Podcasts about civil rights commission

Carol M. Swain PHD: Born into abject poverty in rural southwest Virginia, Dr. Carol Swain, a high school dropout, went on to earn five degrees. Holding a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an M.S.L. from Yale, she also earned early tenure at Princeton and full professorship at Vanderbilt where she was professor of political science and a professor of law. Today she is a sought-after cable news contributor, a best-selling author, a prominent national speaker, and an entrepreneur.In addition to having three Presidential appointments, Dr. Swain is a former Distinguished Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies with the Texas Public Policy Foundation who has also served on the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the 1776 Commission.Currently, she is a Senior Fellow with the Institute for Faith and Culture. An award-winning political scientist, cited three times by the U.S. Supreme Court, she has authored or edited 12 published books including the bestseller, Black Eye for America: How Critical Race Theory is Burning Down the House, Countercultural Living: What Jesus Has to Say About Life, Marriage, Race, Gender, and Materialism and the Adversity of Diversity: How the Supreme Court's Decision to Remove Race from College Admissions Criteria will Doom Diversity ProgramsDr. Swain is an expert on civil rights laws, critical race theory, American politics, evangelicalism, and race relations. Her television appearances include BBC Radio and TV, CSPAN, ABC's Headline News, CBS, CNN, Fox News, Newsmax and more.In addition, she has published opinion pieces in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Epoch Times, the Financial Times, and USA Today.She is the founder and CEO of Carol Swain Enterprises, REAL Unity Training Solutions, Your Life Story for Descendants, and her non-profit, Be the People.Support the showFor more Informed Dissent visit our website at Informed Dissent Media Follow us on Social media @InformedDissentMedia

Carol M. Swain PHD: Born into abject poverty in rural southwest Virginia, Dr. Carol Swain, a high school dropout, went on to earn five degrees. Holding a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an M.S.L. from Yale, she also earned early tenure at Princeton and full professorship at Vanderbilt where she was professor of political science and a professor of law. Today she is a sought-after cable news contributor, a best-selling author, a prominent national speaker, and an entrepreneur.In addition to having three Presidential appointments, Dr. Swain is a former Distinguished Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies with the Texas Public Policy Foundation who has also served on the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the 1776 Commission.Currently, she is a Senior Fellow with the Institute for Faith and Culture. An award-winning political scientist, cited three times by the U.S. Supreme Court, she has authored or edited 12 published books including the bestseller, Black Eye for America: How Critical Race Theory is Burning Down the House, Countercultural Living: What Jesus Has to Say About Life, Marriage, Race, Gender, and Materialism and the Adversity of Diversity: How the Supreme Court's Decision to Remove Race from College Admissions Criteria will Doom Diversity ProgramsDr. Swain is an expert on civil rights laws, critical race theory, American politics, evangelicalism, and race relations. Her television appearances include BBC Radio and TV, CSPAN, ABC's Headline News, CBS, CNN, Fox News, Newsmax and more.In addition, she has published opinion pieces in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Epoch Times, the Financial Times, and USA Today.She is the founder and CEO of Carol Swain Enterprises, REAL Unity Training Solutions, Your Life Story for Descendants, and her non-profit, Be the People.Support the showFor more Informed Dissent visit our website at Informed Dissent Media Follow us on Social media @InformedDissentMedia

WMAL GUEST: 7:05 AM - INTERVIEW - J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS - is a former Commissioner on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, former DOJ Attorney and currently the President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/PILFoundation SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/ElectionLawCtr Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, and @heatherhunterdc.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 / 7 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the 7 AM Hour: Larry O'Connor and Julie Gunlock discussed: WMAL GUEST: 7:05 AM - INTERVIEW - J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS - is a former Commissioner on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, former DOJ Attorney and currently the President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/PILFoundation SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/ElectionLawCtr Discussed President Trump winning the election Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, and @heatherhunterdc.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 / 7 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

J. Christian Adams is the President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a former DOJ attorney, and Commissioner on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. PILF Exposes Deceased Voters on Michigan's Voter Roll. The Foundation's lawsuit alleges Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is violating federal law by failing to remove deceased registrants from the voter roll.

The latest news from home and abroad, with a close eye on Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula in particular

Families opting out of vaccines against common childhood illnesses; Civil Rights Commission outreach to the deaf community; National Book Award for Craig Santos Perez; Holiday memories with Shaka Santa

In this episode, we have the privilege of interviewing Isaac Akerman, a dedicated Committeeman who has served Lakewood Township for the past 13 years. Isaac's tenure since 2011 has solidified his reputation as a respected members of the Committee. Isaac's successful stints as mayor in 2013 and 2015 underscore his commitment to the community, where he consistently places the needs of Lakewood above personal aspirations. With his extensive responsibilities, from budget management to overseeing the Civil Rights Commission, Isaac's impact on the township is undeniable. Join us as we delve into his remarkable journey and the role he plays in shaping Lakewood's future.SEASON SPONSORCensible Marketing - Maximizing Your Census!(347) 777-0944Info@censiblemarketing.com —————————————————Podcast Hotline: 732.506.2600 Thank you for subscribing to Our Town! Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/our-town/id1661853310Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/26jkl3pgksq6PBuGBY2E9u?si=_3AWWqicQwalRXgBKpt-WwGoogle Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/search/our%20town%20LNNand anywhere else Podcasts are available!To watch any of our episodes as well as to get all the latest Lakewood news: LNNNews.com --For Our Town Podcast sponsorship opportunities--ourtown@lnnnews.comLNN is Lakewood's favorite source for local news and information! Join an official LNN News Group:https://chat.whatsapp.com/IR2pLWROHorD3pMDcRRTYNStatus: https://wa.me/17326083941?text=%20Subscribe

진행자: 최정윤, Beth Eunhee Hong 1.Korea to enforce public release of mugshots, identities of those who commit serious crimes 기사 요약: 중대범죄 피의자의 머그샷을 공개할 수 있도록 하는 ‘머그샷 법'이 국회에 통과됨에 따라 피의자의 최근 사진이 공개됨. [1] South Korea's parliament on Friday passed a bill that will allow law enforcement to release the mugshots of suspects arrested for serious crimes without their consent. *enforcement: (법률 등의) 집행/ 강요하다, 집행하다 *mugshot: 범인 식별용 얼굴 사진 *consent: 동의 [2] The passage of the law will create legal grounds for the disclosure of an alleged offender's photograph as long as the picture is taken within 30 days of the date it is released to the public. *alleged: 혐의를 받는/ 가해자/피해자/살해범으로 추정되는 사람 [3] The Justice Ministry said in a statement that citizens' right to know has long been disregarded because of legal hurdles that required law enforcement to get a suspect's consent before taking their mugshot. The ministry also cited a survey by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission from June to July, where nearly 96 percent of respondents were in favor of enforcing mugshots. *disregard: 무시하다, 무시 [4] The new rule will be promulgated by President Yoon Suk Yeol within 15 days after the passed bill is reported to the government. The law will take effect three months after the promulgation. *promulgate: (사상·신조 등을) 널리 알리다 / (법령·제도를) 반포[공포]하다 *take effect: 효력을 발휘하다/ 시행하다, 적용하다 기사 원문 http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20231006000580 2. US citizens divided over troop mobilization to defend S. Korea in case of N. Korean invasion: poll 기사 요약: 북 침공 시 한국에 미군의 군사 지원에 대한 미국 시민 반응 엇갈려 [1] Half of US citizens favor using American troops to defend South Korea in the event of a North Korean invasion, a recent US poll showed Thursday, underscoring the public polarization over the security issue. *underscore: underline/ 강조하다, 명확히 보여주다 *polarization: 양극화 [2] The Chicago Council on Global Affairs recently released the outcome of the 2023 Chicago Council Survey conducted by Ipsos, a market research firm, from Sept. 7-18. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. *margin: 여백/ 차이 [3] The poll found that 50 percent of those questioned supported the idea of committing US troops to defend South Korea if it was invaded by the North, while 49 percent opposed it. *commit: 저지르다/ 약속하다 [4] In previous surveys conducted in 2020, 2021 and last year, the percentages of those backing the idea were 58 percent, 63 percent and 55 percent, respectively. *back: 지원하다 *respectively: 각각의 기사 원문 http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20231006000099 [코리아헤럴드 팟캐스트 구독] 아이튠즈(아이폰):https://itunes.apple.com/kr/podcast/koliaheleoldeu-paskaeseuteu/id686406253?mt=2 네이버 오디오 클립(아이폰, 안드로이드 겸용): https://audioclip.naver.com/channels/5404 팟빵 (안드로이드): http://www.podbbang.com/ch/6638 위 팟캐스트 에피소드에는 스포티파이의 후원광고를 포함하고 있습니다. 지금 바로 스포티파이 포 팟캐스터에서 팟캐스트를 만들어보세요! http://podcasters.spotify.com

