, you know, somebody who's disabled, you know, then they would have tohave the right amount of housing on the first floor, you know, handicapped accessible.It wasn't a housing project per se.But, you know, we do see things like that sometimes, but that doesn't negate the rules.But if we can focus the conversation from a marketing standpoint.OK.We want to, you know, we titled this the do's and don'ts of nursing home marketing.So I know that there are things that we cannot say.For example, the nursing homes can't say that they're dementia units because there arelaws. This has nothing to do with Fair Housing, but this is the Department of PublicHealth. They haven't clearly defined a lot of regulations for what's qualified as adementia unit. And there's a whole process to go through.So you can call it memory here.You can call it a lot of other things.They can't call it by that name.I've actually walked in one of the nursing homes I was managing, at least in Massachusetts.I worked with the gentleman whose name is Dr.Paul Rea, and he's the one who wrote the regulations for what's called a dementia unit.And we were thinking of maybe turning one of our units, our memory, our unit thoughanyway was a dementia unit, to just make it an official one.And the cost and just the work that it would take, not just money, but also theinconvenience and the downtime that it would take to get it in compliance just didn'tmake sense. And we changed the wording in our marketing materials and we had the sameresult. So instead, we just decided, you know, it was a company decision, you know,should we do it, should we not do it, so how extensive it was didn't make sense.So question for you is what is the absolute, give me a great example of someone that didsomething horrific in their marketing or something that someone can do like really badin their marketing. And like, I guess I'm a worst case scenario person.And what happened as a result or what could happen as a result?So let me give you some examples of things that are risks in marketing when it comes tofair housing. And I've jotted a few of these down so that, you know, I cover everything.So the first one that I would talk about is models, models or people in your marketingmaterials, photographs of individuals, right?That can be problematic because, for example, we talked about the protected class of race,right? So if you only have photographs, they want to see, the government wants to seediversity. So if you have, you know, all Caucasian individuals, that could be a risk foryou because where are the people of color?You're not allowed to discriminate based on someone's color.What if everybody in your marketing materials is running, jogging, biking, doing yoga?Where are all the people that are on scooters, in wheelchairs, with walkers?So models can be potentially problematic.Another issue would be problematic language in your materials.Another one could be potentially, I know a lot of times marketing, especially in the CCRCsetting, will do what's called a targeting marketing campaign, right?So they want it, they're targeting to a particular income level.All right. And they're sending the materials out to that, to the people in a particulargeographic area that meet those income requirements.Well, there have been cases where that's been considered to be a discriminatory practice.Why? Because you're only sending all your marketing material specifically to potentiallyjust white people.Okay. And you're excluding and you may not have any discriminatory intent with that, butthat's the way it comes out.And in the Supreme Court has decided that in fair housing, there is something calleddisparate impact.It doesn't have to be that you purposely discriminate against somebody, but there is anactual disparate impact.So that's an area that you want to be careful about.Lack of an improper, lack of the fair housing logo, it's the little house, or having thelogo, but it's minuscule.You can't see it. If you have the logo and you should have the logo, the fair housinglogo, it's put out by the government.If you have one for leading age and you have one for, you know, whatever local societiesyou belong to and they're all of a certain font and your fair housing is teeny tiny inthe bottom, that's problematic.There is no requirement, by the way, on font, which makes it a little bit more complicated.But you want to make sure that it's the same size as everything else.Exclusionary practices for admission.Again, we don't let people in with scooters or we don't let people in with serviceanimals. Problematic applications, asking lots of, again, this is for independent living,not for nursing or, you know, assisted living or personal care.Asking medical questions, if you're not a type A community, that can be potentiallyproblematic. Asking intrusive questions, asking them to undergo a physical exam.If you don't have, you know, a guarantee of moving through the continuum of care, thatcan be highly problematic.Improper. Oh, I mentioned the improper request of physical exams.Steering, which is a term of art in the fair housing world.Steering means that I come in and I either and government, by the way, and so do fairhousing groups, send testers in to ask these questions and try if they think there'sdiscrimination going on, they will send somebody in who pretends to be an applicant oris looking for housing for their loved one and ask the questions to see what the answersare. Steering means that I come in and I say, hey, you know, my mom is looking forindependent living.She uses a scooter.She needs some help with her medication management.You know, she sometimes gets a little bit confused.And, you know, if you were to say to me, well, you know, she might feel a lot morecomfortable if she goes over into assisted living.That might be a better place for her.We don't really like those kinds of people in independent living.We don't want to look like a nursing home.That's steering. And that is illegal under the Fair Housing Act.Discriminatory denial of reasonable accommodations.And again, being aware of the state and local laws that expand upon the protected classesand making sure that you are not, again, discriminating against additional protectedclasses that your local jurisdiction or state may have in place.So those are a whole series of marketing risks that I would tell you you have to becareful of. Got it.So let's say I have an assisted living and I am targeting a certain group because this isthe group that actually needs the service, can afford the service, will maybe want theservice. Is there no legal way to target that group?If I'm going to put people, let's say, let's see an example of models or even, you know,language. If I'm going to put words on there or pictures or other things that don'tresonate with them, then they're obviously much less likely to, you know, to respond.It doesn't mean that these are the only people that are marketing to.I may have a separate brochure and a separate marketing plan for, you know, for adifferent ethnic group or a different protected class.But right now I want to focus on these people.You know, an open invitation is no invitation.Come over to my house any night you want for a barbecue.That means you're not invited. I'm not even telling you my address.But if I say Tuesdays at 4 p.m.having a barbecue, you know, please bring over, bring over your family.Here's my address. Then you're invited.Right. So the point is, people will resonate to marketing material if they will act on itresonates with them. So if it's, you know, if it's tailored to them, then it'll work.Can I? Is there no legal way to do that?There, you know, well, first of all, I want to be clear.I'm not giving legal advice here.I'm giving you advice from a risk management standpoint.And so, you know, listen, everything that we do is associated with a risk benefit analysis.Right. So I want to be clear about that.So a community can make a determination.What is their risk tolerance?If they really want to market and target towards a particular, you know, group because oftheir income. And it turns out that that they feel like we could be accused ofdiscriminatory behavior because it's going to go to, you know, all white people.That is a question.If you still want to market to that group, I'm not here to say you can't do it or youshouldn't do it. I'm just saying, be aware that that's a risk.Right. So anything that you market on could be a risk.But if you think that the benefit of targeting a particular group of people is going to,you know, bring in the people that you want or that you think would benefit from yourservices, then that would be your assessment of and that would be a risk tolerance toyour community. Right.Got it. Who are the discrimination police that are going to bring this case in front of,you know, they're going to get, you know, secret people coming in undercover and askingfor service.So the DOJ has testers that work for them in the Civil Rights Division.Now, who brings it to their attention so that someone would want to come down?Yeah. So I'm going to tell you, there are a lot of fair housing advocacy groups outthere. There are a lot of law school clinics that also have fair housing, you know,clinic that are staffed by law students.The government gives money.They're like quasi-public, private, public government entities.They get money from the government in recognition of their work and they get money fromthe government to do that.So they are there to enforce fair housing rights.Usually the way it would work is if I am an individual, many times this is how ithappens. I'm an individual.I go, I apply for residency at a particular community.I feel that I've been discriminated against for whatever reason that, you know, mydisability, my religion, the color of my skin, whatever it is.I go to a fair housing group and I make a complaint.If they, they will then investigate my complaint.If they feel that there is some validity to that, they will do their own research.They will start their own investigation.They will have testers.They will go out. They then turn it over usually to HUD.With their findings, if they feel that there is what we call a pattern or a practice ofdiscrimination, they will send it to HUD.If HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Office of the government, feels that it risesto a certain level and they think that there is a discriminatory pattern and practice goingon, then that gets referred over to the Department of Justice.So the lawsuit can either be me, Wildrick versus ABC Senior Living.If I feel that I've been discriminated against individually, I can sue you instate court or federal court.If it's a fair housing group, then a lot of times, you know, that fair housing groupwill bring it on my behalf.So it would be Wildrick and the Fair Housing Alliance versus if it goes to HUD, itwould be, you know, HUD, Housing and Urban Development v.the housing community.And again, in the worst case scenario, it rises up to the level of the DOJ, theDepartment of Justice, and they will bring the claim and it will then be the UnitedStates of America. It will be in federal court and it will be brought against you.So there are they are essentially what you're referring to as the police.They are the enforcers.They are bringing them. But private claims can be brought by individuals or by privatehousing groups. And there are loads of them out there or the government can do it.Well, so now on a professional standpoint, where do you come in the business thatyou're involved in? Which piece of this?Are you the police? Are you the defendants?Are you just educating people to stay away from the cops?Right. So my job as the risk manager for FSA, for the communities that we work with, webring we do lots of education.We do lots of fair housing education, both for marketing and admission staff, as well asstaff within the community that is responsible to move people through that continuum ofcare. So we do loads of education for them.We also come in many times and we do education for the residents themselves.We have meetings with residents.Sometimes residents, for example, may say, you know, things that we feel areinappropriate, like why is so and so in the dining room?She's in a wheelchair and and she's totally out of it.And I don't want to look at that when I'm eating and, you know, or asking questions.Why is this person living in independent living?This person doesn't belong here.She's not like the rest of us.She should go into assisted living.You know, we have a problem with it.We're here to educate the residents on their rights as residents, as well as, you know,what the Fair Housing Act says and why we're not going to share any details andinformation with them about other residents and what we're doing with them and forthem as far as reasonable accommodations or any any other way that we're working withthem. So we like to educate the residents.We also work specifically with marketing teams.We help them with, again, do's and don'ts in their marketing materials, language thatthey should have on all of their websites, on their brochures, on anything that they'redoing. We help them with information on, you know, things to share and not share duringtours. So, you know, we're here and we develop all kinds of templates for policiesand procedures and things of that nature.We also work with the risk management committees to review all of the marketingmaterials and the website before they actually go live and before anything's printed tomake sure that everything is, you know, on the up and up, both from a fair housingstandpoint and a general risk management standpoint.We don't want people over promising that, you know, it's all about for us settingrealistic expectations.So we're here at FSA to help our communities understand what it is, understand therisks, and also develop policies, procedures, rules, guidance.So we talk about rules and we have templates for rules for service animals, rules forscooters, rules for private duty aid, hold homeless agreements, indemnificationagreements when somebody does want to hire a private aide to make sure that theyunderstand that we're not responsible for, you know, what they do or what they doincorrectly or what they fail to do.So those are all things that we do at FSA in our risk management program to assist theorganizations that we work with.Fascinating.We've gone a little bit later because you're sharing, you're dropping all the jewelsthere. But the question for, is there anything, it may not be necessarily fair housingrelated, but if there are residents in a senior living setting that completelydisregards all discriminatory laws and regulations, to have some people that justdon't care anymore and they'll say things to the staff about their religion, aboutthe color of their skin, about the country that they come from, about their accent, andthey'll, they have nothing to lose.Is there any recourse, and you can educate them, but they don't care.Is there any recourse that providers can do to help really prevent their staff, notprotect their staff, or the residents from each other, when you have residents thatcompletely ignore all the rules that we're discussing?Well, that would be a topic for an entire other podcast.But what I will say is what you're describing for your employees is a hostile workenvironment. And even if you cannot stop the resident from saying, you know, thebigoted, you know, racist kinds of things that you're describing, you cannot, as aprovider, throw your hands up and say, oops, sorry.You know, in one particular case that was, it's a fairly recent case that was broughtfor a hostile work environment.The CNA was being, you know, spoken to in that manner that you just said, and alsosexually harassed, groped, touched, you know.And the administrator in that case, the language that she used was, put your big girlpanties on and deal with it.OK. And they got hit with a massive verdict.So you don't want to do that.But so, again, there are things that you should and can do to mitigate the harm thatcomes to employees. So, you know, for example, you might want to switch staffingpatterns around. You might, if it's somebody that is, you know, touching inappropriately,then you might want to use, you know, a male caregiver or you might send that person inwith a second caregiver at all times.Or you might, again, like in the case of the CNA that I was just talking about, she hasto be moved to a different wing away from that resident.And that's when the administrator said that to her.So, again, you want to look, there's all different things that you can do.But what you shouldn't do is to basically throw your hands up and say, there's nothingthat I can do about that.No, of course not. No, the question is not about the staff, but the question is, is thereanything that can be done to, I guess, to encourage or force the people who live inthat setting not to engage in those practices?Well, other than what you just described, you know, like the education, and obviouslyit's going to depend on the, you know, on the competency of that individual.If that individual has intellectual disabilities and or dementia, right, right.But if they don't have those things, then, you know, and they're not abiding by therules, then there may have to be, you know, after you've spoken to them, anddocumentation is key, you have to be documenting everything you're doing, everyeffort you're making, every conversation that you've had.And if that resident is refusing, then there may have to be a discharge in that casebecause you're not able to care for them anymore.Got it. Got it.Fascinating.If people want to learn more about the topics that we're discussing or learn moreabout you and your company, where's a good resource, where's a good place to send themto?Our website, FSAinfo.org, is a good place, and it has, you know, a number of theresources that we have on there.We, you know, we provide a lot of different services in addition to risk management.Awesome.Okay.FSA, what is it, FSAinfo?Yeah, FSAinfo.org.Okay.We'll include that in the show notes.I'm going to take a little peek.All right.Any final thoughts before we let you go for today?Again, I think it's really important that you recognize and discuss, you know, whatyour risk tolerance is because the message that I want you to take is, yeah, there area lot of fair housing rules and the advocacy groups really, you know, they take a verystrong position pro-tenant, pro-resident.You know, myself, you know, representing providers and on the, you know, trying tokeep providers out of trouble, I might take a more restrictive view of it, but it'sreally be aware of what the risks are and then make informed decisions about your riskbenefit analysis and what your risk tolerance is.Sometimes it might be better to decline admission to somebody, you know, and risk afair housing claim than to take somebody in that, you know, is not appropriate andit's going to struggle in a particular level of care, you know, and it's going to, youknow, be really a massive burden to you.You might choose to take the risk of potentially a discrimination fair housing claimthan to take somebody in that, you know, is going to be incredibly problematic andpotentially present you with a negligence action.Got it.Got it.Okay.I'm just going to, wait, you just want to unmute.I know you didn't, I'm sorry.I'm looking at the wrong place here.That's my bad.But there's just one comment here from Hannah.It says, thank you, Christina, for sharing your expertise as a marketing professional.Christina living in organizations is very interested in to think through the risks,which is definitely true.And there's something that you brought to us.Thank you very much, Christina, for joining us today and for sharing everything that youshared over here on the show.It definitely has been very informative just about, like you said, knowing the risks, whento take them, when not to take them.Right.Okay.You're welcome.Thank you for having me.