About our GuestsDr. Dave Rose is a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. in Economics in 1987 from the University of Virginia. His primary areas of research interest are behavioral economics, political economy, and organization theory. He has published scholarly articles in a wide range of areas. His work has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Weldon Spring Foundation, the HFL Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, and the John R. Templeton Foundation. He is currently in his second term on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. In 2008 he received the St. Louis Business Journal's Economic Educator of the year award. His book, The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior, was selected one of CHOICE's outstanding titles of 2012. His newest book, Why Culture Matters Most, is also from Oxford University Press. He frequently contributes to policy debates through radio and television interviews as well as in Op-Eds on topics ranging from social security, monetary policy, fiscal policy, judicial philosophy, education reform, healthcare reform, and freedom of speech. Dr. Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became President of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. He previously served for 21 years as President of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan (1987-2008). He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.In May 2019, he retired to the role of President Emeritus at FEE and assumed the titles of Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty. He holds a B.A. in economics from Grove City College (1975) and an M.A. degree in history from Slippery Rock State University (1978), both in Pennsylvania. He holds two honorary doctorates, one from Central Michigan University (public administration, 1993) and Northwood University (laws, 2008).Show NotesDr. Rose and Dr. Reed join Adrienne and Trae to discuss the foundation of a good education in civics and economics: cooperation and trust rooted in moral beliefs and lived out by ethical people in the family and society. We delve into the role of stories in economics class, preserving traditional practices and restoring home economics. For the civics and economics teachers, our guests help us see why preferring old stories to current events is best and why it's not necessarily the classroom teacher's job to show students how to balance their checking accounts.     Some topics in this episode include:The Relationship between Parenting, Culture, Civics, and Economics Framing Economics as Cooperation Self-governance in Classical Education The Family and Home Economics Moral Believes and Trust in the Family and Society The Role of Stories in Moral Education Humane Economics and Traditional Practices Gratitude and Service to Others Prudence and Democracy The Value of Failure How to Avoid “Bumper Sticker Pedagogy” Resources and Books & Mentioned In This EpisodeWhy Culture Matters, David Rose Real Heroes, Lawrence Reed Economics in One Lesson, Henry HazlittBasic Economics, Thomas Sowell Cinderella Man, Ron Howard (Director)The Whistle, Benjamin Franklin Aesop's Fables, Aesop “The Economics of Splitting Wood By Hand,” John Cuddeback A Conflict of Visions, Thomas SowellDr. Reed's Website Passion's Within Reason,  Robert H. Frank The Memory Book, Harry Lorayne and Jerry LucasFavorite Books and Quotes Dr. Rose's book that he wishes he had read sooner:A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell  Dr. Reed's favorite quote (corrected): “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” - David Hayek_________________________________OUR MISSIONWe exist for the benefit of both parents and teachers who are seeking to understand classical education. Teaching is an art and teachers need opportunities to cultivate their craft. Parents need to feel confident that their children are receiving the best education possible. Therefore, our goals are to help parents make well-informed decisions about the education of their children, and to help teachers experience true joy in their vocation. We help bridge gaps that currently exists between many classical schools and the parents who send their students to these schools. We guide teachers and parents on the path of a beautiful education. We help teachers delight in their sacred work. We help parents understand that a good education should fill students with wonder and delight! Join in the conversation of discovering the joy and beauty of a well-ordered education. https://www.beautifulteaching.com/OUR SERVICESIf you like our podcast, you will love our online sessions!Meet our Team of Master Teachers: https://www.beautifulteaching.com/aboutWe offer immersion sessions so you can experience classical pedagogy. A complete listing of our courses is at  https://beautifulteaching.coursestorm.com/_________________________________________________________Credits:Sound Engineer: Andrew HelselLogo Art: Anastasiya CFMusic: Vivaldi's Concerto for 2 Violins in B flat major, RV529 : Lana Trotovsek, violin Sreten Krstic, violin with Chamber Orchestra of Slovenian Philharmonic © 2023 Beautiful Teaching LLC. All Rights Reserved ★ Support this podcast ★