William Magnuson, a professor at Texas A&M Law School and former Harvard University professor, discusses his book For Profit: A History of Corporations. The book covers eight different corporations throughout history, illustrating different facets of corporations. William chose these eight corporations because they were relevant to the modern world and their importance in shaping society. He aimed to explore the origins of corporations, focusing on foundational moments in corporate law, such as ancient Rome's tax-gathering entities, and the Medici bank. He talks about how studying corporations over 2000 years brought to light trends and why today's citizens are more impacted by corporations than at any other time in history. William considered including the Soviet Union, which was one of the world's great experiments in trying to structure and economy without corporations. However, he did not include any consumer packaged goods or retail companies on the list. He also considered researching other major tech companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft, but ultimately chose not to include them. He also considered adding Japanese corporations, as there is a long history within corporate law scholarship that has similarities with US law but also some major differences. He highlights the importance of understanding the legal concept of corporations and the evolution of their features over time. He also acknowledges the potential for further research into other cultures and corporations, such as Japanese corporations, which could provide valuable insights into corporate law scholarship. Common Characteristics of the Modern Corporation The concept of a corporation has its roots in various ancient cultures, including the Incas, Chinese, and Japan. Europe was largely based on the Roman model, which outsourced government services to private individuals or organizations. This model was copied in Renaissance Italy and eventually moved up to the joint stock era in the 1600s. Japan has a long history of large conglomerate organizations, which are family-oriented and have evolved over time. The American corporation is largely based on the European tradition. Some common characteristics of modern corporations include limited liability, professional management class; single entity operation, and immortality, where a corporation never dies or ceases to exist, unlike partnerships, which end when one partner dies. This is important because historically, partnerships ended when one partner died, which was problematic for tax gathering in ancient Roman republics. Corporations are immortal, meaning they continue to exist even after the death of a single member or stockholder. The Birth of the Corporation The Roman Republic's Fabian strategy, which involved avoiding set battles and using private enterprise, played a significant role in the creation of corporations. In 218 BC, during the Punic War between Rome and Carthage, the Roman commander Cornelius Skipio wrote to the Senate, asking for supplies to continue the war. The Roman senate ran out of money, they made a plea to Roman citizens for support, and in return they asked for several terms, and this led to the idea of private enterprises as a solution to the problem, and legal rights for specific entities. In the Roman Republic, corporations had to have certain institutions in place to function effectively. These institutions included the Senate passing laws, corporate attorneys, banks, and other infrastructure. The rule of law was crucial for these entities to thrive, as it allowed them to enforce contracts in court. This rule of law was a key factor in the rise of the corporation in Renaissance Florence, where fragmented policies and conflicts between duchies, barons, kingdoms, empires, and city states were prevalent. The Medici bank, for example, created a rule of law within the city of Florence, creating separate entities with 15 branches, each serving as its own entity. This allowed them to create a rule of law in a world that didn't have it. Cities and Religious Organizations as Corporations Religious organizations, such as monasteries, were also considered corporations, but they were not in the same line of business. Cities, on the other hand, were outliers in the history of corporations, as they sought to protect their liberties and rights. Cities were able to benefit from incorporation, as they were protected by the Magna Carta. Corporations are flexible entities that can be used for various enterprises. William explains the element of limited liability, which is a fascinating element of corporations. It provides risk protection for owners, allowing them to gather capital and launch larger enterprises. However, the concept of limited liability was not always clear, and some statutes are still ambiguous. For example, the East India Company, which was one of the first corporations to adopt limited liability, was a case study that illustrates the importance of limited liability in the early years of corporations. Early Ideas of Governance in Corporations William discusses the concept of governance in corporations, focusing on the separation of owners and managers and how to align them. This separation is crucial for modern corporations with hundreds of thousands of shareholders, as it prevents conflicts between managers and shareholders. One example of this is Ford Motor Company, founded by Henry Ford in the early 1900s. Ford was known for his fiddling around and raising money from wealthy investors, but faced criticism from shareholders who were concerned about his financial performance. This led to a conflict of interest between Ford and his shareholders, which eventually led to the foundational concept of fiduciary duty in corporate law. William also discusses the history of shares trading hands, mentioning that in ancient Rome, there were physical certificates representing stock ownership. However, there is little evidence on the exact structure or form of the stock market. Today, the system is moving towards an electric electronic system, making it more complex. William teaches a class on the settlement of trades, which is one of the main focuses in FinTech and other research interests. He also discusses the evolution of the stock trading system, highlighting the importance of understanding the complex nature of the process of trading shares. The History of Corporate Advisors William discusses the history of corporations using professionals outside their four walls to advise them. He cites KKR, a private equity firm, as an example of a corporation that uses an ecosystem of professionals to help it operate in the world. The role of these professionals has become more important as corporate law and the corporate form become bigger and more complicated in the modern world. Institutional investors have also played a role in the venture capital industry, often spearheading companies with the interests of venture capitalists. Facebook's structure and story are shaped by its funding model, which was honed into the idea that venture capitalists would take bets and try to reach rapid growth to create a platform effect. This model is emulated by many other startups today. There is a big debate about the corporate purpose, whether they should focus on profit or consider environmental, social, or governance issues. Throughout his research, William was surprised to find that the structure of corporations has always been similar to the debates within society, and major corporations have always led to major changes in how they are regulated. For example, mass production, oil production, and concerns about too big to fail have led to new issues being raised when there is mass production or oil production. Misconceptions about Corporations and Their Role in Society William discusses the misconceptions about corporations and their role in society. He argues that corporations were created to promote the common good, not just profit, although what could be debated is what the common good means. This idea is based on historical evidence, such as the creation of the Florentine government and Queen Elizabeth England. He also discusses the debate surrounding fiduciary duties and the role of boards of directors, managers, and officers in determining the interests of shareholders. He disagrees with some scholars about the role of fiduciary duties and the broad discretion granted to managers to consider other interests beyond shareholder profit. He believes that this broad discretion has been informed by his research into the history of corporations and the factors that have led them to thrive. William's next book is on the history of law, focusing on foundational moments in time when the way we think about law, the rule of law, the Constitution, judges, and democracy have changed. He goes back to ancient Athens, ancient Rome, and the development of the code, moving up through the US Constitution Magna Carta to the current draft of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Links: Some additional book recommendations on corporate history from Professor Magnuson: Ernst Badian, Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic Raymond de Roover, The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank William Dalrymple, The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea CONTACT: Twitter: @profmagnuson LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-magnuson-56479473/ Unleashed is produced by Umbrex, which has a mission of connecting independent management consultants with one another, creating opportunities for members to meet, build relationships, and share lessons learned. Learn more at www.umbrex.com.
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-based admissions at college campuses nationwide after hearing companion cases by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) that challenged admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). SFFA overturned the 2003 ruling by a more liberal Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed that a student's race could be used as one of multiple factors in admissions decisions at the University of Michigan. Affirmative action was rejected by the conservative majority on the bench, which agreed that UNC's policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that Harvard's affirmative action plan discriminates against Asian American students, a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But did it really change the way campus admissions will operate? In their forthcoming paper in the Texas Law Review, “The Goose and the Gander: How Conservative Precedents Will Save Campus Affirmative Action,” Professor Guha Krishnamurthi of the University of Maryland Carey Law School contends (along with his co-author Peter Salib) that though affirmative action is legally dead, race will still figure into holistic admissions procedures-- just not as a check-box item. In this episode of Discovery, we speak with Prof. Krishnamurthi about the previous state of play in race-based admissions and his opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against campus affirmative action has no practical effect on the way schools operate. He argues that due to the Supreme Court's decades-old rulings that statistical proof cannot carry a constitutional discrimination claim, universities will only be liable in litigation if they admit that they practice affirmative action, so most schools will pursue diversity by other means, simply by operating in the shadows.
Introduction to Statutory Law. Statutory law refers to laws passed by a legislative body, such as Congress, at the federal level or state legislatures. These laws address a wide range of issues, from criminal offenses and civil rights to environmental regulations and tax policies. Significance: Statutory law plays a crucial role in shaping constitutional interpretation. It can define and clarify the rights and responsibilities of individuals, government agencies, and other entities. Additionally, statutes can fill gaps in constitutional law or provide specific guidance on how to implement constitutional principles. Example: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal statute that addresses discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It complements the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by providing specific protections against discrimination in areas such as employment and public accommodations. Relationship Between Statutory Law and Constitutional Rights. The relationship between statutory law and constitutional rights is multi-faceted. Statutes can reinforce constitutional rights, provide remedies for violations, or expand upon constitutional protections. Key aspects of this relationship include: 1. Reinforcing Constitutional Rights. Statutory laws can reinforce and clarify constitutional rights. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, further upholding the principles of the Fifteenth Amendment. 2. Providing Remedies for Violations. Statutes often provide remedies for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated. They can establish mechanisms for legal action, such as lawsuits, to seek redress when rights are infringed upon. 3. Expanding Constitutional Protections. In some cases, statutory laws expand upon the protections provided by the Constitution. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for instance, extends protections to individuals with disabilities in various areas, ensuring equal access and opportunities. Significance: Statutory laws are tools that legislators use to address specific issues and challenges in society. They can be instrumental in enforcing constitutional rights, providing redress for violations, and adapting the legal framework to evolving social and technological changes. Example: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal statute that ensures that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. It operationalizes the constitutional principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination for students with disabilities. Major Federal Statutes Impacting Constitutional Law. Several major federal statutes have had a significant impact on constitutional law. Let's explore a few of these statutes and their implications: 1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark statute prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It addresses issues related to employment, education, and public accommodations, reinforcing the principles of equal protection and due process. Significance: The Civil Rights Act has been a cornerstone of civil rights law, enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. 2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting. It provides mechanisms to ensure that individuals are not denied the right to vote on the basis of race or language minority status. Significance: This statute enforces the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services, and public accommodations. It ensures equal access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
Here's his Bio in his on words... I have been a sailor, linguist, NSA Analyst, retailer, insurance agent, stock broker, registered principal, venture capitalist, business turnaround expert, bestselling author, paid corporate speaker, direct marketing executive, TV Talking Head seen on CNBC, Fox, CBS, and ABC, Real Estate Developer in Mexico, and when it collapsed in 2008 in a desperate effort to save what couldn't be saved, an inmate in the Arizona Prison System. I deserved what I got, and as a result of that last one, I gained insight that is unique in that there aren't too many people smart enough to become self-made millionaires and then stupid, reckless, and selfish enough to fall all the way down to the bottom and living among an ocean of criminals from drug addicts to murderers. It was there that I came to understand that first, the usual prescriptions to end crime are just propaganda and then experience a revelation of EXACTLY what to do, a detailed plan and path forward, to restore our country to where it was in terms of safety in 1964. Why that year? It was the year when the Civil Rights Act passed at last making all forms of discrimination illegal forever. It was also a time when you could leave your doors unlocked, your keys in the car, and the words school (or church, synagogue, mall, store, nightclub, concert) and shooting never appeared in the same sentence. The Plan will return us not back to the past but the way we faced the future in the past. It will make crime something that most of us never experience nor fear while at the same time saving our culture in general. It rests on Four Pillars: Justice, Courage, Moderation, and Wisdom and based upon Objective Reality. It is unique. for more information https://the1964plan.org/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jamarr-jabari/support