Cleveland's Bob Frantz fills in for Dr. G.Support the show: https://www.sebgorka.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest: Dahye Jung, Reporter1. Within the PPP, pro-윤석열 lawmakers are attempting to expand the ratio of votes of the party members in the upcoming party convention2. The Justice Ministry submitted a motion to allow the prosecution to arrest a DP lawmakers, 노웅래3. Former Justice Minister 조국's daughter, 조민 submitted a motion to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and it was dismissed.4. South Korea's 27th nuclear power plant, 신한울 No. 1 reactor, launched full-scale operations5. A meeting to review the national agenda will be held in the form of “dialogue with the people”6. Heavy snowfall is being expected1. 與 전대 룰 '100% 당원투표' 무게…"성탄 전 룰 개정 완료 목표"2. 법무부, ‘뇌물수수 혐의' 노웅래 체포동의안 국회 제출3. 권익위, 조국 前 장관 딸 '부산대 입학취소 부당' 행정심판 기각4. '100% 국산' 신한울 1호기 가동…尹 "각국에 침 마르게 자랑"5. 내일 국정과제 점검회의 주제는 '경제 민생 · 지방 시대 · 3대 개혁'6. 중부지방 '대설'…경기동부·충북북부 최대 10㎝ 이상See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Mike Hoa Nguyen, assistant professor of education, faculty affiliate at the Institute for Human Development and Social Change, and faculty affiliate at the Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools at New York University, leads the conversation on affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, Vice President of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Mike Hoa Nguyen with us to discuss affirmative action. Dr. Nguyen is assistant professor of education at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. He's also a faculty affiliate at NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools and a faculty affiliate at NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. Additionally, Dr. Nguyen is a principal investigator of the Minority Serving Institutions Data Project. And prior to coming to NYU he was at the University of Denver. He has extensive professional experience in the federal government and has managed multiple complex, long-term intergovernmental projects and initiatives, focusing on postsecondary education and the judiciary and has published his work widely, including in Educational Researcher, The Journal of Higher Education, and The Review of Higher Education. So Mike, thanks very much for being with us today to talk about affirmative action. Could you give us an overview of where we are, the history of affirmative action, where we are now, and examples of criteria that are used by different institutions? NGUYEN: Well, hello. And thank you so much, Irina. And also thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations for having me here today. It's a real honor. And thank you to many of you who are joining us today out of your busy schedules. I'm sure that many of you have been following the news for Harvard and UNC. And, of course, those cases were just heard at the Supreme Court about a month ago, on Halloween. And so today thank you for those questions. I'd love to be able to spend a little bit of time talking about the history of sort of what led us to this point. I also recognize that many joining us are also experts on this topic. So I really look forward to the conversation after my initial remarks. And so affirmative action, I think, as Philip Rubio has written, comes from centuries-old English legal concept of equity, right, or the administration of justice according to what is fair in a particular situation, as opposed to rigidly following a set of rules. It's defined by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1977 as a term that is a broad—a term, in a broad sense, that encompasses any measure beyond a simple termination of discriminatory practice adopted to correct for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future. Academics have defined affirmative action simply as something more than passive nondiscrimination, right. It means various organizations must act positively, affirmatively, and aggressively to remove all barriers, however informal or subtle, that prevent access by minorities and women to their rightful places in the employment and educational institutions of the United States. And certainly one of the earliest appearances of this term, affirmative action, in government documents came when President Kennedy, in his 1961 executive order, where he wrote that the mandate stated that government contractors, specifically those that were receiving federal dollars to, quote, take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated during employment without regard of their race, creed, color, or national origin. Certainly President Kennedy created a committee on equal employment opportunity to make recommendations for this. And then later on President Johnson later expressed—I'm sorry—expanded on President Kennedy's approach to take a sort of more active antiracist posture, which he signaled in a commencement speech at Howard University. In the decades following, of course, political-legal attacks have rolled back on how affirmative action can be implemented and for what purposes. So in admissions practices at U.S. colleges and universities today, really they can only consider race as one of many factors through a holistic process or holistic practices if so-called race-neutral approaches to admissions policies have fallen short in allowing for a campus to enroll a racially diverse class in order to achieve or reap the benefits of diversity, the educational benefits of diversity. Federal case law established by the courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that colleges may only consider race as one of many factors for the purposes of obtaining the educational benefits in diversity. So starting with the Bakke decision in the late 1970s, the Court limited the consideration of race in admissions and replaced the rationale for the use of race, specifically the rationale which was addressing historic and ongoing racism or systemic and racial oppression, instead in favor of the diversity rationale. So, in other words, if a college or university wishes to use race in their admissions, they can only do so with the intention of enhancing the educational benefits of all students. It may not legally use race as a part of their admissions process for the purpose of acknowledging historical or contemporary racism as barriers to equity in college access. If we fast-forward to something more recent, the two cases out of Michigan, the Grutter and Gratz case, what we saw there were really—significant part of the discussions of these two cases were really informed and conversations really about the educational benefits of diversity. That was really a key aspect of those cases. Lawsuits challenging the use of race in college admissions after those two cases now can sort of be traced to Edward Blum, a conservative activist, and his organization, Students for Fair Admission, or SFFA. So Blum has really dedicated his life to establishing what he calls a colorblind American society by filing lawsuits with the goal of dismantling laws and policies seeking to advance racial justice. This includes redistricting, voting rights, and, of course, affirmative action. So in 2000—in the 2000s, he recruited Abigail Fisher to challenge the University of Texas in their admissions program. The Court, the Supreme Court, ultimately ruled in favor of Texas in the second Fisher case—Fisher II, as we call it. And so that's actually where we saw Ed Blum alter his tactics. In this case he established SFFA, where he then purposefully recruited Asian Americans as plaintiffs in order to sue Harvard and UNC. So the cases now at Harvard—are now certainly at the Supreme Court. But one sort of less-known case that hasn't got a whole lot of attention, actually, was—that was sort of on the parallel track, actually originated from the U.S. Department of Justice more recently, during the Trump administration, which launched an investigation into Yale's admissions practices, which also focus on Asian Americans. And this was around 2018, so not too long ago. And certainly Asian Americans have been engaged in affirmative action debate since the 1970s. But these lawsuits have really placed them front and center in sort of our national debate. And so I think it's really important to also note that while empirical research demonstrates and shows that the majority of Asian Americans are actually in support of affirmative action, a very vocal minority of Asian Americans are certainly opposed to race-conscious admissions and are part of these lawsuit efforts. But interestingly enough, they've received a large and disproportionate share of media attention and sort of—I stress this only because I think popular press and media have done a not-so-great job at reporting on this. And their framing, I think, sometimes relies on old stereotypes, harmful stereotypes, about Asian Americans, and written in a way that starts with an assumption that all Asian Americans are opposed to affirmative action when, again, empirical research and national polls show that that's certainly not the case, right, and much more complex than that. But anyway, so back to what I was saying earlier, in sort of the waning months of the Trump administration the Department of Justice used those investigations into Yale to file a lawsuit charging that Yale in its admissions practices discriminates against Asian Americans. This lawsuit, the DOJ lawsuit, was dropped in February of 2021 when President Biden took office. So in response to that, SFFA submitted its own lawsuit to Yale based upon similar lines of reasoning. So I think what's—why bring this up? One, because it doesn't get a lot of attention. But two, I think it's a really interesting and curious example. So in the Yale case, as well as in the previous DOJ complaint, Ed Blum notes specifically that they exclude Cambodian Americans, Hmong Americans, Laotian Americans, and Vietnamese Americans from the lawsuit, and thus from his definition of what and who counts as Asian American. I think this intentional exclusion of specific Southeast Asian American groups in Yale, but including them in Harvard, is a really interesting and curious note. I've written in the past that, sort of at the practical level, it's a bit—it's not a bit—it's a lot misleading. It's manipulative and advances a bit of a false narrative about Asian Americans. And I think it engages in what we call sort of a racial project to overtly reclassify the Asian American racial category, relying again on old stereotypes about Asian American academic achievement. But it also sort of counters state-based racial and ethnic classifications used by the Census Bureau, used by the Department of Education, used by OMB, right. It does not consider how Southeast Asian Americans have been and are racialized, as well as how they've built pan-ethnic Asian American coalitions along within and with other Asian American subgroups. So the implications of this sort of intentional racialized action, I think, are threefold. First, this process, sort of trying to redefine who is Asian American and who isn't, demonstrates that SFFA cannot effectively argue that race-conscious admissions harms Asian Americans. They wouldn't be excluded if that was the case. Second, it illustrates that Ed Blum and his crusade for sort of race—not using race in college admissions is actually really not focused on advancing justice for Asian Americans, as he claims. And then finally, I think that this maneuver, if realized, will really disenfranchise educational access and opportunity for many Asian Americans, including Southeast Asian Americans and other communities of color. Of course, this case hasn't received a lot of attention, given that we just heard from Harvard and UNC at the Supreme Court about a month ago. But I think it provides some really important considerations regarding the upcoming Supreme Court decision. Nonetheless the decision for Harvard and UNC, we're all sort of on pins and needles until we hear about it in spring and summer. And I was there in Washington for it, and so what I'd actually like to do is actually share some interesting notes and items that sort of struck out to me during the oral arguments. So I think in both cases we heard the justices ask many questions regarding the twenty-five-year sunset of using race in college admissions, right, something that Justice O'Connor wrote in the Michigan case. I think the solicitor general, Solicitor General Prelogar's response at the conclusion of the case was really insightful. She said—and I'm sort of paraphrasing here about why we—in addressing some of the questions about that twenty-five-year sunset, she basically said that society hasn't made enough progress yet. The arc of progress is slower than what the Grutter court had imagined. And so we just suddenly don't hit 2028—that's twenty-five years from the decision—and then, snap, race is not used in college admissions anymore. There was also a lot of discussion regarding proxy approaches to so-called race-neutral admissions, right, yet still being able to maintain some or similar levels of racial diversity. I think what we know from a lot of empirical research out there is that there's really no good proxy variables for race. Certainly Texas has its 10 percent plan, which really only works to a certain extent and does not actually work well for, say, private schools that draw students from across all fifty states and the territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. And again, as the solicitor general stated, it doesn't work well for the service academies either, for really similar reasons. I do think the line of questioning from the chief justice again related to what sounded like a carveout exemption for our U.S. military schools, our service academies. What's really interesting, and might be of actually specific interest for the CFR community, of course, our service academies practice affirmative action and are in support of it. And this was also argued in an amicus brief written by retired generals and admirals. And they argued that race-conscious admissions is necessary to build a diverse officer corps at both the service academies as well as ROTC programs at various universities across the country, which, in their words, they say builds a more cohesive, collaborative, and effective fighting unit, especially, quote, given recent international conflicts and humanitarian crises which require our military to perform civil functions and call for heightened cultural awareness and sensitivity in religious issues. And so, to a certain extent, I think that same line of logic can also be extended to, for example, our diplomatic corps, and certainly many corporations. We also saw briefs from the field of medicine, from science and research, have all written in support of race-conscious admissions, along the same sort of pipeline issues as their companies and organizations. And they argue that their work benefits from a highly educated, diverse workforce. But what was interesting, was that there wasn't much discussion about Asian Americans. It was only brought up sort of a handful of times, despite the fact that certainly that's sort of the origin story of the sets of lawsuits. And perhaps—to me perhaps this is simply an indication that the case was really never about Asian Americans from the beginning. And certainly the finding from the district court shows that Asian Americans are not discriminated in this process at Harvard. And so we will all sort of see how the Court rules next year, if they uphold precedent or not, and if they do not, how narrow or how broad they will go. Justice Barrett did have an interesting question in the UNC part of the case about affinity groups and affinity housing on campus. So, for example, my undergraduate alma mater, UC Berkeley, has this for several groups. They have affinity housing for Asian Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, women in STEM, the LGBTQ+ community, Latinx students, among many, many others, actually. So I think a possible area of concern is if they go broad, will we see a ban on these types of race-based practices on campus? Would that impact sort of thinking about recruitment efforts? So these so-called race-neutral approaches, sort of recruitment and outreach services for particular communities. Or would that impact something like HBCUs and tribal colleges, HSIs and AANAPISIs, or other MSIs? How does that all fit in, right? I think that line of questioning sort of sparked a bit of concern from folks and my colleagues. But I think, though, in conversation, we don't think the Court has really any appetite to go that far. And I'm certainly inclined to agree. But end of the day, that line of questioning was rather curious. And so, with that, I thank you for letting me share some of my thinking and about what's going on. And I would really love to be able to engage in conversation with all of you. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Thank you so much. And we'd love to hear now from you all questions and comments, and if you could share how things are happening on your campuses. Please raise—click on the raised-hand icon on your screen to ask a question. If you're on an iPad or tablet, you can click the More button to access the raised-hand feature. I'll call on you, and then accept the unmute prompt, state your name and affiliation, followed by your question. You can also submit a written question in the Q&A box or vote for questions that have been written there. And if you do write your question, it would be great if you could write who you are. I'm going to go first to a raised hand, Morton Holbrook. And there you go. Q: I'm there, yeah. Morton Holbrook from Kentucky Wesleyan College in Kentucky. Thanks, Professor Nguyen. Sort of a two-part question here. One is, how do you reconcile apparent public support for affirmative action with the number of states, I think ten or twelve states, that have banned affirmative action? Are their legislators just out of touch with their people, or what? And the second part is, a recent article in the Washington Post about UC Berkeley's experience, where the number of African American students simply plummeted down to about 3 percent, and at the same time that campus is still very diverse in other respects. Have you made a study of all the states that have banned affirmative action? Have they all had that same result with regard to African Americans? Or where does that stand? Thank you. NGUYEN: Thank you. Thank you for the really excellent question. I think it's about—I think you're right—around nine, ten or so states that have banned affirmative action. You know, I'll be completely honest with you. I'm really just familiar with the bans that were instituted both in California and in Michigan, and those were through state referendums, right, and not necessarily legislature. So in this case, this is the people voting for it. And so I think that's a really tough nut to crack about how do you reconcile these bans at the state level versus sort of what we see at the national level. And so I think this is sort of the big challenge that advocates for racial equity are facing in places like California. They actually tried to repeal this in California recently, in the last decade. And again, that failed. And so I think part of the issue here is there's a whole lot of misinformation out there. I think that's one key issue. I sort of said in my opening remarks there that, at least in some of the popular media pieces today about these cases, the way Asian Americans are sort of understood and written about is really not aligned with a lot of the rich empirical research out there that shows quite the contrary, as well as sort of historical research that shows quite the contrary. And so I think there's a lot of public opinion being formulated as well as, again, just sort of misinformation about the topic that might be leading folks to think one way or another. To your second question about UC Berkeley, my alma mater, you're right. After that Prop 209 ban, you saw a huge decline in undergraduate enrollment, specifically of African American students. And so Berkeley has been trying every which way to figure out a race—a so-called race-neutral approach in order to increase those numbers. And I think they are trying to—they are really trying to figure it out. And I think that's why UC Berkeley, UCLA, other institutions submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard, in support of UNC, because they know that there are not a lot—when you can't use race, that's a result that you end up with. And that's because there are just not good proxy variables for race. SES or economic status is often talked about a lot. That again isn't a good variable. Geography can—to a certain extent can be used. All these can sort of certainly be used in some combination. But again, they do not serve well as proxy variables. And I think that's why we see those numbers at Berkeley. And I think that's why Berkeley was so invested in this case and why all those campus leaders submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard and UNC. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next written question or first written question from Darko Spasevski, who's at the University of Skopje, North Macedonia: Do you think that in order to have successful affirmative actions in the higher education this process should be followed by affirmative actions in the workplace? Are the benefits—if the affirmative actions are only promoted at the level of higher education but are not at the same time continuing at the workplace? I guess it would be the opposite. Is it—you know, basically, should affirmative action be promoted in the workplace as well— NGUYEN: Yeah, I think— FASKIANOS: —once you get past the higher education? NGUYEN: Got it. Yeah, I think I understand that question. Actually, this was something that came up during this recent Supreme Court case. Again, the solicitor general was talking about specifically the briefs from the retired generals and admirals, as well as from various executives and corporations, talking about how affirmative action is so important at the university level because then it helps build a pipeline to recruit folks to work at those organizations or serve in the military, as well as that it trains all students, right, and lets them access and achieve the benefits of diversity and use that in their future employment, which research from areas of management show that that increases work productivity. It increases their bottom line, et cetera, et cetera. And so actually, in that argument, the—I think it was Justice Alito that asked, are you now arguing for this in the private sector, in corporations? And the solicitor general quickly said no, no. The context of this lawsuit is specifically or the position of the United States is specifically just focused here on higher education. And I think that certainly is relevant for this conversation today, as well as sort of my own area of expertise. But I think my colleagues in the areas of management and a lot of that work shows, I think, similar types of results that, when you have diverse workforces, when you have folks who can reap the benefits of diversity interactions, interracial interactions, then there are certainly a lot of benefits that come from that, in addition to creativity, work efficiency, so many things. And so, again, I'm not here to sort of put a position down regarding affirmative action in professional settings, only because that's not my area of expertise. But certainly other areas of research have pointed in similar directions as what's sort of shown in the higher-education literature. FASKIANOS: (Off mic) Renteln? And let's see if you can unmute yourself. If you click on the unmute prompt, you should be able to ask your question. Not working? Maybe not. OK, so I will read it. So— Q: Is it working now? FASKIANOS: It is, Alison. Go ahead. Q: Thank you. I'm sorry. It's just usually it shows me when I'm teaching. Thank you for a really interesting, incisive analysis; really enjoyed it. I wanted to ask about whether it's realistic to be able to implement policies that are, quote, race-neutral, unquote, given that people's surnames convey sometimes identities, ethnic and religious identities, and also activities that people participated in in professional associations. And when people have references or letters of recommendation, information about background comes out. So I'm wondering if you think that this debate really reflects a kind of polarization, a kind of symbolitics, and whether, while some worry about the consequences of the Supreme Court's decisions, this is really something that's more symbolic than something that could actually be implemented if the universities continue to be committed to affirmative action. NGUYEN: Really great question. Thank you so much for asking it. This was actually a big chunk of the conversation during oral arguments for both at UNC and both at Harvard, right. The justices were asking, so how do you—if you don't—and this was sort of the whole part about when they were talking about checking the box, checking sort of your racial category during the application process. And so they asked, if you get rid of that, what happens when students write about their experiences in their personal statements or, as you said, recommenders in their letters in about that? And so this was where it got really, really—I think the lawyers had a really hard time disentangling it, because for people of color, certainly a lot of their experiences, their racialized experiences, are inextricably linked to their race and their identity. And so removing that is, at an operationalized level, pretty hard to do and pretty impossible, right. So they actually had some interesting examples, like one—and so they're asking hypotheticals. Both lawyers—both the justices on all the various spectrum of the Court were asking sort of pointed questions. Where I think one justice asked, so can you talk about—can you talk about your family's experiences, particularly if your ancestors were slaves in the United States? And so the lawyers—this is the lawyer for SFFA saying that would not—we cannot use that. They cannot be used in admissions, because that is linked to their race. But can you—so another justice asked, can you talk about if, you know, your family immigrated to the United States? Can you—how do you talk about that? Can you talk about that? And the lawyers said, well, that would be permissible then, because that doesn't necessarily have to be tied to a racial group or a racial category. So again, it's very—I think what they were trying to tease out was how do you—what do you actually—what would actually be the way to restrict that, right? And so I guess, depending on how the justices decide this case, my assumption is or my hope is, depending on whatever way they go, they're going to—they will, one way or another, define or sort of place limits if they do end up removing the use of race. But I completely agree with you. Operationally, that's not an easy thing to do, right? And when do you decide what fits and what doesn't fit? And that will be the—that will be a big, big struggle I think universities will face if the courts ban the use of race in college admissions. FASKIANOS: Let me just add that Alison Dundes Renteln is a professor of political science at the University of Southern California. So I'm going to go to the next written question, from Clemente Abrokwaa at Penn State University: Do you think affirmative action should be redefined to reflect current social-demographic groups and needs? NGUYEN: Oh, that's such a fun question, and particularly for someone who studies race and racial formation in the United States. And so I—you know, this is—this is an interesting one. I think—I think sort of the way we think about—at least folks in my profession think about race versus sort of the way—the way it's currently accounted for in—by state-based classifications/definitions, those tend to be a little bit behind, right? That's normal and natural. But I think what we've seen in the United States over time is race has—or, racial classifications and categories have changed over time and continue to evolve, right? The Census—the Census Bureau has an advisory group to help them think through this when they collect this data. And so—and so I'll be honest with you, I don't have a good answer for you, actually. But I think—I think that certainly, given the fact that racial categories do shift and change over time and the meaning ascribed to them, we certainly need to take a—if we continue using approaches for—race- or ethnic-based approaches in college admissions, that's something that absolutely needs to be considered, right? But at the same time, it also means, as we think about sort of the future and what does that look like—and maybe, for example, here we're talking about folks who are—who identify as mixed race. But at the same time, we need to look historically, too, right? So we don't want to—the historical definitions and the way people would self-identify historically. And so I think—I think, certainly, the answer, then, would be—would be both, right? But what a fun question. Thanks for that question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the moderator prerogative here and ask you about: How does affirmative action in higher education in the United States relate to, you know, relations abroad? NGUYEN: Yeah. Well— FASKIANOS: Have you looked at that connection? NGUYEN: Sure. I think—I think that—I think that's really, really interesting. So something that we wrote in our amicus brief particularly regarding—it was sort of in response to SFFA's brief and their claim, which was about sort of why Asian Americans here were so exceptional in their—in their academic achievements. I think that's a—tends to be a big stereotype, model minority stereotype. That is how Asian Americans are racialized. So one thing that we sort of wrote in our brief was this actually is really connected to a certain extent, right—for some Asian American groups in the United States, that's linked to U.S. foreign policy and U.S. immigration policy about who from Asia is allowed to immigrate to the United States, what their sort of educational background and requirements are. And so I think when we think about the arguments being made in this lawsuit and the way Asian Americans are discussed, certainly one key aspect there is certainly connected to historic U.S. foreign policy, particularly around—as well as immigration policy, particularly around the 1965 Immigration Act. So certainly they are connected and they're linked. And something that we—that I wish more people could—more people would read our brief, I guess, and get a good understanding of, sort of to add to the complexity of this lawsuit. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go back to Morton Holbrook. Q: Yes. Still here at Kentucky Wesleyan College. Speaking of amicus briefs, what do you think of the Catholic college brief from Georgetown University? Here we have a Court that's been very partial towards religious beliefs, and they're arguing that their religious beliefs requires them to seek diversity in college admissions. How do you think they'll fare in that argument? NGUYEN: Yeah. This was also brought up in—during oral arguments. I can't remember if it was during the UNC part or the Harvard part. And I'll be completely honest with you, I haven't read that brief yet. There's just so many and I wasn't able to read them all. But this was a really interesting—really interesting point that was sort of raised in the courts. And I don't—I don't—I don't have a good answer for you, to be completely honest. I'm not sure how they're going to, particularly given that these—that this Court seems to be very much in favor of religious liberty, right, how they would account for that amicus brief from the Catholic institutions. And so that will be an interesting one to watch and to see—to see how it's framed, and certainly it would be interesting if they played an outsized role in the justices' decision-making here. But great question. Great point to raise and something I'll add to my reading list for this weekend. FASKIANOS: So Alison Renteln came back with a question following on mine: Why are numerical quotas acceptable in other countries like India but not in the United States? NGUYEN: Yeah. Great, great question there. You know, also in other places like in Brazil. And so we, in fact, used to use numerical quotas before the Bakke decision. It was the Bakke decision, University of California v. Bakke, that eliminated the use of racial quotas, also eliminated the use of what I said earlier about sort of the rationales for why we can practice race-conscious admissions, which was it cannot be used to address historic racism or ongoing racism. In fact, the only rationale for why we can use affirmative action today as a—as a factor of many factors, is in order to—for universities to build campus environments—diverse campus environments of which there are benefits to diversity, the educational benefits of diversity that flows for all students. And so, yeah, it was the—it was the Supreme Court in the late 1970s that restricted the use of quotas among many other—many other rationales for the practice of race-conscious admissions. Thank you for that question. FASKIANOS: Great. And I'm going to go to next to raised hand from Emily Drew. Q: Great. Thank you. I'm listening in from Oregon, where I'm a sociologist. Thank you for all of these smart comments. My question is a little bit thinking out loud. What do you think about—it feels like there are some perils and dangers, but I'm hoping you'll reframe that for me, of some racialized groups like indigenous people saying, well, we're not a race anyway—we're tribes, we're nations—so that they're not subject to the ban on race-conscious practices, which, it's true, they're a tribe. They're also a racialized group. And so I'm struggling with groups kind of finding a political way around the ban or the potential ban that's coming, but then where does that leave us in terms of, you know, each group, like, take care of your own kind of thing? Can you just react a little bit to that? NGUYEN: Yeah. Thanks for that really wonderful question. Fascinating point about, yeah, the way to say: We're not a racial group. We're sovereign nations or sovereign tribes. I think what we're going to see, depending on how the courts go, are folks trying—schools potentially trying a whole host of different approaches to increase diversity on their campuses if they're not allowed to use some of these racial categories like they've been doing already, in a holistic approach. And so, yeah, that might be a fascinating way for indigenous communities to advance forward. I will say, though, there was one point, again, in the—during oral arguments where they started talking about sort of generational connections to racial categories. And so they're saying if it's my grandparents' grandparents' grandparents, right, so sort of talking almost about, like—at least the way I interpreted it, as sort of thinking about connecting one to a race via blood quantum. And so when does that—when does that expire, right? And so is it—is it—if you're one-sixteenth Native American, is that—does that count? So there was a short line of questioning about that, and I think the—I think the lawyer tried to draw a line in the sand about, like, at what point do you not go—what point does it count and when does it not count. And I think that's actually a bit of a misstep, primarily because that should be determined by the sovereign nation, by the tribe, about who gets to identify as that—as a member of that nation or that tribe and how they—I think—you know, I think, talking to indigenous scholars, they would say it's about how you engage in and how you live in it, rather than—rather than if it's just a percentage. So, again, those will be the tensions, I think, that will—that already exist, I should say, regardless of the Court decision. But a fascinating point