Section 1983 is a means to exercise our civil rights that already exist" my DOJ OCTOBER 30 12:10 P.M. I was assaulted, kidnapped and falsely detained by Pima County Sheriff's and involuntarily transported to banner health center, where I they attempted to commit me to a psychiatric ward based on a petition filed by pcsd mental health coordinator detective Edgar Alexander NOSEK #7917 who obtained court ordered psychiatric ordered to detain me signed by judge honorable Kenneth Lee; this deprived me of my constitutional right to due process, depriving me of the opportunity to be informed notified and have a chance to respond and or go voluntarily. They immediately put me in cops this is outside the courtroom where I had just turned Teddy Noon #7977 into a jellyfish! LOL they got judge Lee to sign off on this ridiculous petition accusing me of having a narcastic (sic personality disorder! Haha and delusions that I was a good candidate for president of the United States! All this is evidence of more excessive use of force against me; violating my first amendment Free speech right to petition the government to redress my grievances of excessive forced used by Deputy noon #7977 on August 30th 2023 when he unlawfully raided my private property and implemented a horrific search and seizure that tortured literally hundreds of animals who were perfectly fine as I had informed law enforcement several times before! Then they lied in court the two principal authors of this disastrous operation costing untold number of dollars for payment taxpayers to send 34 officers to invade our privacy; Clarissa Leyva Conyers #3124, a pack investigator perjured herself on the stand on October 24th at about 3:31 p.m.; and was caught RED-HANDED! FALSE FIND THE TIMES OF OUR ARRESTS, BY 3 HOURS! EVERYBODY COME TO THE JUSTICE COURT ON MONDAY MORNING 9:30 A.M. IN TUCSON ARIZONA AND SHOW SOME SUPPORT FOR OUR PETS! DON'T LET THESE DIRTY COPS GET AWAY WITH TORTURING OUR ANIMALS! Section 1983 civil Rights act : provides individual right to sue state government employees & others acting under the color of state law;" for civil rights violations. Does not provide civil rights but is a means to enforce civil rights that already exist. Elements of section 1983 claim, required to allege that the conduct complained of someone acting under color of state law; PCSD And 2) conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right; well here they have deprived us of many of them actually! As your president, I'm not only in favor of reparations for our native #indigenous fam but also support reparations for all #REPARATIONS4ALL ! Basically we'll have free everything you know why cuz we can afford it!!!! We are rich and powerful there's enough for all there's no scarcity whatsoever only corrupt public officials!! @youngdems & @womensmarch gonna SAVE THE PLANET! THE LADIES AND THE YOUNG UNS BLESS YER HEARTS ❤️ As the greatest nation on Earth, or at least we shall be under #PresidentTrista! As the wealthiest most powerful country on Earth we can afford to treat our citizens with love tenderness and respect for all their rights-- god-given, constitutional and otherwise natural laws. Common laws! I want to thank the Constitution and the Iroquois confederation who inspired it! It is strong but it needs to be updated, upgraded we need to tweak it a bit! Although this is a no tweaker zone
As mixed race people, what civil rights do we have?Meet Angee (Gonzalez) Melange, who hails from Pittsburgh, and now lives in Georgia, about her experiences growing up Puerto Rican and Black. She will let you into her tumultuous life, and how she overcomes many struggles, but not all. We talk about an overlooked subject in our community; how we handle discrimination and find out there is no support for us.IG @angeegonzalez412Angeegonzalez.comWhat can we do to ensure our legal protections under the Civil Rights Act, under discrimination. if we are mixed race?What it means to be multiracial in America, one story at a time, from the studio to the streets.DOWNLOAD and SUBSCRIBE to Generation Mixed, on Apple, Spotify, IHeart, or Spreaker!FOLLOW us on:Instagram| @generationmixedpodcastWanna be on the show? Text or call 510-852-9550!Subscribe to our newsletter at www.Justjmarc.comPlease email us here with any suggestions, comments, and questions for future firstname.lastname@example.org
In the long-awaited next episode in our Kennedys series, we explore how JFK went from a relatively obscure rookie senator to a viable presidential candidate. We document his imperfect but glamorous marriage to Jacqueline Bouvier, his controversial refusal to censure Joe McCarthy, and his continued battle with health problems. We also explore how the publication of Jack's award-winning book "Profiles in Courage," and his attempt to win the vice-presidential nomination in 1956, helped to raise Kennedy's national profile. The battle against organized crime took center stage in domestic politics during the 1950s, while continued decolonization abroad shook up the international situation & forced Americans to cope with the damage the Jim Crow system was doing to the effort to win over potential Cold War allies in the Third World. Kennedy would try to steer a moderate course in the debates of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, hoping to appeal to Northern liberals without alienating the White Southerners within the Democratic Party coalition. We conclude by noting how JFK's promoted himself as a promising young political star in the national media, setting the stage for his successful 1960 presidential run.Support the show
Join us in a tribute to the memory of Joyce Fienberg, one of the 11 victims of the 2018 shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. In this touching second installment of our series on the events of 10/27 , we sit down with Joyce's son, Howard Fienberg, and his wife, Marnie, as they share their journey of mourning and resilience. Joyce was not only a dedicated member of the Tree of Life synagogue but also a retired university researcher, a devoted mother, and grandmother. Howard and Marnie open up about their extended period of mourning due to trial delays, offering a glimpse into the emotional toll of such a traumatic event. Marnie details how she turned her grief into 2 for Seder, an initiative to honor Joyce and push back against the hate that creates antisemitism. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup: (0:40) Howard Fienberg, Marnie Fienberg Show Notes: Listen: Remembering Pittsburgh Part 1: Behind the Scenes at the Reimagined Tree of Life Take Action: Urge Congress to Stand Against Rising Antisemitism Music credits: Tree of Life by Nefesh Mountain Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: email@example.com If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and review us on Apple Podcasts. Episode Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman: After her husband and mother died in 2016, Joyce Fienberg started each day at Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, to recite Kaddish, the mourner's prayer. Even when she was no longer officially considered a mourner as Jewish tradition prescribes, 11 months, she continued to attend services each morning at the synagogue. That's why Howard Feinberg knew his mother Joyce was at Tree of Life when he heard there had been a shooting there on the morning of October 27, 2018. It would be more than 12 hours before he learned she was among the 11 killed that day. Howard and his wife Marnie are with us now from their home in Northern Virginia to talk about their prolonged mourning period and how they have held onto and channeled that grief. Howard, Marnie, thank you so much for joining us. Howard Fienberg: Thanks for having us. Manya Brachear Pashman: Howard, you followed your mother's example and recited kaddish for 11 months. Can you tell us a little bit about that experience? That experience of saying Kaddish and mourning for your mother, and also can you share with our listeners why it felt like the mourning period was extended? Howard Fienberg: I felt a huge amount of support everywhere I went, in order to be able to say Kaddish every day. Which for someone who was not the most observant of Jews, it was a big lift to be able to do that every day. In fact, even when traveling in disparate places, that I could always find, somehow, be able to pull together 10 people to be able to say Kaddish was a big deal. And I wanted to make sure that no one would struggle in similar circumstances as well. Obviously, initially, in Pittsburgh putting together 10 people was not a particularly big lift. Because the community support in that first week of Shiva was phenomenal. But it's not an easy thing in many congregations, and I think we are fortunate in mine that we always seem to pull it out every day. But I want to make sure that it happens. So in practice wise, that's one of the biggest things, my involvement with the synagogue, and prayer. The broader extension of the mourning period, in a way, was a result of the constant delay of the trial for the monster that committed the massacre. And that was a result of both just the general usual procedural delays that you would expect, combined with COVID excuses that dragged things out during the trial. And once a new judge took over responsibility for this case, things suddenly snapped into gear and it moved forward. And we're particularly grateful for the judge in this case, just for his very no-nonsense approach moving forward. Manya Brachear Pashman: Can you talk about whether the guilty verdict once it did take place, and a verdict was delivered, how that verdict changed anything for you and your family? Howard Fienberg: It was a matter of relief, to a great extent. I sat through almost the entirety of the trial, heard and saw all of the evidence. A lot more than I expected to and ever wanted to, but I felt duty to do so. From an outside perspective, looking at it all, you would say this is a slam dunk case, lined up for all the federal hate crimes that were involved. And at the same time, I was in doubt until the jury came back and said, all said guilty. It's just the nature of things. I was on pins and needles. Massive relief afterwards and the same thing with the final verdict and sentencing. Massive relief for us and our families. And that did allow…nothing's ever closed. You don't finish feeling the loss of somebody, especially when they're taken in, you know, horribly violent terrorist circumstances. But you move from segment to segment. So the same as we do in the year of mourning, you're moving from shiva, which is one kind of thing, to the 30 days, and then to the end of the mourning period. And this was moving to yet another period. And what exactly this is and how long it will be, I don't know. But we're figuring that out as we go. I certainly feel a lot more relaxed. Marnie Fienberg: Feels a little lighter. Howard Fienberg: Yes, definitely lighter. Manya Brachear Pashman: That's good to hear. That's good to hear. I am curious, you said you felt a duty to listen to those details, even though you didn't want to. Can you explain why you felt that sense of obligation? Howard Fienberg: Part of it is, somebody in our family needed to. And it wasn't something that I wanted everybody to sit and hear and see. And I specifically told friends and family as much as I could, to stay far away and said, as much as you want to know, I'll let you know. But otherwise, it's horrific. And it wasn't anything that I would wish for anybody to see and hear. But at the same time, it's the reality of how my mom died. And what the circumstances were, what was going on with the antisemitic conspiracy theories that drove the monster that killed her. And what did he have in mind, and what was his intention, what did he plan, what did he do? These were important things. And the bigger picture, which I didn't even know going in, was the extent to which the police in Pittsburgh were so heroic. And while they were not able to save my mom, they saved other people, including friends of ours, and people who are now friends, who would not be alive if those cops had not tried to charge at the front door trying to charge the building and getting shot. And then the SWAT teams going into the building, and in a couple cases getting almost murdered themselves, trying to rescue the people that were inside. And they did rescue some people. And those people would most likely be dead if the SWAT had not rushed in. Equipment wise, they were not ready ordinarily for this sort of situation. But they went in anyways because they knew they needed to, and they didn't hesitate. And that's the kind of thing that you can only understand, having gone to the trial and learned what went on. Manya Brachear Pashman: Marnie, I want to turn to you. You quit your job as a federal contractor and started a nonprofit initiative called 2 For Seder. What prompted this sudden shift in your career? Marnie Fienberg: Well, I think that I was so upset about what happened with my mother-in-law, I did take a leave of absence initially. And I wanted to volunteer. Being a Jewish woman, and having all this anger and grief and all the support that we had received from people, literally all over the world. I just couldn't sit back and do nothing. So I wanted to do something that was really in honor of Joyce, but also something that would help every single Jewish individual if they so chose to be able to take some small tikun-olam-style action, and push back against the hate that creates antisemitism. And I think 2 For Seder really accomplished that, especially that first year. And we were really on track to grow quite enormously, except for COVID. COVID stopped us in our tracks, because it is about inviting 2 people into your home, who have never been to a Seder before and really educating them and immersing them in that Jewish joy and intimacy that you create every year at Passover. Manya Brachear Pashman: So I'm really curious about the seder connection. Was Joyce known for putting together really elaborate Seders? Was she just always at the Seder table? Why Seders? Marnie Fienberg: So this is a two part sort of explanation. So one is the sort of graduation to being allowed to hold the Seder. So my mother-in-law, really for 15 years we actually had done where we started at her house, and I helped her and I learned as we went and then we flipped it. And we came to our house and she would help me and make sure that I was doing things the right way and guiding me the right way. And there's, I mean, there's so much to do, putting on a Seder and trying to of course fit, you know, 30-35 people into a house that really should only have about 20 people in it is, of course, part of the tradition. And she never blinked an eye, it was never too much. It was really mostly about making everyone at the table, regardless of their background–she always had students over, she always had people who had no place to go–every single person needed to feel like they were home. So if you had some sort of dietary restrictions, or any sort of an allergy or anything, my mother-in-law would bend over backwards, she bend herself into pretzels to make you feel 100% comfortable. And every single person who ever graced her table felt like they had never been more comfortable before. They felt like they were at their mother's house. And they commented on that many times. It was a wonderful thing. And I have to tell you, it's very hard to live up to. She was one of a kind. Howard Fienberg: If I might add in, part of this comes from looking at photo evidence. I've been going through all of the family photos, last five years, trying to digitize and you can see the progression. So early on, there are pictures of Passover seders that clearly they've invited friends and other professors at the universities, students that were Jewish, they'd invite to Passover on a regular basis. And I think there's a turn somewhere in the early 80s, my brother and I would start inviting our non-Jewish friends to the Passover Seder. And probably around about the late 80s was when it became not just bringing in Jews and my brother's friends and my friends who had never been to a Seder, it was their friends and fellow faculty, visiting graduate students from far-flung countries who knew absolutely nothing about Judaism. Certainly nothing about Passover. It was a way for them to have a comfortable introduction to what we're all about. And in all the context that my mother wanted to provide of it being a welcoming taste of being at home. Manya Brachear Pashman: We talked about how the Jewish tradition provides the process of formula, you know, the shiva and the 30 day mourning period. But this, the length of time that families have been mourning has been extended, delayed, slowed down. And I'm curious if on top of the Jewish traditions that guide people through the mourning process, if the Jewish community helped fill in some of what was missing, helped comfort you in certain ways? Marnie Fienberg: We live in two Jewish communities right now. We live in Northern Virginia, and we have our community here. And then we live in Pittsburgh, in a sense, and we have the community there. And we have been back and forth many times. The community in Pittsburgh, regardless if you were a family member, if you were a member of one of the three synagogues, or if you were a member of the greater community. There were so many ways that there were supports. And even from here we were always invited to participate in them. And some of them were done virtually actually when COVID hit which actually was very helpful for us. I don't know if the larger Jewish community is aware, but the FBI actually has a whole series of people, an entire division that's just there to support families and the communities that are affected from mass shootings, which also includes a grant to stand up an actual group that that is going to help the community at large. And that's the 10.27 Center for Healing in the Pittsburgh case, and that group is still standing and still running, still helping everyone. So there's the Jewish side, where we all still pray together, where we get together for our commemoration once a year, the families always get together in Pittsburgh. And then here in Northern Virginia, there have been a variety of commemorations, but mostly our own local community at our synagogue is extremely supportive. They're, of course, another family to us. And this has only really brought us all closer, which has been wonderful. Howard Fienberg: We've had a lot of different kinds of support structures, I wouldn't identify anything as where there was a failing, other than the broader problem that people thought it was over. The presumption on the part of everyone, when they found out that there was a trial for the monster that killed my mom, was: wasn't that done already? Manya Brachear Pashman: I want to ask you both this question, what has given you hope in the last five years? Howard Fienberg: I haven't had the time and strength to go through all of the letters and cards that we received in the month or two after mom was killed. But some of the ones that really impacted me the most, outside of people that we knew, or that knew my parents, I mean, I think we have a whole box of correspondence and cards from people who never met my mother or us. And a lot of those were from non-Jews, who were deeply impacted by this, and were moved. I mean, it's one thing that we had large groups of Jews that came to our Shiva, for example, that wanted to be there to support and during the Shiva period. There were groups of students that came from universities outside of Pittsburgh, like Ohio, and from Massachusetts, they wanted to come and be a part of it, and they weren't Jewish. They just, they felt a need to support. And that's the kind of thing that gives me great hope. Part of why we look at projects like 2 For Seder as so important, that it's not just that we're Jewish, and we're other. So I see a great load of hope there. But at the same time, the fact that, you know, trailing back to the trial, the fact that the Justice Department was willing to pursue the trial, and not just take a plea bargain, but actually present evidence and pursue a case involving such rampant antisemitism, and lay out the facts and prosecute them. That gives me great hope as well. It's not something that is an easy thing. The most reasonable response on their part probably would have been to, no matter what we wanted, would have been to pursue a plea bargain and make it all go away. Because it's expensive, and it doesn't make anybody feel good. Why would you do it? Manya Brachear Pashman: So I have to ask, if the trial had happened a century ago, do you think the jury would have reached a guilty verdict? Do you think the prosecution would have pursued the hate crime charges as they did? Marnie Fienberg: So there would never have been any hate crime charges. Hate crimes did not enter the American laws until 1964, which is when the Civil Rights Act was enacted. This is why I think that we always need to be so thankful for Martin Luther King Jr. and to be proud that we were part of that. So a century ago, would this have even been considered an anti-Jewish crime, an antisemitic crime? No. I think that you can look at Dreyfuss' case and you can say very clearly, this country, this part of the world was not ready for something like that. And they would have looked the other way. Would they have convicted as just a general murder? I don't know, there's a lot of those murders that just disappeared 100 years ago. But would it have been because it was antisemitism? Absolutely not. I would be very, very interested to learn of some other way that that would have happened. But we're very grateful that the same laws under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that is what this was all held under. Howard Fienberg: And the other angle is that the monster that killed everybody, he killed 11 people, he was not an upstanding part of the community, he did not have a whole segment of the community cheering him on, helping him, encouraging him, protecting him. That's not the way it worked. And the reactions and the killing of my mom was part of the demonstration of that, that people were horrified and they were supportive of us. And, you know, the Justice Department pursuing the case to the fullest extent of the law, as they should, would that have happened 100 years ago? No, but again, not just because of the lack of statute, but you know, our place in society was not what it is today. And society was not the same. Manya Brachear Pashman: I know we've sprinkled details about your mother throughout this conversation, but is there anything in particular in there anything in particular that you want listeners to know about Joyce? Howard Fienberg: She twisted herself into knots and did whatever she could to help others, that starts with the rest of the family, and the amount of time and energy that she put toward helping us and helping my brother and sister in law and all of her grandkids, which were a huge focus of her life. The fact that she was able to also shoehorn in a lot of volunteer time at multiple different projects in Pittsburgh, as well as being the connector of our family and multiple sets of families, both email and letters and phone calls on a regular basis. It's an amazing thing that she was able to do that on a daily basis and still sleep and function. Not to mention, make sure that she was at minyan at Tree of Life early every morning. It was an amazing balancing act, y'know, it's a hard thing to pull off. Manya Brachear Pashman: And she picked up someone each day for minyan as well, right? Howard Fienberg: Yes, so unfortunately, he passed away. Late, late last year. Manya Brachear Pashman: May his memory be for a blessing. You know, I should ask, what does that mean to you, when this phrase, May her memory be for a blessing. What does that mean to you when someone says that about your mother? Howard Fienberg: I generally have an appreciation. Because, not just of what she meant to me, but the recognition from other people of the loss. And for some of them, they understand what that loss means. For others, they don't really, but they're trying to support. I do take comfort in that. I'm not certain that I did, certainly in the first week, I was too shell shocked to be able to appreciate all the people that were saying it to me. But, you know, over time, it makes a big difference. And I appreciate being able to do that for others, even complete strangers. If I'm supporting a minyan at someone's shiva, I like to be able to do that. Marnie Fienberg: Joyce was such a gentle, loving and caring person and to have her loss be through such an act of hate is where I think we all struggle. And I think whenever anyone talks to Howard or myself or any of the families about their losses, that they can feel that, that they can feel the shock that these people who just wanted to make the world a little bit better, a little bit of a better place, that they would be taken in such an act of hate, for no reason. I think that being able to say May their memory be a blessing really emphasizes the loss that we feel and the hope that we can fill in this space. Howard Fienberg: And I will say it's very awkward to talk to somebody who's in mourning. Just the nature of it. The fact that we have what almost a rote saying that carries so much weight is a huge benefit. And I deploy it regularly with non-Jews. They're partially taken aback, and they're very touched, because they're used to getting the awkward, Oh, I'm so sorry for your loss, which doesn't make anybody feel particularly good. We can argue about the way Judaism approaches all sorts of things. I happen to think the Jewish way of death, you know, as depressing as it may be to think about, is very practical in a lot of ways. And it's designed to be helpful. Manya Brachear Pashman: Has the rest of your family embraced that? Have they turned to the Jewish faith to cope with this, to try to make sense of it? Howard Fienberg: My brother was already what is called traditional in France, traditional Judaism, he embraced that much more fully, and is much more on the Orthodox range than he was before. And that was a huge part for him as well in coping, and coming to grips with our new life, after my mom died. And that is a piece of it for all of the family in different ways. One of the positive things along these lines, my brother dedicated a Torah in memory of my parents. And by weird twist of fate, or God's hand, in choosing a date to dedicate that Torah in Pittsburgh, the date happened to land a couple of days before the final sentencing in the Tree of Life trial. So we had just a few days before, this whole ceremony and huge celebration that my brother orchestrated, to not only involve the local community and a huge celebration and things that I've heard about, but never seen. People marching in a parade down the street, not far from Tree of Life, to introduce the new Torah to its new synagogue, but also in the final writing of the letters, finishing off the Torah, to be able to include some of the law enforcement officers that were injured in trying to rescue people at Tree of Life, as well as all of the families of the victims and the survivors. That everyone was able to participate from our family and our extended family. It was an amazing sight to behold and the simple fact that it landed right before the sentencing was kind of amazing, because there's this amazing positive outgrowth that you might not have expected. And the fact that it perfectly coincided with the darkness of the trial. It's an amazing thing. Marnie Fienberg: He had been planning this for three years. When Howard says that it was an amazing coincidence to bring them both together, to bring the one of the most Jewish things you could possibly do, dedicating a new Torah, creating and dedicating the Torah, right before the sentencing. There was never a plan for that. It just, it just happened. And it was very healing to the community. But it was also, I mean, the message of the shooter was to stop Judaism, to make us so afraid that we would never go back into the shuls, that we would never go back and be Jewish. And not only in the days right afterwards, where people flocked to go to shul. But this was just one more incredibly powerful expression, that each of the families has done so many different things, to focus on Judaism, focus on making the world a better place in memory of their loved ones. But this is just one more extraordinarily powerful example about how just being Jewish, just doing what we do best, it keeps us going. Manya Brachear Pashman: Marnie, Howard, thank you so much for joining us and sharing part of your journey with our listeners, it's really a valuable conversation to have. Marnie Fienberg: Thank you for having us. We appreciate it. Nefesh Mountain, from the song Tree of Life [singing]: O sweet friends, come and dry your eyes And hold each other by this Tree of Life I'm angry and tired of this great divide But I sing, nonetheless, with love on our side Manya Brachear Pashman: This episode is brought to you by AJC. Our producer is Atara Lakritz. Our sound engineer is TK Broderick. You can follow People of the Pod on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod. The views and opinions of our guests don't necessarily reflect the positions of AJC. You can reach us at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you appreciated this episode, please share it with friends and family and write a review on Apple Podcasts.
In the early 1960s, many Southerners fed up with racial discrimination were participating in restaurant sit-ins, hoping to change the status quo. Robert Cogswell of Austin, a social justice activist, recalls taking part in the movement in Houston: "It was customary for black people who were demonstrating to have a token white among them to show that they weren't exclusivists. And I was often the token white. My activism had to do with a small group of youth in the NAACP who challenged the idea that Houston restaurants were already integrated. We spent our Saturdays driving around to restaurants and walking in and sitting down and not being served. We received a lot of responses that bordered on the absurd. A waitress would ignore us for a long time and then come to our table. In one case, the waitress said to me, "Are your friends Africans?" And it developed that if they were Africans, she was willing to serve them, but if they were American blacks, she was not. "In another case, I went into a restaurant with a young man who was a—in a pre-medical program in the University of Houston. He was well-dressed and clean-cut-looking young man. And we sat down at a table, and there was a booth near us which contained a drunk old man who was abusing the waitress verbally, using language that neither I nor my friend would ever use, telling her in no uncertain terms that he would like to be having sex with her. And the waitress was polite to him and served him politely and refused to serve us because my friend was black." Arthur Fred Joe was a spearhead in the integration of Waco restaurants. He explains an early sit-in on the Old Dallas Highway: "So I sat there for three hours in this restaurant and refused. But they didn't have the volume of trade that I thought that we could march in and sit in to hurt their business. See, my angle was to hurt you in your pocketbook, and this is what the program was all about. If you couldn't hurt them in their pocketbooks, you wasn't doing no good, not far as the civil rights concerned." Joe describes his first victorious sit-in at a restaurant on Austin Avenue, where he went during his break from work: "Something said, ‘Don't you go home this morning for breakfast; go there.' I just drove my car up there and parked and got out and went in there. I sat there, and they kept walking by me, these little waitresses. So I took a newspaper in with me. And all—this the way we—I started my movement: you always have something to read so it wouldn't just—you just wouldn't look stupid." Restaurant sit-ins such as these were instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended legally-sanctioned racial segregation in the United States. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act with The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. standing at his side. Peniel Joseph is the Barbara Jordan Chair in Political Values and Ethics at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and professor of history and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the University of Texas at Austin. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the contentious but essential relationship between the president and Civil Rights leader. His essay appears in the book “LBJ's America: The Life and Legacies of Lyndon Baines Johnson.”
What are you are about to watch is a recording from a Pride Panel Conversation we held in June. Given the current cultural climate and the reality that the lives of LGBTQ+ people are being politicized for nefarious reasons, I wanted to amplify the discussion and strategies shared earlier this year because the knowledge and skills discussed are simply too important to leave in our archives. Rather, we wanted to democratize this valuable information to enhance your own diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) practice. To help answer the question about how leading brands of choice can build gender inclusive cultures that last, I've shared important context below to set the stage for this dynamic conversation with leading TGX business owners and DEIB practitioners. Since the rise of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement in the late 1960s, the experiences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender expansive (TGX) employees in the workplace have dynamically shifted. Over these past five decades, TGX employees have benefited from workplace protections, greater social visibility, and acceptance in a growing number of workplaces. Given all of these gains, many falsely believe transgender and gender expansive employees have equal access to jobs, promotions, and stretch assignments they are qualified for. Many more also falsely believe that trans employees can no longer be fired, denied a promotion, or even a job interview simply because of who they are. Tragically, today's reality presents a different story: According to the Human Rights Watch, “at least 9 countries have national laws criminalizing forms of gender expression that target transgender & gender expansive people.” Legal punishments vary including life imprisonment and even the death penalty. In the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled a landmark case in 2020 stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends protections from workplace discrimination for LGBTQ+ employees. Despite this monumental ruling, trans & gender expansive employees in the United States, particularly BIPOC trans employees, frequently endure workplace discrimination and harassment, resulting in lower job security, economic stability, and a lack of psychological safety. While most workplaces recognize that discrimination has no place in business, let alone society, critical gaps in legal protections still remain and create barriers to building gender inclusive cultures at work. Specifically, the U.S. still lacks a federal law protecting employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and even in states and localities that do offer these protections, transforming workplace culture to fully include trans & gender expansive workers remain unfinished. And in 2023 alone, 574 anti-transgender bills were introduced in 49 states. This legislation attempts to block TGX people from receiving basic healthcare, education, legal recognition, and the right to public accommodations. Over 14% of these bills have already been signed into law, and their impacts reverberate throughout our country, with many trans people and their families relocating to friendlier states in an attempt to flee from anti-transgender political agendas and their negative messages. Tragically, many leaders struggle to recognize how their businesses can be adversely impacted if they fail to respond to this moment. While many want to demonstrate their support for their TGX colleagues, many don't know how. If you also find yourself struggling with how to avoid performative actions, and instead wish to take long-lasting actions that will help you build a gender inclusive workplace, you are in the right place. This panel discussion was created for you. The conversation we are about to have will help reduce any feelings of overwhelm, and offer concrete ideas on how to improve your workplace culture. Fortunately, we have a dynamic group of panelists to help clarify why anti-transgender legislation is a business concern and to learn how anyone participating in today's panel discussion can take meaningful actions to build a gender inclusive workplace. Our panelists include: --Celia Sandhya Daniels (she/they), Founder of Rebekon Consulting --Gavriel Legynd (he/him), CEO of Visioneer IT --Rex Wilde (they/them), Founder of Rex Wilde Consulting --Rhodes Perry (he/him), Host, Founder of Rhodes Perry Consulting Together, we will explore how to move beyond performative actions and we also discuss the importance of current LGBTQ+ employees potential to ascending into the highest ranks of leadership to enjoy better company performance, accelerating the company's DEIB commitments, and attracting new clients and vendors. Savor this insightful conversation, and if you're looking for ways to build gender inclusive cultures that last year round, consider joining our Belonging Membership Community by visiting: www.belongingmembershipcommunity.com
After the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, America was at its peak. The streets, schools, and all other public places were safe. School and shooting never appeared in the same sentence. You could leave your keys in your car and your home unlocked. Children could wander anywhere and nobody worried about them being snatched or molested. All forms of discrimination were at long last illegal. Sure, there was a lot of work left to do, but the road was wide open and the mood optimistic. And then we turned it to shit. The 1964 Project puts forth a plan reverse the destruction and keep the progress. It's like no other. Unlike every other so-called solution put forth by the political class, The 1964 Project is non-partisan and is based upon objective reality and does not try to mold reality to fit its narrative. You know, like every other so-called "plan" out there.