about states sort of exercising indigenous law there to see if that would be a way to counter that. Certainly, I should—I should have said at the top of this I'm not trained as a lawyer. And so I have no idea how that would be sort of litigated out, but certainly I imagine all different entities will find ways to move through this without—in various legal fashions. And I was talking to a colleague earlier today about this and he said something about at the end of the day this might be something that, if Congress decided to take up, they may—this would be an opportunity for Congress to take up, to maybe develop a narrow path for institutions. But certainly it's—the courts seem to be the favored way for us to talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: There's a written question from John Francis, who is a research professor of political science at the University of Utah: If the Court were to strike down affirmative action, would state universities give much more attention to geographic recruitment within their respective states and encourage private foundations to raise scholarship funds to support students of color who live in those areas? NGUYEN: Great, great question there. And I think that would be one of many things that universities are doing. We're seeing schools where the states have banned affirmative action do things like this, in Michigan and certainly in California. But to a certain extent, it actually doesn't work—I guess in California's context—that well. I think, if I'm not mistaken, the head of admissions for UC Berkeley said in one of many panels—he's wonderful, by the way—on one of many panels, like, that doesn't work very well in the California context because only so many schools have sort of that large concentration of African American students and for them to sort of go there and recruit out of that. So it's not a—the sort of geographic distribution is not so easy and clean cut as—I think as one would normally perceive. And so it actually develops a big, big challenge for state institutions, particularly state flagship institutions, in particular geographic contexts. Now, I don't know if that's the case, say, in other parts of the country. But certainly within the UC system, that seems to be a prevailing argument. And I think more than ever now, everyone has been looking to the UC system for insight on what they—on how to approach this if the courts decide next year to ban the use of race. I should also admit that—or, not admit, but proudly declare that I'm a product of the UC system. All of my postsecondary education is from those schools. And so I know that this has been a constant and ongoing conversation within the UC system, and I imagine that will be the case for schools both public and private across the country. But I think part of that calculation then requires institutions to think about not just from private donors, but really from state legislatures as well as the institutions themselves have to really think about how they want to dedicate resources to achieving diversity if they don't—if they're unable to use race. I think a tremendous amount of resources. So, to a certain extent, it's going to make institutions put their money where their mouth is. And so we'll see if that—this will all be interesting areas to investigate, depending on how the courts decide come next year. FASKIANOS: There's a raised hand or there was a raised hand from Jeff Goldsmith. I don't know if you still have a question. Q: Yeah. So I've been trying to figure out exactly how I might want to pose this question, but I was struck by—sorry, this is Jeff Goldsmith from Columbia University. I was struck by the line of questioning that you mentioned from Justice Barrett about affinity housing and your thoughts about how narrow or far-reaching a decision striking down affirmative action might be. And I guess it seems like there is the potential for at least some gray area. And you know, we run things like summer research programs that are intended to bolster diversity. There are in some cases—you just sort of mentioned the scholarship opportunities focused on increasing the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds. And I guess I'm just sort of curious if you have any speculation about how narrow or far-reaching a decision might be. NGUYEN: Thanks for that question. Yeah. So I think this was—we—prior to the—to oral arguments, people had sort of talked about this a little bit. Would this be consequential? And I—in fact, the day before—the day before oral arguments, I was on a different panel and I sort of brought this up. And actually, a federal judge in the audience came up to me afterwards and said, you know, I don't think the Court's got a lot of appetite for that. And I said, hey, I completely agree with you, but certainly, you know, we've—in recent times we've seen the Court do more interesting things, I guess, if you'll—if I can use a euphemism. And so—and so, it almost feels like everything's on the table, right? But I think, generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree that if the courts strike down race-conscious admissions, they will do it in a very narrow and highly-tailored way. That was my feeling going in. That was my feeling on October 30, right? Then, on Halloween—October 31—while listening to the—to the oral arguments, you had that very short exchange between Justice Barrett, specifically during the UNC case, ask about affinity groups and affinity housing, and it felt like it sort of came out of left field. And not—and so I think that raised some curiosity for all of us about what—about why that was a line of questioning. But nonetheless, I think at least my—I've never been a gambling person, but if I were I would say that if they do strike it down that I think the justices wholesale don't—I don't think they would have a large appetite to do something so broad and sweeping like that. At least that's my hope, if that's the direction we're moving in. But I guess that's why I said earlier that we're sort of all on pins and needles about that. And if that is struck down, then I think that's got a lot of consequences for scholarships, recruitment programs, summer bridge programs, potentially minority-serving institutions, and all of the above. So, yeah, I—again, it seems like that's a big reshaping of postsecondary education, not just in admissions but sort of the way they operate overall. And I don't know if that would happen so quickly overnight like that. But that, at least, is my hope. FASKIANOS: (Off mic.) There you go. Q: (Laughs.) Thank you so much for your talk. Clemente Abrokwaa from Penn State University. And my question is, right now there is a push for diversity, equity, and inclusion in many areas. How is that different from affirmative action? NGUYEN: Well, great question. And actually, that's a really difficult one for me to answer only because I think if we were to go and ask ten people on the street what did we mean by diversity, equity, and inclusion, everyone would give you sort of a very different and potentially narrow or a very broad definition of what it means, right? But I think with respect to affirmative action, particularly in a higher-education context, it is specifically about college admissions, specifically about admissions and how do you review college admissions. And in this case here, there is a very narrow way in which it can—it can be used for race—in this case for race, that it's got to be narrowly tailored, that it can only be a factor among a factor in a broad holistic approach, that you can't use quotas, that it can't be based on rectifying previous or historical racism, and that the only utility for it is that it is used to create learning environments where there are educational benefits that flow from diversity and the interactions of diversity. Versus, I think, broader conversations about DEI, while of course centered on admissions, right, which is sort of one of many dimensions in which you achieve DEI, right? We like to think that—and I'm going to be sort of citing a scholar, Sylvia Hurtado, out of UCLA, who argues that, admissions help contribute to one dimension, which is the composition of a university, the sort of just overall demographics and numbers of that university. But there are many other dimensions that are important in order to create learning environments in which we can achieve DEI-related issues. That means that we have to look at the institution and the way it's acted historically and contemporarily. We have to look at behavioral interactions between people on a university. There are psychological dimensions, among many others. And so that's how I think about it. I think that's how at least my area of scholarship and in our academic discipline we think about it and for folks who study education think about it. And so hopefully that answers your question. And, yeah, hopefully that answers your question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Alison Renteln: What policies appear to be the best practices to increase diversity at universities, including disability? And what are the best practices from other countries? NGUYEN: Oh, wow, that's a really good question. So we—you know, I think—I think a lot of other countries use quotas. Brazil might be sort of the example that most folks think about when they think about the way affirmative action's practiced abroad. And certainly that's not something that we can do here in the United States. So that's—that—really, really important consideration. Sort of other practices that I think that are—that are not sort of the ones that are narrowly tailored by the courts are what I said earlier about sort of what the UC system has to really do and has to really grapple with, right, are using every sort of—everything that they can think of under the sun to go out and try to do outreach and recruit and build those pipelines throughout the entire education system. There's been some work by some wonderful folks in our field—Dominique Baker, Mike Bastedo—who looked at even sort of just a random sampling, if you were able to do a lottery system, and that has actually found that that doesn't actually increase diversity either, and so—racial diversity either. And so I think that's—so, again, this all points to how crucial affirmative action is in being able to use race in order to achieve compositional diversity on a college campus, and that other proxy variables just don't even come close to being able to help estimate that. And so, yeah, that's—I should also note that really, we're only talking about a dozen or so schools. Oh, I'm sorry, more than a dozen, but a handful of schools that this is really a big issue for. Most schools in the United States don't necessarily—are not at this level of selectivity where it becomes a big issue of concern for the national public. Nearly half of all of our college-going students are at community college, which tend to be open-access institutions. And so something also to keep in mind when we talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thanks. We only have a few minutes left. Can you talk a little bit more about the work of NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools? NGUYEN: Yeah. So I'm a faculty affiliate there, and maybe I'll preface by saying I'm new to NYU. I just came here from the University of Denver, and so I'm still learning about every wonderful thing that Metro Center is doing. It's led by a wonderful faculty member here named Fabienne Doucet and really focused on sort of a handful of pillars—certainly research on education, but also a real big tie for communities. So real direct engagement with schools, school systems in order to advance justice in those schools. And so they have a lot of contracts with school districts and public entities, as well as nonprofit groups that come in and work as an incubator there on a host of issues. And so I think the work there is really exciting and really interesting. It tends to be—and I should say also very expansive. So the whole sort of K-12 system, as well as postsecondary. And I think that's the role that I'm looking to play there, is to help contribute to and expand their work in the postsecondary education space. FASKIANOS: Great. And maybe a few words about your other—you have many, many hats. NGUYEN: Oh. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. NGUYEN: Yeah. They do some really wonderful, interesting work. And it's really, actually, a center and a space for faculty to come in and run a lot of their research projects, including my own, which is the MSI Data Project, where we are looking at all the various different types of minority-serving institutions in the United States, how they change over time, and how the federal government thinks about them and accounts for them, as well as how do the schools themselves think about them, all with the goal here in order to work with students of colors and give them access and opportunity. I should say, depending on how you count them, MSIs enroll a huge and significant proportion of all students of color, almost half, in the country, despite making up such a small percentage, about 20 percent, of all college and universities. And so this is—certainly when we talk about affirmative action, we—I think a lot of folks center it around racial justice or social justice. I think sort of the other side of the same coin here are schools like minority-serving institutions which enroll and provide access to and graduate a really significant proportion and number of students of color and certainly an area that we need to bring a lot more attention to when we talk about issues of race and education. FASKIANOS: OK, I'm going to take one—try to sneak in one last question from John Francis, who's raised his hand. You get the last one, John. Q: OK, can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: Oh, that's great. So my question is—has a certain irony to it, but there's been a great deal of discussion of late that men are not succeeding in college, but that women are, and that certainly should be encouraged, but also there should be ways to find perhaps even changing when people start out in elementary school how that may be shifted to help men later on. And in this discussion, when we're looking at that issue and it's gaining some latitude, some strength, should we think about that as a possible consideration that universities should have greater latitude in making decisions to reflect the current set of demographic issues, be it race or gender or others? Has this argument come to play any kind of role? NGUYEN: Great question and a good last one, and if I can be completely honest, not an area that I'm—gender-based issues are not an area that I've done a whole lot of work in, if really any work, but I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can here, which is, I think—and sort of connected to sort of the larger conversation and question that we had that someone posed earlier about sort of the complexity and changing nature of racial and ethnic categories and what does that mean, and how do universities address that? And I think this is again where it requires universities to have some flexibility and nimbleness and autonomy to be able to address a lot of these issues, including what you're talking about, John, depending on the context and the times in which we are in. You know, certainly one big area also connected to—for men in postsecondary education is sort of the huge gap we see for men of color from particular groups, and really we see foundations, we see the Obama administration really play—invest in this work. So, John, from what it sounds like, it sounds like I agree with you here about—that universities need flexibility and autonomy to be able to address these issues. Now, that may—at the same time, we don't want to dismiss the fact that the experiences of women in postsecondary education—while certainly we see numbers increasing in enrollment in a lot of aspects, in certain disciplines we see a sharp decline; we see—in STEM and engineering fields, in the way those disciplines may be organized to sort of push out women. And so I think, again, this is why it requires some nimbleness and some autonomy from the universities to be able to design approaches to support students of different types of diversity on their campuses, in particular areas, disciplines, and majors. And so I think that's the—I think that's the challenge, is that we need to be a lot more intentional and think more precisely and run our analyses in ways that make sense for particular intersectional groups on campus and in the areas of which they're studying. So yeah, I think that's the—one of the big challenges that universities are facing today and certainly depending on how the courts rule, we'll see if that ends up restricting autonomy and removing tools or allowing those tools to remain for various types of targeted interventions for various minoritized groups. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Well, Mike Nguyen, thank you very much for this terrific hour and to all of you for your questions and comments. This is really insightful and we appreciate it. Welcome to New York, Mike, your first New York—holidays in New York. So we will be resuming the series in January and we will be sending out also the lineup for our winter/spring semester of the Academic Webinar series, which is really designed for students, later this month. We do wish you all luck with administering finals this week and grading them and all those papers; I don't envy you all. We have different deadlines under—at the Council that we're working on right now, so it will be a busy month, but we hope that everybody enjoys the holidays. We will resume in January, in the new year, and I encourage you all to follow us at @CFR_Academic on Twitter. Visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thanks, Mike, for this, and to all of you. NGUYEN: Thank you so much for having me. Really an honor. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Take care, everybody. (END)