Alyssa and Hadley explore the haunting past of the Hardie-Coleman House—or, as it's better known online, the Lucy Murder House—in Uniontown, Alabama, where the remains of 13-year-old Allan Lucy were found buried beneath the front porch in January of 1994. Allan, who lived at the home with his adoptive parents, Phillip and Margaret Lucy, disappeared without a trace in May of 1985. In the months that followed, Jason Lucy, Phillip and Margaret's biological son, told classmates that his father killed Allan and buried him in the backyard. As they work to uncover what really happened, the hosts hear from former Uniontown resident David B. House, who explains why, at the time, no one believed Jason's story, and shares the rumors that were circulating about the Lucy family long before Allan disappeared. Later, in trying to understand why—even years after Allan Lucy's murderer was brought to justice—the house has still not recovered, Hadley and Alyssa discuss the environmental issues that have driven many residents out of Uniontown, and left those who remain fighting for justice of their own. CREDITS Alyssa Fiorentino - Co-host & Producer Hadley Mendelsohn - Co-host & Producer Jessy Caron - Producer Jacob Stone - Sound Editor & Mixer To advertise on the show: https://www.advertisecast.com/DarkHouse or email us at email@example.com. RELATED LINKS Uniontown Historic District Nomination Form (PDF): bit.ly/3YJmg44 ‘REPORTER: Covering Civil Rights...And Wrongs in Dixie' by Alvin Benn: https://amzn.to/3P6yTTJ Exploring An Abandoned Murder Mansion | Boy Buried Under The Porch (VIDEO): bit.ly/3OK07xZ “Environmental Injustice in Uniontown, Alabama, Decades after the Civil Rights Act of 1964: It's Time For Action” American Bar Association (ARTICLE): bit.ly/3P8tN9I “Uniontown is polluted with coal ash. Here's how some UA students are helping” The Crimson White (ARTICLE): bit.ly/3E5Ullp “Judge orders Uniontown to stop fighting $31M sewer fix” Alabama.com (ARTICLE): bit.ly/45eKdTo “Alabama sues Uniontown again over sewage issues” Alabama.com (ARTICLE): bit.ly/3P9DW61 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
President Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Hoping Forward with True ChangeWebsite: http://www.battle4freedom.comNetwork: https://www.mojo50.comStreaming: https://www.rumble.com/Battle4Freedomhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9opkWJn5aETeam Kennedy: Join Me For A Historic Announcementhttps://www.kennedy24.com/peacePEACEBring it HomeIn the long term, a nation's strength does not come from its armies. America spends as much on weaponry as the next nine nations combined, yet the country has grown weaker, not stronger, over the last 30 years.https://www.kennedy24.com/economyCOST OF LIVINGPeople who work hard should be able to afford a decent life."It's hard to believe that once upon a time, a blue-collar worker with a high school education could support a family, take vacations, and even save for retirement."https://www.kennedy24.com/housingHOUSINGHomeownershipThe dream of home ownership is slipping away for many Americans with high mortgage rates, rising prices, and stagnant income. To make matters worse, venture capital firms and hedge funds are buying up single-family homes by the millions. https://www.kennedy24.com/revitalizationREVITALIZATIONTurn it AroundThe time has come to reverse America's economic decline, decades in the making. Our country faces a widening wealth gap (the most unequal since the 1920s), rampant debt, decaying infrastructure, and a hollowed-out industrial base.https://www.kennedy24.com/environmentENVIRONMENTClean it UpRFK Jr.'s success came from uniting liberal environmentalists with conservative rod-and-gun folks who shared a desire for a clean, healthy environment. https://www.kennedy24.com/honestHONEST GOVERNMENTFor the PeopleA democratic government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. But government institutions have betrayed our trust.https://www.kennedy24.com/healRECONCILIATIONHeal the DivideAmerica is more polarized and divided now than at any time in living memory. Both sides seem to agree that the basic problem is the horrible people on the other side. Both sides are wrong. The basic problem is the division itself. https://www.kennedy24.com/racial_healingRACIAL HEALINGCivil RightsNearly sixty years after the Civil Rights Act, the condition of Black people in America is better in many respects. However, in terms of income, wealth, education, infant mortality, home ownership, incarceration, health, and life expectancy, they still lag behind the rest of the population.https://www.kennedy24.com/native-americansNATIVE AMERICANSDeep Commitment"These kinds of conditions can not be permitted to exist in the United States." Robert F Kennedy after seeing the impoverished living conditions on the Pine Ridge Reservation.https://www.kennedy24.com/libertiesCIVIL LIBERTIESRestore our RightsOur administration will make it a top priority to protect and restore the fundamental civil liberties, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that hold the essence of what America can be.https://www.kennedy24.com/borderBORDERA Humanitarian CrisisRobert F. Kennedy, Jr. sees the situation at the border primarily as a humanitarian crisis. It is a crisis that has spread far beyond the border, as a flood of migrants has overwhelmed the resources of cities as far away as New York.
For the first time ever, parents going through IVF can use whole genome sequencing to screen their embryos for hundreds of conditions. Harness the power of genetics to keep your family safe, with Orchid. Check them out at orchidhealth.com. In September 2023, Harper Collins published Richard Hanania's The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics, two months after Christopher Rufo's America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything. Both these books tackle the same issue: the US's Leftist cultural direction, especially since 2015, and what Matthew Yglesias termed the “Great Awokening” in 2019. Razib recently interviewed both authors, and today we release the first of two conversations over consecutive days so listeners can reflect on Hanania and Rufo's divergent perspectives on one of the major themes of American political culture in the 2020's. First, Razib talks to Hanania, who holds a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from UCLA, about The Origins of Woke. Befitting his legal education, much of the book delves into the knock-on consequences of 1960's legislation, particularly the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Hanania articulates the view that “wokeness” can be defined by the idea that any variation in outcome between groups must be ascribed to discrimination and that entertainment of alternative views (for example, that groups have different aptitudes and/or preferences for specific fields) is tantamount to racism. The Origins of Woke touches upon sex discrimination and the emergence of queer identity politics, but Hanania believes that the central through-line between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the modern woke era is the black-white racial division in the US, and the fight for racial equality before the law morphing into a campaign for total equity of outcome in all domains of life. Synthesizing his background in law and political science, Hanania argues that a combination of vague initial legal frameworks and an activist bureaucracy have enabled the sharp detour from the original drafters' intent with civil rights legislation instead into a total revolution of norms. He also points out that much of the framework for the woke revolution was put in place under the conservative Nixon administration, a pattern observed by Pat Buchanan in his 1975 book Conservative votes, liberal victories: Why the right has failed. One of the major contentions of The Origins of Woke is that excessive focus on Andrew Breitbart's assertion that “politics is downstream” of culture has led the Right down the wrong path to de facto defeatism. Hanania discusses how the “marketplace of ideas” model ultimately fails given the Left's capture of all institutions that would arbitrate issues around the culture war. Rather, Hanania clearly believes that the path to the rollback of woke norms across the broader culture is through politics, and in particular the Republican party fully embracing its role as a reactive force against the American legal regime that was seeded in the 1960's.
If you are anything like me, you like to think of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & 60s as a movement that helped our country achieve, maybe not the entire dream that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. described, but at least something that was closer to that dream, something that showed we were on the right path toward fulfilling that dream. After all, didn't the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act get passed and implemented by the government? Haven't we seen great strides in the implementation of fair housing and lending? Hasn't segregation been relegated to the dark corners of our past? Unfortunately, this is a mythology that many of us would like to hold on to. The assassination of Dr. King in 1968 should have been enough to disabuse us of that mythology. And yet that mythology persists. In more recent years, it has been perforated and torn time and again by the abuse and murder of Black citizens by police and white supremecists: Rodney King, Trayvon Martin, Philando Castille, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, Tamir Rice and so many more.These names represent our collective failure to realize King's dream of justice, equality and equity. Perhaps, if nothing else, these names help those of us in the white community to understand just how frayed and fractured that mythology of progress really is. And there is no place that I can think of that reveals the stark contrast between our hopes and their unfulfilled promise than the city of Birmingham, Alabama. My guest today is Clay Cornelius, the owner and guide of Red Clay Tours in Birmingham, AL. How do we get to know cities that we visit? How do we get the lay of the land and find out what really happened there? Of course, we can visit monuments and historical sites, but that doesn't begin to fill in the canvas of a city. Clay is the sort of guide that will fill in that canvas with stories and historical detail that you can't get anywhere else. And that detail is especially important for a city as famous and infamous as Birmingham, Alabama. Birmingham, as we know, played a huge role in the era of the civil rights struggle. It was the place of confrontation with Bull Connor, of tragedy with the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church and the deaths of four Black children. It was where Dr. King was jailed and wrote one of his most extraordinary writings, Letter from a Birmingham Jail. As I mentioned on a previous episode, I was part of a wonderful civil rights pilgrimage with a group from Westminster Presbyterian Church here in Olympia, WA. And Clay was our guide when we were in Birmingham and as you will hear, he is a fount of knowledge about Birmingham and its history.Books Mentioned in this episode:“Carry Me Home” by Diane McWhorter “But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle” by Glenn Eskew “A More Beautiful and Terrible History” by Jeanne Theoharris
Happy Monday! Sam and Emma speak with Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court term. Then, they're joined by litigator Mark Bankston who has a special announcement! First, Sam and Emma run through updates on our 45-day reprieve from a government shutdown, the ongoing chaos among the House GOP despite that, Gov. Newsome's disappointing unilateral action, Donald Trump's fraud case, and labor action nationwide, before parsing through commentary on the House GOP's absurd power struggle. Ian Millhiser then joins, diving right into this Supreme Court term's primary challenges to the administrative state – namely Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo – exploring the lasting governance of the Chevron Doctrine's deference to government agencies, and the sudden emergence of the anti-democratic “Major Questions Doctrine” that the Court has been using to undermine any “major” decisions by government agencies (including student debt reform). After parsing through the evolution of these two doctrines (and the jurisprudence backing them up) and how Loper might see SCOTUS move onto the “Micromanaging Questions Doctrine,” Millhiser walks Sam and Emma through the radicalization of the US' 5th Circuit over the Donald Trump administration, exploring how the GOP was able to blockade Obama's appointments and confirm Trump's en-masse. Wrapping up, Ian, Sam, and Emma tackle the far-right decisions coming out of the 5th Circuit, and what (if anything) the Supreme Court will do to keep their underlings in line. After Sam and Emma quickly parse through Jamaal Bowman's ongoing Congressional debacle, they're joined by Mark Bankston to discuss his representation of Ben Brody in a defamation case against Elon Musk, parsing through the issue at hand, what libel cases entail, and the vast damages that can come from the abuse of one's public station. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma tackle the madness surrounding the still-impending government shutdown, dive a little deeper into the unsurprisingly racist coverage of Jamaal Bowman… pulling a fire alarm, and assess Biden's recent statement on the Civil Rights Act. Next, they dive deep into Gavin Newsom's astounding decision to name Laphonza Butler – a fundraiser who's never held public office – to Dianne Feinstein's Senate Seat over the over-deserving Barbara Lee, before Owen from LA helps parse through Butler's past, Dan from CA provides some good ol' unproductive libertarian debate, and Hannah from San Diego dives into the absurdity of the rental market as a military-civilian. Check out Ian's work here: https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser Find out more about Mark here: https://fbtrial.com/attorneys/mark-bankston/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: CozyEarth: My audience can SAVE UP TO 40% on Cozy Earth TODAY. Go to https://CozyEarth.com and enter my promo code MAJORITY at checkout to SAVE UP TO 40% NOW! Try ‘em for 100 nights. If you don't feel the difference, send ‘em back for a full refund! That's https://CozyEarth.com, promo code MAJORITY. Sunset Lake CBD: Sunsetlakecbd is a majority employee owned farm in Vermont, producing 100% pesticide free CBD products. October 1st was International Coffee Day and Sunset Lake CBD is celebrating with a sale on their best-selling Farmer's Roast CBD Coffee. Today, when you go to https://sunsetlakecbd.com use code “Coffee” and you'll save 30% on all one-time purchases of their delicious dark-roasted whole-bean coffee. Don't forget to use coupon code “leftisbest” for 20% off everything else! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/
In September of 1957, Bing Crosby, now fifty-four years old, was gearing up to host the Edsel TV special and generating praise for his recent dramatic role as Earl Carlton in Man On Fire. He'd won an Academy Award, had his own radio show since 1931, and championed the widespread use of Prime Time, network transcription. The Ford Road Show featuring Bing Crosby debuted on September 2nd, 1957. It aired five days per week on CBS for five minutes. These were taped segments edited by Murdo MacKenzie and written and produced by Bill Morrow The just-heard John Scott Trotter conducted the orchestra. It included an opening theme, one or two songs by Bing and commercials by Ken Carpenter. This episode aired on September 24th. Ford's Agency of Record J. Walter Thompson saturated radio with five-minute segments. They also sponsored a show with Rosemary Clooney, a chit chat by Arthur Godfrey and news by Edward R. Murrow. Earlier in this episode we spoke about The Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Hattie Cotton Elementary School bombing in Nashville, Tennessee. With forced integration underway, federal troops needed to be called out to Little Rock, Arkansas where a group of nine African American students enrolled in Little Rock Central High School were stopped from attending by the state's governor. On September 27th CBS Radio ran a special report on the progress, or lack thereof, in southern school integration in the three years following Brown vs. The Board of Education.
The Supreme Court returns October 2 for its 2023–2024 Term, and the justices will hear cases on a number of important issues: separation of powers, nondelegation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause, immigration, racial gerrymandering, and more.For instance, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court will return to the question of whether Chevron should be overruled. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Court will grapple with three questions which include, inter alia, whether statutory provisions empowering the SEC to seek criminal penalties through agency adjudication violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court will decide whether Title VII prohibits discriminatory transfer decisions absent a court determination that the transfer significantly disadvantaged the employee. And in O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, the Court will determine when a public official blocking an individual on the official's personal social media account constitutes state action.Please join us for a lively discussion with two distinguished Supreme Court litigators, and former Solicitors General, about what could potentially unfold in the next Supreme Court term.Listen to other Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcastsSign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agendaListen to podcasts from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/podcasts/Get daily conservative news you can trust from our Morning Bell newsletter: DailySignal.com/morningbellsubscription Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Supreme Court returns October 2 for its 2023–2024 Term, and the justices will hear cases on a number of important issues: separation of powers, nondelegation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause, immigration, racial gerrymandering, and more. For instance, […]
The system for coordinating organ donations and transplants in the United States is broken, according to experts who have testified over the course of many years to Congress. In this episode, hear their testimony about what is wrong with the current system and then we'll examine the bill that aims to fix the problems. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources August 3, 2022. Senate Finance Committee. Lenny Bernstein and Todd C. Frankel. August 3, 2022. The Washington Post. February 10, 2020. Senate Finance Committee. The Bill Audio Sources July 20, 2023 Senate Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Health Care Witnesses: LaQuayia Goldring, Patient Molly J. McCarthy, Vice Chair & Region 6 Patient Affairs Committee Representative, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Matthew Wadsworth, President and CEO, Life Connection of Ohio Raymond J. Lynch, MD, MS, FACS, Professor of Surgery and Director of Transplantation Quality and Outcomes, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Donna R. Cryer, JD, Founder and CEO, Global Liver Institute Clips 30:40 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): HRSA, the Health Resources Agency, is on track to begin the contract process this fall and we're just going to be working here to complement their effort. 36:30 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): In 2005, I started the investigation of the deadly failures of UNOS, the monopoly tasked with managing the US organ donation system. Since then, more than 200,000 patients have needlessly died on the organ waiting list. There's a reason that I call UNOS the fox guarding the hen house. For nearly two decades, UNOS has concealed serious problems [at] the nation's organ procurement organizations, known as OPOs, instead of working to uncover and correct the corruption. This human tragedy is even more horrific because many of these deaths were preventable. They were the result of [a] corrupt, unaccountable monopoly that operates more like a cartel than a public servant. 44:45 LaQuayia Goldring: As a toddler, at the age of three, I was diagnosed with a rare kidney cancer that took the function of my left kidney. And when I was 17, I went back into complete renal failure and I received a first kidney transplant at that time. Unfortunately, in 2015, I went back into kidney failure. And at that time, I wasn't ready for another transplant, but I didn't have a choice but to go back on dialysis. I've been waiting nine agonizing years for a transplant, dependent upon a dialysis machine five days a week, just to be able to live. I was told that I would receive a kidney transplant within three to five years. But yet I am still waiting. I am undergoing monthly surgeries just to be able to get my dialysis access to work so that I can continue to live until I get a transplant. The UNOS waitlist is not like one to 100, where everybody thinks you get a number. I'm never notified on where I stand on the list or when I will get the call. I have to depend on an algorithm to make the decision of what my fate will be. 47:55 LaQuayia Goldring: Just a few weeks ago, a donor family reached out to me to be a directed kidney donor, meaning they chose me specifically for a kidney transplant. But unfortunately, due to the errors in the UNOS technology, I was listed as inactive and this was a clerical error. And all that they told me was this was a clerical error, and they could not figure out why I was inactive. But when it came down to it, I'm actually active on the transplant list. 51:45 Molly McCarthy: The Federal monopoly contractor managing the organ donation system, UNOS, is an unmitigated failure. And its leadership spends more time attacking critics than it does taking steps to fix the system. I've seen this firsthand in my five years as a patient volunteer with the OPTN and three years ago, I stepped into the role of Vice Chair of the Patient Affairs Committee, or PAC. 53:45 Molly McCarthy: Further, I have been called by a board member telling me to stop focusing on system outage and downtime of the UNOS tech system. He told me that having downtime wasn't a big deal at all, "the donors are dead anyway." That comment speaks volumes to me about the lack of empathy and respect UNOS has for donor families. 55:00 Molly McCarthy: Congress needs to break up the UNOS monopoly by passing 1668, ensuring that HHS uses its authority to replace UNOS as its contractor. 1:00:15 Matt Wadsworth: Break up the OPTN contract and allow for competition. 1:00:40 Matt Wadsworth: I commend this committee for introducing legislation to finally break up this monopoly and I stand ready to work with you in any way possible to ensure that this bill passes. It's the only way this industry will be able to save more patients' lives. 1:02:10 Dr. Raymond Lynch: I want to differentiate between organ donation, which is the altruistic decision of the donor patient and their family, and organ procurement, which is the clinical care provided by OPO staff. This is what turns the gift of donation into the usable organs for transplant. Organ procurement is a clinical specialty. It's the last medical care that many patients will ever receive. It's reimbursed by the federal government and it's administered by OPOs that are each the only provider in the territory to which they hold federal contracts. Right now patient care delivered by OPOs is some of the least visible in American healthcare. I can't tell you how many patients were evaluated by OPO workers in the US in 2022. I can't tell you how many patients were examined, or how many families were given information about donation, or how many times an OPO worker even showed up to a hospital to do this clinical duty. This lack of information about what OPO providers actually do for patients is a root cause of the variability in rates of organ procurement around the country. My research has shown that what we call OPO performance is a measurable restriction on the supply of organs that results in the unnecessary deaths of patients with organ failure. For example, if the lowest performing OPOs from around the country had just reached the national median over a recent seven year period, there would have been 4957 more organ donors, yielding an estimated 11,707 additional organs for transplant. Because many OPOs operate in a low quality data environment and without appropriate oversight, almost 5,000 patients did not get adequate organ procurement care, and nearly 12,000 other patients did not receive life saving transplants. 1:03:55 Dr. Raymond Lynch: OPO clinical work is currently not visible, it's not benchmarkable, and it's not able to be adequately evaluated, analyzed, or compared. However, much of the hidden data about how OPOs provide care to patients is known to one entity and that entity is UNOS. 1:05:20 Dr. Raymond Lynch: We need a new network of highly skilled specialist organizations, each attending to areas of expertise in the management of the OPTN contract. 1:21:15 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): When we look at OPTN, and look at the Securing Organ Procurement Act, the bill would strip the nonprofit requirement for the manager of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which would open the door for profiting from organ procurement and donation. And to me, this is something that I think many people really fear, especially people that are on a waitlist. And so what I would like for you to do is to address that and address those concerns. And why or why not you think the Act has it right. Dr. Raymond Lynch: Thank you, Senator. I think it's unfortunate that people would be afraid of that and it needs to be changed. Many of the patients that you referenced are waitlisted at for-profit hospitals. For-profit is a part of American healthcare. And I can tell you that our not-for-profit entity doesn't work. And there are for-profit hospitals and for-profit transplant centers that do work. So patients don't need to be afraid of that. They do need to be afraid of the status quo. 1:28:30 Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): Ms. Cryer, do you have any views as to why it's much lower percentage chances for a racial minority to be able to have a transplant? Donna Cryer: Yes. And it really does come down to UNOS not doing its job of overseeing the organ procurement organizations. We know from many studies that black and brown communities donate organs in the same percentage they are the population. So it is not a problem of willingness to donate. It is a problem, as Miss Goldring was starting to discuss, about UNOS not ensuring that OPOs go out into the communities, develop relationships far before that horrible decision is needed to [be] made to donate the organs of a family member. 1:56:45 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): And among the many reforms the legislation would support HRSA's proposal to break up the OPTN monopoly contract into multiple smaller contracts, which would allow some competition and allow the best vendors in the business to manage different parts of the transplant network operation. That means hiring IT experts to do the IT. It means hiring logistics experts to do logistics, and so on. 1:57:15 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): UNOS does not want to lose control, so they're pushing to have the government limit eligibility only to nonprofit vendors that have worked in the past on organ donation, meaning, for instance, that the IT company that is hired to run OPTNs computers systems would have had to have worked on an organ transplant network in the past and be a nonprofit. So Ms. McCarthy, the requirement UNOS wants would seem to make it so that only one organization could apply for the new contract: UNOS. 1:58:35 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Right now, Congress has an opportunity to root out corruption in this system, but if we don't act before the current contract expires we won't have another shot for years. August 3, 2022 Senate Committee on Finance Witnesses: Brian Shepard, CEO, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Diane Brockmeier, RN, President and CEO, Mid-America Transplant Barry Friedman, RN, Executive Director, AdventHealth Transplant Institute Calvin Henry, Region 3 Patient Affairs Committee Representative, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Jayme Locke, M.D., MPH, Director, Division of Transplantation, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham Clips 36:15 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): A 1984 law created the first computerized system to match sick patients with the organs they need. It was named the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Someone needed to manage that system for the whole country, so the government sought to contract an organization to run it. UNOS was the only bidder for that first contract in 1986. The contract has come up for bid seven other times, UNOS has won all seven. Today, the network UNOS overseas is made up of nearly 400 members, including 252 transplant centers, and 57 regional organizations known as Organ Procurement Organizations, or OPOs. Each OPO is a defined geographic service network. Families sitting in a hospital room thinking about donating a loved one's organs does not have a choice of OPOs. 37:40 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Between 2010 and 2020, more than 1,100 complaints were filed by patients and families, staff, transplant centers, and others. The nature of these complaints runs the gamut. For example, in a number of cases, OPOs had failed to complete critical mandatory tests for matters like blood types, diseases, and infection. Our investigation found one patient died after being transplanted with lungs that a South Carolina OPO marked with the wrong blood type. Similar blood type errors happened elsewhere and patients developed serious illness. Some had to have organs removed after transplant. Another patient was told he would likely die within three years after an OPO in Ohio supplied him with a heart from a donor who had died of a malignant brain tumor. UNOS did not pursue any disciplinary action. In a case from Florida, another patient contracted cancer from transplanted organs and the OPO sat on the evidence for months. In total, our investigation found that between 2008 and 2015, and 249 transplant recipients developed a disease from transplanted organs. More than a quarter of them died. 38:55 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Delivering organs has been another source of life threatening errors. We found 53 such complaints between 2010 and 2020, as well as evidence that this was just the tip of the iceberg. In some cases, couriers missed a flight. In others, the organs were abandoned at airports. Some organs were never picked up. Many of these failures resulted in organs being discarded. 39:20 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): It's reasonable to assume that many more errors are going unreported. Why? Because filing official complaints with UNOS appears to accomplish zero productive oversight or reform. Organ transplant professionals repeatedly told the Finance Committee that the complaint process was, and I quote here, "a black hole." Complaints went in, UNOS went quiet. In interviews with the Committee UNOS leaders have dragged their feet, dodged tough questions, and shifted responsibility onto others. investigations and disciplinary measures rarely amount to much more than a slap on the wrist. Only one time -- just once -- has UNOS recommended that an OPO lose their certification. 55:05 Diane Brockmeier: We must update the archaic technology system at UNOS. As OPOs, we are required to work with UNOS technology DonorNet every day. DonorNet is outdated, difficult to us,e and often slow to function when every minute counts. Manual entry subjects it to error and OPO and Transplant Center staff are not empowered with the right information when time is critical. I did serve in leadership roles on the OPO Committee from 2017 to 2022. Committee members and industry leaders voiced repeated requests to improve DonorNet. The consistent response was UNOS IT did not have the bandwidth to address this work. The limitations of the UNOS technology are delaying and denying transplants to patients that are dying on the waitlist. Poor technology impacts the disturbingly high kidney discard rate in the United States, where one in four kidneys never make it to a patient for transplantation. Critical time is lost due to the inefficiency of DonorNet, wasting time on offers that will not be accepted. Of course an available organ should be offered to the patient in this sequence. However, far too much of the matching, particularly on older donors and organs that are difficult to place, are left to the individual OPOs and transplant centers to find each other despite, rather than facilitated by, UNOS technology. Mid-America Transplant intentionally identifies surgeons who accept kidneys that have been repeatedly turned down many times. These are life saving options for those patients. In May of 2022, one of these patients was number 18,193 on the list. Relying on DonorNet alone, that kidney would never had been placed and the chance to save a life would have been wasted. 55:20 Diane Brockmeier: UNOS lacks urgency and accountability around identifying and remediating this preventable loss of organs, and they are not required to publicly report adverse events when patients are harmed, organs are lost, or the quality of patient care is deemed unsafe. UNOS does not require clinical training, licensure, or certification standards for OPO staff delivering critical patient care. In this environment, who's looking out for the patient? Who's being held accountable for poor patient care? No OPO has ever actually been decertified, regardless of its performance or its safety record. 57:55 Diane Brockmeier: When an OPO goes out of sequence to place an organ that would otherwise be thrown away, UNOS requires an explanation; however, when organs are recovered and discarded, you must remain silent. 58:05 Diane Brockmeier: We must remove conflicts to ensure effective governance. From 2018 to 2020, I served as a board member for the OPTN. Serving on the board of the OPTN automatically assigns membership to the UNOS board. My board experience revealed that at times UNOS actions are not aligned with its fundamental vision of a life saving transplant for everyone in need. How can you fairly represent the country's interest and a contractor's interest at the same time? 58:35 Diane Brockmeier: Board members are often kept in the dark about critical matters and are marginalized, particularly if they express views that differ from UNOS leadership. Preparatory small group calls are conducted prior to board meetings to explore voting intentions, and if the board member was not aligned with the opinion of UNOS leadership, follow up calls are initiated. Fellow board members report feeling pressured to vote in accordance with UNOS leadership. 59:10 Diane Brockmeier: To protect patients, I urge Congress and the administration to separate the OPTN functions into different contracts so that patients can be served by best-in-class vendors, to immediately separate the boards of the OPTN and OPTN contractors, and to ensure that patients are safeguarded through open data from both the OPTN and OPOs. 1:00:45 Barry Friedman: Approximately 23% of kidneys procured from deceased donors are not used and discarded, resulting in preventable deaths 1:00:55 Barry Friedman: Organ transportation is a process left to federally designated Organ Procurement Organizations, OPOs. Currently, they develop their own relationships with couriers, rely on airlines, charter flights, ground transportation, and federal agencies to facilitate transportation. In many cases, organs must connect from one flight to another, leaving airline personnel responsible for transfers. While anyone can track their Amazon or FedEx package, there is currently no consistent way of tracking these life saving organs. 