Standing in for Doug Stuart is LCI's founder, Dr. Norman Horn. With him today is professor David Rose from the University of Missouri. Dave Rose is a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He has served as the Department Director of Graduate Studies and as the Department Chair. He received his Ph.D. in Economics in 1987 from the University of Virginia. His primary areas of research interest are behavioral economics, political economy, and organization theory. He has published scholarly articles in a wide range of areas. His work has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the HFL Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, and the John R. Templeton Foundation. He is currently in his second term on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. In 2008 he received the St. Louis Business Journal's Economic Educator of the year award. You might have heard of ESGs (environmental social governance) from various climate change advocates. David Rose helps us understand what ESGs are and their relationship to stakeholder theory. Rose then contrasts the practice of ESGs (including their historical precedence) with business ethics illustrating for us some inherent problems. Rose explains the social benefits of maximizing profit, why this is a net good for society, and it proves to be a boon philanthropically. Another problem Rose highlights is in business ethics itself. Not only are few university students taking this course, but people who should not be in the position are the ones teaching the subject. (No surprise!) This episode is a great introduction to the topic of environmental social governance and why we should pay attention to these practices.   Main Points of Discussion: 00:00 Introduction 01:45 Environmental Social Governance - what is it? 04:43 History of "corporate responsibility" (stakeholder's theory) compared to ESG - how did we get here? 08:33 The evolution of business ethics and current problems 13:41 Is a business firm a moral agent? The personification problem; The evolutionary theory of firms 19:10 Why ESG proves to be a profound problem on the social effect of business firms 20:45 The effect of ESGs on pension funds 24:25 Why does the firm need to be philanthropic when people can do that on their own? (demonizing profit) 30:19 The "decades of greed" correlate with the most philanthropic time in American history; How can we understand that ESG will harm this? 35:17 There's no virtue in spending someone else's money 37:48 Profit is a signal you've served someone else well 39:27 Practical advice to build awareness for ESG and problems in society 41:48 Concluding thoughts   Resources Mentioned: Common Sense Society https://www.commonsensesociety.org Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com