1:01:45 Barry Friedman: Currently there is no requirement for OPOs to use tracking systems. 1:02:20 Barry Friedman: I also believe there's a conflict of interest related to the management of IT functions by UNOS, as the IT tools they offer transplant centers come with additional costs, despite these being essential for the safety and management of organs. 1:02:35 Barry Friedman: UNOS is not effectively screening organ donors so that they can be quickly directed to transplant programs. UNOS asks centers to voluntarily opt out of certain organs via a filtering process. As a result, OPOs waste valuable time making organ offers to centers that will never accept them. Time wasted equates to prolonged cold ischemic time and organs not placed, resulting in lost organ transplant opportunities. 1:03:10 Barry Friedman: Due to the limited expertise that UNOS has in the placement of organs, it would be best if they were no longer responsible for the development of organ placement practices. The UNOS policy making [process] lacks transparency. Currently OPTN board members concurrently serve as the board members of UNOS, which creates a conflict of interest that contributes to this lack of transparency. UNOS committees are formed in a vacuum. There is no call for nominations and no data shared with the transplant community to explain the rationale behind decisions that create policy change. 1:11:35 Dr. Jayme Locke: The most powerful thing to know about this is that every organ represents a life. We can never forget that. Imagine having a medication you need to live being thrown away simply because someone took too long to get it to you. Your life quite literally in a trash can. Organs are no different. They too have shelf lives and they are measured in hours. Discarded organs and transportation errors may sound abstract, but let me make this negligence real for you. In 2014, I received a kidney that arrived frozen, it was an ice cube you could put in your drink. The intended recipient was sensitized, meaning difficult to match. The only thing we could do was tell the waiting patient that due to the lack of transportation safeguard, the kidney had to be thrown in the trash, the final generous act of a donor in Maryland. In 2017, I received a kidney that arrived in a box that appeared to have tire marks on it. The box was squished and the container inside had been ruptured. We were lucky and were able to salvage the kidney for transplant. But why should luck even play a role? 1:12:45 Dr. Jayme Locke: In one week, I received four kidneys from four different OPOs, each with basic errors that led to the need to throw away those life saving organs. One due to a botched kidney biopsy into the kidneys collecting system, another because of a lower pole artery that had been cut during procurement that could have been fixed if someone involved had assessed the kidney for damage and flushed it before packing, but that didn't happen. Two others arrived to me blue, meaning they hadn't been flushed either. 1:13:15 Dr. Jayme Locke: Opacity at UNOS means that we have no idea how often basic mistakes happen across the country, nor can we have any confidence that anything is being done to redress such errors so they don't keep happening. 1:13:40 Dr. Jayme Locke: Women who have been pregnant, especially multiple times, are harder to match, contributing to both gender and racial disparities in access to transplant. This is a very real example of how a constrained pool of organs and high discards disproportionately hurt women and women of color, who are more likely to have multiple pregnancies. 1:14:25 Dr. Jayme Locke: Number one, immediately separate the OPTN board from any of the boards of any contractors. Number two, bring in real experts to ensure our patients are served by the best of the best in each field, separating out key functions of the OPTN, including policy, technology, and logistics. And number three, ensure that patients are safer by holding all contractors accountable through public adverse event reporting and immediate redressing of problems. 1:22:00 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): The system doesn't seem to be fair to racial minorities or people living in rural communities. So what are your efforts underway to understand the root causes and help make the system fairer to patients on the waiting list to explain the factors that result in the disparity for minorities in rural populations in the process? And how can the federal government address a problem if we have to be involved in addressing it? Dr. Jayme Locke: One of the most important things that we don't currently do is we don't actually account for disease burden in terms of examining our waiting lists. So we have no way of knowing if we're actually serving the correct people, if the correct people are actually making it to the waiting list. Disease burden is super important because it not only identifies the individuals who are in need of transplantation, but it also speaks to supply. So areas with high rates of end stage kidney disease burden, like the southeastern United States are going to have much lower supply. And those waiting lists predominantly consist of African American or Black individuals. So if you want to make a truly equitable organ system, you have to essentially get more organs to those areas where there are higher disease burdens. I think the other thing is that we have to have more focus on how we approach donor families and make sure that we have cultural competence as a part of our OPOs, and how they approach families to ensure that we're not marginalizing minority families with regard to the organ donation process. 1:30:00 Brian Shepard: The OPTN IT system that UNOS operates has 99.99% uptime. It is a highly reliable system. We are audited annually by HRSA.... Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): My information shows it's had 17 days down since I think 1999. That's not correct? Brian Shepard: In 23 years, yes, sir. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): Okay, well, every day there's a loss of life, isn't it? Brian Shepard: That's the total amount of time over the couse of -- Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): I hope our national event system isn't down 17 days a year. Brian Shepard: The system has never been down for a day. And to my knowledge, and I have not been at UNOS since 1999, there's been maybe one event that was longer than an hour, and that was three hours. But the total amount of time since 1999 -- Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): So you're satisfied with your technology? You think you have the right technology? You're satisfied with your tracking systems now? You think everything is okay? Brian Shepard: We constantly improve our technology. We're subjected to 3 million attempts a day to hack into the patient database and we successfully repelled them all. So we are never satisfied with our technology, but we do maintain 99.99% uptime. We disagree with the USDS analysis of our systems. 1:37:25 Brian Shepard: If you're asking whether UNOS can prevent an OPO from operating or for being an OPO -- Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH: Well not prevent them, but require them to do something .You don't have the ability to require them...? Brian Shepard: The peer review process has significant persuasive authority, but all the payment authority and all the certification and decertification authority live at CMS. 1:39:00 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH: Do you think there should be tracking of organs in transit? Brian Shepard: I think that's a very beneficial thing. UNOS provides an optional service that a quarter of OPOs use. Many OPOs also use other commercially available trackers to do that. There is not a single requirement to use a particular system. 1:41:55 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Mr. Shepherd, you are the CEO of UNOS. We have documented these problems and you've received more than 1000 complaints in the last decade alone. So tell me, in the 36 years that UNOS has had the contract to run our national organ system, how many times has UNOS declared its OPO Members, any OPO members, not in good standing. Brian Shepard: Two times, Senator. 1:43:20 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): How many times has UNOS put an OPO on probation? Brian Shepard: I don't know that number off the top of my head, but it's not a large number. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): It's not large, in fact it's three. 1:45:20 Brian Shepard: Approximately 10% of the budget of this contract is taxpayer funded. The rest of that is paid by hospitals when they list patients. 1:49:30 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): Once an OPO is designated not in good standing, Senator Warren referred to this as toothless. It does seem toothless to me. I'll give you an opportunity, Mr. Shepherd, to disabuse me of that notion and indicate for me what penalties or sanctions are actually placed on an OPO when they are designated not in good standing. Brian Shepard: The statute does not give UNOS any authority to offer sanctions like that. The certification, decertification, payment authorities belong entirely to CMS. UNOS's statute doesn't give us the ability -- Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): So it is toothless in that sense. Brian Shepard: It is designed to be, by regulation and contract, a quality improvement process, in contrast to the oversight process operated by a federal agency. 1:51:15 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): To what extent is UNOS currently tracking the status of all the organs in transit at any given time? Brian Shepard: UNOS does not coordinate transportation or track organs in transit. We do provide a service that OPOs can use to use GPS trackers. Some of the OPOs use ours and some use other commercially available products. Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): So why is it, and how does UNOS plan to optimize organ delivery if you don't have 100% visibility into where they are at any given time? Brian Shepard: I think that the GPS products that we offer and that other people offer are valuable, they do help in the delivery of kidneys. Only kidneys travel unaccompanied, so this is a kidney issue. But I do think that GPS trackers are valuable and I think that's why you've seen more and more OPOs use them. 1:52:50 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Mr. Shepherd has said twice, with respect to this whole question of the power to decertify an OPO, that CMS has the power to do it. UNOS also has the power to refer an OPO for decertification under the OPTN final rule. That has been done exactly once. So I just wanted it understood with respect to making sure the committee has got what's really going on with respect to decertifying OPOs. 2:00:15 Dr. Jayme Locke: Obviously people have described that we have about a 25% kidney discard, so one in four. So if you look at numbers last year, these are rough numbers, but that'd be about 8000 kidneys. And really, I think, in some ways, these are kind of a victim of an entrenched and cumbersome allocation algorithms that are very ordinal, you have to go sort of in order, when data clearly have shown that introduction of multiple simultaneous expiring offers would result in more efficient placement of kidneys and this would decrease our cold ischemia time. 2:00:50 Dr. Jayme Locke: So if you take UNOS's organ center, they have a very rigid system, for example, for finding flights and lack either an ability or interest in thinking outside the box. So, for example, if there are no direct flights from California to Birmingham, Alabama, instead of looking for a flight from San Francisco to Atlanta, understanding that a courier could then pick it up in Atlanta and drive it the two hours, they'll instead put on a flight from SFO to Atlanta and allow it to go to cargo hold overnight, where it literally is rotting, if you will, and we're putting extra time on it. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Just to make sure everybody gets this. You're saying you've seen instances of something being put in cargo hold when it is very likely to rot? Dr. Jayme Locke: That is correct. So if the kidney arrives after 10pm at the Atlanta airport, it goes to cargo hold. We discovered that and made calls to the airlines ourselves and after several calls to the airlines, of course they were mortified, not understanding that that was what was happening and actually had their manager meet our courier and we were able to get the kidney out of cargo hold, but this went on before we figured out what was happening because essentially they fly it in, it sits in cargo hold, it comes out the next morning to catch the next flight. Instead of thinking outside the box: if we just get it to Atlanta, it's drivable to Birmingham. And those hours make a difference. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): That sounds way too logical for what UNOS has been up to. 2:03:05 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Miss Brockmeier, UNOS has developed this organ tracking system. Do you all use it? I'm curious what you think of it. Diane Brockmeier: Thank you for the question, Senator. We did use and participate in the beta pilot through UNOS and made the decision to not move forward using their product, and have sought a commercial alternative. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): And why was that? Diane Brockmeier: Part of the issues were some service related issues, the lack of the interconnectivity that we wanted to be able to facilitate a more expedited visual tracking of where the organ was. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Was the tracking technology low quality? Diane Brockmeier: Yes, sir. 2:11:25 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): All right, let's talk for a moment about the boards that are supposed to be overseeing these, because it looks to me like there's a serious conflict of interest here and I'll send this to Ms. Brockmeier, and perhaps you'd like to get to it as well, Mr. Friedman. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which is the formal title of the organ network that operates under federal contract administered by HHS, and UNOS, which is the contractor that operates the network and controls information about the network, have the same boards of directors, despite efforts by the government to separate them. That means the people who look out for the best interests of UNOS, the multimillion dollar nonprofit, are the same people who look out for the interests of the entire organ transplant network. Sure sounds like a conflict to me. 2:12:55 Diane Brockmeier: I think there should be an independent board. I think the division of the responsibilities of the board and by the inherent way that they're structured, do pose conflicts. It would be like if you had an organization that was a supporting organization, you'd want to hold it accountable for its performance. And the current structure really limits that opportunity. 2:19:50 Dr. Jayme Locke: And if you think about IT, something as simple as having a system where we can more easily put in unacceptable antigens, this was a debate for many years. So for context, we list unacceptable antigens in the system that allows us to better match kidneys so that when someone comes up on the match run, we have a high probability that there'll be a good tissue match. Well, that took forever and we couldn't really get our unacceptable antigens in, so routinely people get offered kidneys that aren't going to be a match, and you have to get through all of those before you can get to the person that they really should go to. Those are simple examples. But if we could really have transparency and accountability around those kinds of things, we could save more lives. 2:23:10 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Mr. Shepherd told Senator Warren that only 10% of UNOS funds come from taxpayer money and the rest comes from fees paid by transplant centers who add patients to the list. But the fact is, Medicare is the largest payer of the fees, for example, for kidneys. So we're talking about inefficiency, inefficiency that puts patients at risk. And certainly, taxpayer dollars are used to cover some of these practices. May 4, 2021 House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy Witnesses: Tonya Ingram, Patient Waiting for a Transplant Dr. Dara Kass, Living Donor and Mother of Transplant Recipient LaQuayia Goldring, Patient Waiting for a Transplant Steve Miller, CEO, Association for Organ Procurement Organizations Joe Ferreira, President, Association for Organ Procurement Organizations Matt Wadsworth, President and CEO, Life Connection of Ohio Dr. Seth Karp, Director, Vanderbilt Transplant Center Donna Cryer, President and CEO, Global Liver Institute Clips 5:15 Tonya Ingram: The Organ Procurement Organization that serves Los Angeles, where I live, is failing according to the federal government. In fact, it's one of the worst in the country. One analysis showed it only recovered 31% of potential organ donors. Audits in previous years found that LA's OPO has misspent taxpayer dollars on retreats to five star hotels and Rose Bowl tickets. The CEO makes more than $900,000. Even still, the LA OPO has not lost its government contract and it has five more years to go. 30:00 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Unusual among Medicare programs, their costs are 100% reimbursed, even costs unrelated to care. So, extravagant executive compensation and luxury perks may be passed off onto the taxpayer. 46:55 Dr. Seth Karp: We have 10 hours to get a liver from the donor to the recipient, and about one hour to sew it in. For heart, we have about six hours. Time matters. 47:55 Dr. Seth Karp: Last year, I had the opportunity to co-write a viewpoint in one of the journals of the American Medical Association with TJ Patel, former Chief Data Scientist of the United States. In that article, we provided evidence that the metrics used to judge the performance of organ procurement organizations are basically useless. Until the recent OPO Final Rule, performance was self-reported, and OPO employees admitted to having gamed the system. When threatened with decertification, one of the OPOs themselves successfully argued that because the performance data were self reported and unaudited, they failed to meet a reasonable standard and the OPO should not be held accountable. In other words for decades, the metrics supposed to measure performance didn't measure performance, and the results have been disastrous, as you have heard. 49:45 Dr. Seth Karp: Whenever I, and quite frankly most everyone else in the field, gives a talk on transplantation, we usually make two points. The first is that organ transplantation is a miracle of modern medicine. The second is the tragedy that there are not enough organs for everyone who needs one. I no longer use the second point, because I don't believe it. Based on my work, I believe that there are enough organs for patients who require hearts, lungs, and probably livers, and we can make a huge improvement in the number of kidneys available. In addition to improving OPO performance, new technologies already exist to dramatically increase the organ supply. We need a structure to drive rapid improvement in our system. 