Dr. Carol Swain, an award-winning political scientist and former tenured professor at Princeton and Vanderbilt Universities, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and an educational advisor for American Cornerstone Institute founded by Dr. Ben Carson.She has served on the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the 1776 Commission.Dr. Swain is the author or editor of 11 books, including the bestseller, Black Eye for America: How Critical Race Theory is Burning Down the House (co-authored Christopher Schorr). Her latest book is Countercultural Living: What Jesus Has to Say About Life, Marriage, Race, Gender, and Materialism.She is an expert on critical race theory, American politics, and race relations. Her television appearances include ABC's Headline News, BBC Radio and TV, NPR, CNN's AC360, Fox and Friends, Judge Jeanine, The Ingraham Angle, and Tucker Carson.She has published opinion pieces in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Epoch Times, The Financial Times and USA Today.Dr. Swain is an entrepreneur and her businesses include Carol Swain Enterprises, L.L.C. and Unity Training Solutions, L.L.C., which offers an alternative to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Training (DEI).She holds five degrees including a Ph.D. from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an M.S.L. from Yale.

J. Christian Adams is the President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, former DOJ attorney, and current Commission on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Election Integrity Lawsuit in Michigan // 2022 election security

Community Connection Tuesday July 26th 2022   Digital Indy Far East Magazine Is Online & FREE!!! You can also get a printed copy! About: "Indy Far East is a multi-media platform developed to share the stories of people working to enhance the quality of life on the city's far east side. The collaboration between the Next Generation Initiative and the MSD of Warren Township consists of the indyfareastmag.com website, a print and digital monthly magazine, a podcast and social media outlets."Editor In Chief At The Indy Far East Magazine, Dennis Jarrett Joins Us Live On Community Connection! Indy Far East Magazine : https://indyfareastmag.com/ Phone Guest: Dennis Jarrett - Editor-In –Chief, “The Indy Far East” Magazine   Community Outreach Resource & Education From The Indiana Civil Rights Commission August 1st - 4th 9AM - 5PM at the John Boner Neighborhood Center (2236 East 10th St. Indianapolis, IN 46201) "The John Boner Neighborhood Center will serve as a satellite location for our complaint intake program. With an intake Specialist onsite, Hoosiers will be able to file discrimination complaints, gather educational resources, and get their questions answered about protection from discrimination." Phone Guest: Virgil Giles - Deputy Director, External Affairs, Indiana Civil Rights Commission A. T. Ryan - Indiana Civil Rights Commission Public Outreach & Education Manager.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode of Momentum, Sharon talks about America's push to eradicate communists during the Red Scare and Korean War. Many people working toward the goal of civil rights and liberties shared links to the Communist Party, like William Patterson and Paul Robeson. In 1951, Patterson submitted a 237-page petition to the United Nations, called We Charge Genocide. After Patterson and Robeson presented their petition, the U.S. retaliated by seizing their passports, smearing their public image, and labeling the Civil Rights Commission as a communist-front organization.Because of the country's persecution of subversives and communists, the NAACP leaders were interested in assisting J Edgar Hoover in rooting out any “bad players” in the organization in order to protect it. In fact, Thurgood Marshall, who knew he was being spied on by Hoover, often acted as an FBI informant. He knew both the costs and benefits of cooperating. Do you think this was an effective strategy to distance the NAACP from the communist party? What about the organization's push to rebrand themselves as an American organization? What exactly did Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King Jr. disagree about? Sharon reveals the source of their strife next time! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

About our GuestsDr. Dave Rose is a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. in Economics in 1987 from the University of Virginia. His primary areas of research interest are behavioral economics, political economy, and organization theory. He has published scholarly articles in a wide range of areas. His work has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Weldon Spring Foundation, the HFL Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, and the John R. Templeton Foundation. He is currently in his second term on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. In 2008 he received the St. Louis Business Journal's Economic Educator of the year award. His book, The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior, was selected one of CHOICE's outstanding titles of 2012. His newest book, Why Culture Matters Most, is also from Oxford University Press. He frequently contributes to policy debates through radio and television interviews as well as in Op-Eds on topics ranging from social security, monetary policy, fiscal policy, judicial philosophy, education reform, healthcare reform, and freedom of speech. Dr. Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became President of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. He previously served for 21 years as President of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan (1987-2008). He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.In May 2019, he retired to the role of President Emeritus at FEE and assumed the titles of Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty. He holds a B.A. in economics from Grove City College (1975) and an M.A. degree in history from Slippery Rock State University (1978), both in Pennsylvania. He holds two honorary doctorates, one from Central Michigan University (public administration, 1993) and Northwood University (laws, 2008).Show NotesDr. Rose and Dr. Reed join Adrienne and Trae to discuss the foundation of a good education in civics and economics: cooperation and trust rooted in moral beliefs and lived out by ethical people in the family and society. We delve into the role of stories in economics class, preserving traditional practices and restoring home economics. For the civics and economics teachers, our guests help us see why preferring old stories to current events is best and why it's not necessarily the classroom teacher's job to show students how to balance their checking accounts.     Some topics in this episode include:The Relationship between Parenting, Culture, Civics, and Economics Framing Economics as Cooperation Self-governance in Classical Education The Family and Home Economics Moral Believes and Trust in the Family and Society The Role of Stories in Moral Education Humane Economics and Traditional Practices Gratitude and Service to Others Prudence and Democracy The Value of Failure How to Avoid “Bumper Sticker Pedagogy” Resources and Books & Mentioned In This EpisodeWhy Culture Matters, David Rose Real Heroes, Lawrence Reed Economics in One Lesson, Henry HazlittBasic Economics, Thomas Sowell Cinderella Man, Ron Howard (Director)The Whistle, Benjamin Franklin Aesop's Fables, Aesop “The Economics of Splitting Wood By Hand,” John Cuddeback A Conflict of Visions, Thomas SowellDr. Reed's Website Passion's Within Reason,  Robert H. Frank The Memory Book, Harry Lorayne and Jerry LucasFavorite Books and Quotes Dr. Rose's book that he wishes he had read sooner:A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell  Dr. Reed's favorite quote (corrected): “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” - David Hayek_________________________________Credits:Sound Engineer: Andrew HelselLogo Art: Anastasiya CFMusic: Used with permission. cellists: Sara Sant' Ambrogio and Lexine Feng; pianist: Alyona Waldo  © 2022 Beautiful Teaching. All Rights Reserved ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

BlackFacts.com presents the black fact of the day for May 6.President Eisenhower signed civil rights act.(On September 4, 1957, nine African American students were due to enter the school, a previously all-white institution. These students were blocked by 270 National Guard troops who had been ordered there by State Governor, Orval Faubus. )(Media filmed the students being turned away and being verbally abused by students and adults of Little Rock. Shocked by these images which had been aired across the nation, President Eisenhower issued 10,000 paratroopers to escort the black students into their new school.)The significance of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was that it acknowledged there was an issue with racial discrimination within the United States.It established Federal inspection of local voter registration polls by appointed referees to oversee southern elections and ensure that African Americans were permitted to vote.  Penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote or vote.It extended the life of the Civil Rights Commission which was previously limited to two years. The Commission would oversee voter registration and practices.Prosecution for interfering with court orders regarding school desegregation.The Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed desegregation in schools, discrimination in the workplace and public facilities.(Although this Act failed to enforce the law it showed the federal government's commitment to work with civil rights organizations to end discrimination and segregation.)Learn black history, teach black history at blackfacts.com 