54:00 Joe Ferreira: One common misconception is that OPOs are solely responsible for the entire donation and transplantation system, when, in fact, OPOs are the intermediary entity and their success is highly dependent on collaborations with hospitals and transplant programs. At the start of the donation process, hospitals are responsible for notifying any OPO in a timely manner when a patient is on a ventilator and meets medical criteria to be an organ donor. Additionally, transplant centers must make the decision whether to accept or decline the organs offered by OPOs. 57:55 Matt Wadsworth: As geographic monopolies, OPOs are not subject to any competitive pressure to provide high service. As the only major program in all of health care 100% reimbursed for all costs, we do not face financial pressures to allocate resources intelligently. 1:02:10 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Mr. Ferreira, I'd like to turn to you. You run the OPO called the Nevada Donor Network. I have your OPO's 2019 financial statement filed with the CMS. It appears that your OPO spent roughly $6 million in 2019 on administrative and general expenses. Interestingly, in 2019, I see your OPO spent approximately $146,000 on travel meetings and seminars alone. And your itemization of Administrative and General has an interesting line item for $576,000 for "ANG". It took me a minute but that means you have an "Administrative and General" subcategory in your "Administrative and General" category. Very vague. Now Mr. Ferreira, I was informed by Mr. Wadsworth, a former executive of yours at the Nevada Donor Network, that your OPO has season tickets to the NHL's Las Vegas Golden Knights, isn't that correct? Joe Ferreira: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And you also have season tickets to the Las Vegas Raiders too, right? Joe Ferreira: That is correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And according to Mr. Wadsworth and others, your OPO took a board retreat to Napa Valley in 2018. Joe Ferreira: That is correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And Sonoma in 2019, right? Joe Ferreira: That is correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Mr. Ferreira, what you're spending on the Raiders, the Golden Knights, Napa Valley and Sonoma have one thing in common: they have nothing to do with recovering organs. 1:10:30 Dr. Seth Karp: In 2019, there were six heart transplants that were performed using donors after circulatory determination of death. And I don't want to get into the technical aspects of that. But in 2019, that number was six. In 2020, that number was 126. This is a new technology. This is a way that we can increase the number of heart transplants done in United States dramatically. And if we think that there were 500 patients in the United States waiting for a heart in 2020, 500 patients that either died or were delisted because they were too sick, and you think in one year, using a technology, we got another 100 transplants, if we could get another 500 transplants out of that technology, we could almost eliminate deaths on the on the heart transplant waiting list. That technology exists. It exists today. But we don't have a mechanism for getting it out to everybody that could use it and it's going to run itself through the system, it's going to take too much time. 1:24:05 Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): You know, I'm a little disappointed that we're discussing race as a factor in organ transplant. We're all one race in my opinion; color makes no difference to me. We're the human race. And to me, the interjection of race into this discussion is very concerning. Discrimination based on race was outlawed almost 60 years ago through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, I'm not a medical doctor, and I have very little knowledge of medicine. But last year, there was an article that came out in LifeSource and it says, "Does my race and ethnicity matter in organ donation?" And so my question here is for Dr. Karp. In your experience, would you agree that a donor's organs are more likely to be a clinical match for a recipient of the same ethnicity? Could you comment on that? Is that actually a factor, or not? I mean, we're all human beings, we all, you know, have similar bodies. Dr. Seth Karp: Yes. So there definitely are certain HLA types that are more common. That is race-based. So the answer to that question is yes. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): Okay. All right. And so if you have more of one particular race, more donations of one particular race, then naturally you would have more actual matches of that particular race. Is that correct? Dr. Seth Karp: That would tend to be the case. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): Okay. All right. All right. Okay, that's just a question that I wanted to clear up here. 1:34:20 Donna Cryer: We'd like to see investments in languages that are spoken by the community. Educational resources should be, as required by law, for those with limited English proficiency. They should be in the languages spoken by the community. They should be hiring diverse staff to have those most crucial conversations with families. The data shows, and certainly experience and common sense shows as well, that having people of color approaching families of color results in more donations. Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance
Today I am honored to be joined by someone who is frequently cited on this channel, someone whose work in Academia, truly one of the last ones, I admire immensely. Dr. Carol Swain, professor of Politics and Law at Vanderbilt University, award-winning political scientist cited multiple times by the Supreme Court, renowned commentator on the ongoing battle to roll back the overreaches of the late civil rights movement, and now the author of a new book on the end of affirmative action called “The Adversity of Diversity”. Highlights: “Academia has taken notice of conservative ideas and thought, they're willing to give us another look. And I believe that we're going to see some shifting and transformation on college and university campuses because they are far more receptive.” - Dr. Carol Swain “I saw the shaming and bullying of young white children and that broke my heart because I care about all children and this is America and no one should be shamed or bullied. And so critical race theory became my fashion.” - Dr. Carol Swain “What I believe I benefitted from the most was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended discrimination on the basis of race.” - Dr. Carol Swain “We can have diversity without discrimination.” - Dr. Carol Swain Timestamps: [00:49] Dr. Carol Swain's background and her first PragerU video [05:32] Why Trump's mugshot seemed to resonate with a lot of Black voters [07:24] Why Dr. Carol believe we're in the midst of a political realignment [10:12] On CRT and the importance of the message of her latest book “The Adversity of Diversity” [18:38] Dr. Carol's first book “The New White Nationalism in America” [26:00] Why it's important to know our Civil Rights law and how we can have healing and unity in diversity in a post-affirmative action world Resources: Get “The Adversity of Diversity” and Dr. Carol Swain's other renowned works HERE: http://www.carolmswain.com/ Nature's Morphine? Dr. Turley and scientist Clint Winters discuss the incredible pain relief effects of 100% Drug-Free Conolidine. This changes pain relief… https://www.bh3ktrk.com/2DDD1J/2CTPL/?source_id=PC&sub1=91423 The Courageous Patriot Community is inviting YOU! Join the movement now and build the parallel economy at https://join.turleytalks.com/insiders-club=podcast Learn how to protect your life savings from inflation and an irresponsible government, with Gold and Silver. Go to https://www.gcjdjhs3e.com/TurleyTalks_digital_dollar=Podcast Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review. Sick and tired of Big Tech, censorship, and endless propaganda? Join my Insiders Club with a FREE TRIAL today at: https://insidersclub.turleytalks.com Make sure to FOLLOW me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks BOLDLY stand up for TRUTH in Turley Merch! Browse our new designs right now at: https://store.turleytalks.com/ Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture! If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts.
On Saturday September 7th, 1957 Marilyn Van Derbur was crowned 1958's Miss America in Atlantic City. She was a twenty-year old Phi Beta Kappa scholar at the University of Colorado, She later moved to New York City, becoming the TV spokeswoman for AT&T's Bell Telephone Hour and hosted ten episodes of Candid Camera, as well as five Miss America Pageants. In 1975 she established the Marilyn Van Derbur Motivational Institute. When she was fifty three, she revealed herself to be the victim of incestual abuse from her father. Her story was featured on the cover of People magazine on June 10th, 1991. She and her husband angel invested an adult incest survivor program at The Kempe Center, and she founded the Survivors United Network. On Monday September 9th President Eisenhower signed The Civil Rights Act of 1957. The law was the first civil rights legislation since 1875. Deep south Democrat leaders were resisting desegregation. In this midst, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill designed to provide federal protection for African American voting rights against state and local law. The law also established a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. That day, the Hattie Cotton Elementary School in Nashville, Tennessee admitted one African American student, Patricia Watson. She was six years old. Shortly after midnight on September 10th, dynamite was set off at the east end of the school's entrance hall. It tore down walls and knocked out every window, forcing the school to close for nine days. When it reopened, Patricia's mother had her transferred to an all-black school. The act was condemned by Nashville Police Chief Douglass E. Hosse who offered a seven-thousand dollar cash reward for any information. Six suspects were detained, but no one was ever charged. Biography in Sound began when NBC newsman Joseph O. Meyers was assigned to produce a documentary on Winston Churchill for his eightieth birthday on November 30th, 1954. He felt blending actualities of the subject's voice with recollections of his friends, associates, and antagonists could prove successful. A vast resource was available at NBC. Meyers had been building a tape library of interview clips since 1949. In five years, more than one-hundred-fifty-thousand historic statements had been recorded and indexed. In addition, Meyers had Bennett Cerf tell Churchill anecdotes. Laurence Olivier and Lynn Fontanne read from British poetry, and sound effects and music were added for drama. Meyers' finished product was cheered around the industry. “He had done the impossible,” said Radio Life, “turning people's attention once more to radio.” The clamor for another show was immediate and loud. A month later, Meyers answered with a piece on Ernest Hemingway, again to great acclaim. A biography of Gertrude Lawrence followed in another month, and in February it was decided to run the series weekly. On Tuesday September 10th, 1957 at 9:05PM eastern time, Biography In Sound: Danny Kaye took to the air over NBC.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines environmental justice as: “The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” It says “fair treatment” means that no population bears a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or from the execution of federal, state, and local laws; regulations; and policies. “Meaningful involvement,” meanwhile, “requires effective access to decision makers for all, and the ability in all communities to make informed decisions and take positive actions to produce environmental justice for themselves,” according to the DOE. Environmental justice (EJ) has become a very important consideration when it comes to siting and/or expanding energy projects, including power plants. While many people associated with the power industry tend to focus on the benefits provided to communities when a project is developed, such as well-paying jobs and an increase in the tax base, people in the affected community may have a different view. They may be more focused on the negative effects, which could include an increase in harmful emissions, water usage, and heavy-haul traffic. “Communities are weighing the pros and cons of having industry there—having a job creator—and that, of course, generating additional economic activity. On the flip side, there are actual or perceived environmental or health issues,” Erich Almonte, a senior associate with King and Spalding, said as a guest on The POWER Podcast. King and Spalding is a full-service law firm with more than 1,300 lawyers and 23 offices globally, including a large team focused on energy-related matters. “It's important to note that there really isn't any ‘Environmental Justice Law.' What we have instead are a use of current statutes and regulations that were perhaps designed for something else to try to achieve environmental justice ends,” Almonte said. The impact EJ could have on a project is quite substantial. “A company could meet all of its environmental permitting requirements, but still have a permit denied, if there were disparate impacts that weren't mitigated properly, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” Almonte explained. “This came out in a guidance document in April 2022, and since, it's featured a couple of times in subsequent guidance documents that the administration has put out,” he added. While Almonte said he wasn't aware of a permit being denied in that fashion to date, it's a major consideration for companies when planning projects. Another potential show-stopper could be trigger through Section 303 of the Clean Air Act. This section provides “emergency powers” to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “When there's an environmental threat that poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public, or to the environmental welfare, then EPA can essentially stop that activity or file a lawsuit against it,” Almonte explained. “This is true even if the activity that's causing the supposed endangerment is allowed by the permit.” According to Almonte, the EPA has only used this authority 14 times in the past five decades, but four of those occurrences have been in the past two years. This suggests it could become a regular tool used by the administration to achieve its EJ goals.
In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Julie Jordan, Tracy Richelle High and Annie Ostrager, Co-Heads of S&C's Labor and Employment Group, discuss the Supreme Court's decision in two consolidated cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The Court held that the schools' admissions programs—both of which used race as an explicit factor in admissions decisions—violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in education. Julie, Tracy and Annie examine pending employment and contracting cases that may be affected by the Court's decision, cover related shareholder proposals and offer guidance for employers, including reviewing hiring and promotion processes and procedures to examine whether any decisions are expressly based on race, gender or other protected classes.
Efforts to achieve “environmental justice” have been a top priority of the Biden Administration and its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As stated in the EPA's FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, “EPA will center its mission on the integration of justice, equity, and civil rights across the nation's environmental protection enterprise,” (27). Accordingly, the EPA has invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in some of its environmental emissions investigations even where the situation appears compliant with applicable environmental laws. One such investigation recently occurred in Louisiana where the EPA found “significant evidence” of disparate adverse impacts on Black residents of St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, and an Industrial Corridor in the area. These disparate impacts were alleged to be the result of poor air quality despite the fact that the EPA had deemed the relevant emissions compliant with applicable laws shortly before opening their civil rights investigation. In May 2023, the Louisiana Attorney General filed suit against the EPA, arguing that EPA lacked authority to impose disparate-impact based mandates under Title VI and that the agency had unconstitutionally delegated power to special interest groups to direct how EPA conducted investigations. Shortly after the State sought a preliminary injunction, the EPA abruptly abandoned its pending investigations, although it continues to adhere to its Title VI disparate-impact regulations generally. Briefing is ongoing and a hearing has been set for January 9, 2024. Click here to view the complaint.Drew Ensign served as Special Assistant Solicitor General and Counsel to the State of Louisiana during this matter. Please join us as he delivers a Litigation Update on the case.
Unlock the truth behind the left-wing notions of CRT, DEI, and more with our esteemed guest, Dr Carol Swain, in an insightful discussion. As an influential conservative voice and PragerU contributor, Dr Swain brings a fresh perspective to the debate surrounding the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action and the ensuing backlash from the left. Be ready to engage in a comprehensive exploration of her new book, The Adversity of Diversity.Our dialogue with Dr Swain doesn't stop there; we move past the surface and delve into the essence of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, casting the spotlight on nondiscrimination and equal opportunity. Dr Swain presents a compelling argument against the left's pursuit of equal outcomes, advocating for equal opportunities instead. She highlights the potential harm in lowering standards for minorities.We examine the significance of unity in society. We bring into focus the alarming spread of progressive racism. Underlining the dangers of disregarding a biblical foundation, Dr Swain demonstrates the potential for the proliferation of detrimental philosophies.Lastly, get ready to delve deeper into the Constitution Day celebration and the importance of physical and constitutional defense in Fredericksburg, Texas, at Patriot Academy. Join us in standing against the wrong and curbing the propagation of harmful and woke ideologies.Support the show
The Justices have beenoff on their European vacations for a couple of months but we're still cranking out episodes breaking down last Term. We start off by discussion Will and Michael Stokes Paulsen's SSRN-breaking article arguing that Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We then break down a couple of shadow-docket happenings involving "ghost guns" and the Purdue bankruptcy. We then finally clear our backlog of June cases by discussing two last opinions: Coinbase v. Bielski, which involves the intersection of arbitration and appellate jurisdiction, and Groff v. DeJoy, which importantly clarified employers' obligations to provide religious accommodations to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Department of Homeland Security reportedly tracks the number of illegal immigrants allowed into the US after encounters with authorities at the border, but hides the data because it's “problematic” for the Biden administration. 5) Hurricane Idalia makes landfall in Florida; 4) DHS hiding number of illegal migrants released into US; 3) Economist who correctly predicted last two global real estate crashes says next one is due in 2026; 2) Tribal rangers in Nevada break up climate protest outside Burning Man; 1) Joe Biden falsely claims he “literally” talked the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) into voting for 1964 Civil Rights Act. FOLLOW US! T