Daily News Brief for Wednesday January 19th, 2022 If you want to see more of this sort of thing, please consider joining the Fight Laugh Feast Club. For less than a few coffees a month, you can help us build a rowdy Christian media response to liberal legacy media, big tech, and build a Christian megaphone for the truth. Got to flfnetwork.com and click on “join the club.” ‘No Authority To Do It': Wisconsin Judge Bans Ballot Drop Boxes, Ballot Harvesting https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-authority-to-do-it-wisconsin-judge-bans-ballot-drop-boxes-outlaws-ballot-harvesting According to the Daily Wire: “A Waukesha County judge ruled Thursday that ballot drop boxes cannot be used in the state of Wisconsin, asserting that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has “no authority” to permit the drop boxes. “It's all good and nice, but there's no authority to do it,” said Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren. Judge Bohren made the determination in response to a lawsuit filed by voters represented by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), The Federalist explained Monday. Some 500 drop boxes were set up across the state, collecting tens of thousands of absentee ballots in the 2020 general election. Judge Bohren said a finalized injunction was forthcoming “ordering the state Elections Commission to withdraw long-standing advice to municipal clerks around the state that says they can use absentee ballot drop boxes,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The ruling is expected to be appealed.” Our political leaders used the concept of the pandemic to get all sorts of illegal things to pass. In the name of your health, you need ballot drop boxes. In the name of protecting you from dying, you need mail-in ballots. In the name of your health, you need stimulus money. As Christians, we must resolve to never be driven by a spirit of fear, because if you allow for that, than the government will take advantage of that and infringe as far as they can on you rights as you allow them to.   Justice delayed is justice denied: Jack Phillips has ‘now been in courts defending his freedom nearly a decade.' https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/17/lgbt-activists-have-been-using-courts-to-harass-this-christian-baker-for-ten-years/ This is an important article written by Joy Pullman over at the Federalist.  “Jack Phillips is an American. His nation's supreme law claims to protect his inalienable rights to free speech and to freely practice his faith. Yet for ten years, these same rights have been effectively suspended by a state legislature and multiple courts, despite a 2018 win in the U.S. Supreme Court. Phillips, who lives in the Denver, Colorado suburb of Lakewood, was first prosecuted for faithful Christianity in 2012. He was hauled into Colorado's non-judicial Civil Rights Commission, then later into real courts, for offering to sell a gay couple anything in his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, except a custom cake celebrating homosexual acts. He's still in court now. His ten-year battle, Phillips said in a Jan. 14 phone interview, “had profound effects on me and my faith. My faith is much stronger now, my family is much closer. First coming out, there were death threats and things, hateful phone calls and emails. There was a time when my wife was afraid to come to the shop because you didn't know what you would expect.” In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court found Phillips was essentially the victim of government entities prejudiced against Christians and other traditional religions, noting the personal hostility expressed against him by commission members. “Colorado officials compared Jack's plea for religious freedom to some of the worst things in American history, such as the Holocaust and slavery,” noted Phillips's current lawyer, Jacob Warner, in a phone interview. Warner works for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has defended Phillips pro bono in court. “The Supreme Court didn't need to reach the free speech issue because of that animosity and that left the door open for other litigation.” Immediately after the Supreme Court decision in Phillips's first case, LGBT activists hauled Phillips back into court, not once but twice more, again with clear personal animus. In the current case, a lawyer named Autumn Scardina claims the right to force Phillips to draw a picture of Satan smoking marijuana and to bake a cake celebrating transgender mutilation. Not being able to force others into expressing things they don't believe, Scardina claims, constitutes discrimination against LGBT people. According to court documents, Scardina has sought for many years to harm Phillips due to his religious beliefs and public stand on their behalf. During trial, for example, Scardina said the goal of this suit was to “correct” the “errors of [Phillips's] thinking.”” While there is a lot to point out here, it is important to note that liars are hateful people, and with hate comes violence. The LGBT+-= community, along with this activist lawyer, want blood and will not stop, even after the Supreme Court dropped the original case again Jack because of “personal hostility expressed against him by commission members”. But here is the other thing to note here. We really need Christians to become judges. In my local case, having a righteous judge makes all the difference. I did a little research in Idaho, and found out that our judicial system leans left. In Idaho! If we are going to have a healthy state in the next 40 years, than we need to have righteous judges who genuinely fear God. Like I said, Joy wrote a good piece, so follow the links in the notes to get to her article. Classical Conversations DNB:  Classical Conversations supports homeschooling parents by cultivating the love of learning through a Christian worldview in fellowship with other families. We provide a classical Christ-centered curriculum, local like-minded communities across the United States and in several countries, and we train parents who are striving to be great classical  educators in the home. For more information and to get connected, please visit our website at ClassicalConversations.com. Classical. Christian. Get Connected. Get Community. https://www.classicalconversations.com/ They are hiring too: https://cchomeoffice.com/jobs-2/  How billions in pandemic relief funds went to everything but pandemic relief https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/covid-con-part-2-how-billions-pandemic-relief-funds-went-everything Just in the News is doing a multi-part series on where the pandemic money has actually been sent. The Republicans and Democrats passed about $5 trillion in stimulus money in less than one year. So, since we are in the middle of a “pandemic”, you would think all that money went to all the devastating losses from COVID, medical needs to combat the pandemic, and developing the 25th booster shot. Ah but never waste a crisis, as Rahm Emanuel would say.  I pulled out the highlights, if I can call it that: -about $86 billion to save private unions' multiemployer retirement funds -$192 million and $419 million in emergency U.S. taxpayer funding to at least 125 Chinese firms with links to the Chinese Communist Party -Kentucky is devoting $250 million to water and sewer infrastructure projects across the state -Colorado plans to put $550 million of its federal funds toward affordable housing and home ownership efforts and another $380 million for transportation, infrastructure, parks, and agriculture -New Jersey only allocated only 27% of its federal pandemic relief for public health -Millions were used for COVID-19 bonuses, teacher pay raises, and even to cover payroll. For example, Detroit Public Schools using $60 million of its pandemic relief funds to give out bonuses and Connecticut spending $21.1 million on "personal services-salaries" and $2.6 million on employee benefits. -Washington state is using $340 million of its pandemic relief to provide one-time cash grants of $1,000 for illegal immigrants, according to the state's Recovery Plan Performance Report -Colorado put $1 billion toward fortifying the state budget and maintaining fiscal integrity -San Jose also devoted $3.7 million to an "Environmental Resilience Corp,"...and Another $1.4 million is going to clean up parks I dug a little bit in my town, and know that at least three of my local city council raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars. This data is public and you can research who got what in your town. https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/ is a helpful example for this.  California weighing proposal that could double its taxes https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/california-proposal-double-taxes According to Fox: “California lawmakers unveiled a new bill at the beginning of the year that would establish a single-payer health care system – an ambitious plan that would be funded by nearly doubling the state's already-high taxes. A new analysis from the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan group that generally advocates for lower taxes, found that the proposed constitutional amendment would increase taxes by roughly $12,250 per household in order to fund the first-of-its-kind health care system. In all, the tax increases are designed to raise an additional $163 billion per year, which is more than California raised in total tax revenue any year before the pandemic. California would also expand the payroll tax paid by employees who earn more than $49,990 in annual income if they work for a company that has more than 50 workers. Walczak noted the plan could deter small businesses from expanding by inadvertently creating a tax cliff. For instance, if a company that had 49 workers earning $80,000 each hired one additional employee, they would suddenly create a tax bill of more than $90,000.  The taxes would fund government-run health care for all Californians, which supporters say would offset the costs of higher taxes and would save money in the long run.”  One of the best things imbedded in our state structure, is that if your state is going commie on you, you can pick up and move to a freer state. Listen to U-Haul Vice President Stuart Shoen has to say about this: Roll Clip I just hope all these people who are fleeing California have learned their lesson. Closing This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. With your partnership, together we will fight outdated and compromised media, engage news and politics with the gospel, and replace lies and darkness with truth and light. Go to fightlaughfeast.com to take all these actions. Have a great day. Lord bless 

Daily News Brief for Wednesday January 19th, 2022 If you want to see more of this sort of thing, please consider joining the Fight Laugh Feast Club. For less than a few coffees a month, you can help us build a rowdy Christian media response to liberal legacy media, big tech, and build a Christian megaphone for the truth. Got to flfnetwork.com and click on “join the club.” ‘No Authority To Do It': Wisconsin Judge Bans Ballot Drop Boxes, Ballot Harvesting https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-authority-to-do-it-wisconsin-judge-bans-ballot-drop-boxes-outlaws-ballot-harvesting According to the Daily Wire: “A Waukesha County judge ruled Thursday that ballot drop boxes cannot be used in the state of Wisconsin, asserting that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has “no authority” to permit the drop boxes. “It's all good and nice, but there's no authority to do it,” said Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren. Judge Bohren made the determination in response to a lawsuit filed by voters represented by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), The Federalist explained Monday. Some 500 drop boxes were set up across the state, collecting tens of thousands of absentee ballots in the 2020 general election. Judge Bohren said a finalized injunction was forthcoming “ordering the state Elections Commission to withdraw long-standing advice to municipal clerks around the state that says they can use absentee ballot drop boxes,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The ruling is expected to be appealed.” Our political leaders used the concept of the pandemic to get all sorts of illegal things to pass. In the name of your health, you need ballot drop boxes. In the name of protecting you from dying, you need mail-in ballots. In the name of your health, you need stimulus money. As Christians, we must resolve to never be driven by a spirit of fear, because if you allow for that, than the government will take advantage of that and infringe as far as they can on you rights as you allow them to. Justice delayed is justice denied: Jack Phillips has ‘now been in courts defending his freedom nearly a decade.' https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/17/lgbt-activists-have-been-using-courts-to-harass-this-christian-baker-for-ten-years/ This is an important article written by Joy Pullman over at the Federalist. “Jack Phillips is an American. His nation's supreme law claims to protect his inalienable rights to free speech and to freely practice his faith. Yet for ten years, these same rights have been effectively suspended by a state legislature and multiple courts, despite a 2018 win in the U.S. Supreme Court. Phillips, who lives in the Denver, Colorado suburb of Lakewood, was first prosecuted for faithful Christianity in 2012. He was hauled into Colorado's non-judicial Civil Rights Commission, then later into real courts, for offering to sell a gay couple anything in his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, except a custom cake celebrating homosexual acts. He's still in court now. His ten-year battle, Phillips said in a Jan. 14 phone interview, “had profound effects on me and my faith. My faith is much stronger now, my family is much closer. First coming out, there were death threats and things, hateful phone calls and emails. There was a time when my wife was afraid to come to the shop because you didn't know what you would expect.” In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court found Phillips was essentially the victim of government entities prejudiced against Christians and other traditional religions, noting the personal hostility expressed against him by commission members. “Colorado officials compared Jack's plea for religious freedom to some of the worst things in American history, such as the Holocaust and slavery,” noted Phillips's current lawyer, Jacob Warner, in a phone interview. Warner works for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has defended Phillips pro bono in court. “The Supreme Court didn't need to reach the free speech issue because of that animosity and that left the door open for other litigation.” Immediately after the Supreme Court decision in Phillips's first case, LGBT activists hauled Phillips back into court, not once but twice more, again with clear personal animus. In the current case, a lawyer named Autumn Scardina claims the right to force Phillips to draw a picture of Satan smoking marijuana and to bake a cake celebrating transgender mutilation. Not being able to force others into expressing things they don't believe, Scardina claims, constitutes discrimination against LGBT people. According to court documents, Scardina has sought for many years to harm Phillips due to his religious beliefs and public stand on their behalf. During trial, for example, Scardina said the goal of this suit was to “correct” the “errors of [Phillips's] thinking.”” While there is a lot to point out here, it is important to note that liars are hateful people, and with hate comes violence. The LGBT+-= community, along with this activist lawyer, want blood and will not stop, even after the Supreme Court dropped the original case again Jack because of “personal hostility expressed against him by commission members”. But here is the other thing to note here. We really need Christians to become judges. In my local case, having a righteous judge makes all the difference. I did a little research in Idaho, and found out that our judicial system leans left. In Idaho! If we are going to have a healthy state in the next 40 years, than we need to have righteous judges who genuinely fear God. Like I said, Joy wrote a good piece, so follow the links in the notes to get to her article. Classical Conversations DNB: Classical Conversations supports homeschooling parents by cultivating the love of learning through a Christian worldview in fellowship with other families. We provide a classical Christ-centered curriculum, local like-minded communities across the United States and in several countries, and we train parents who are striving to be great classical educators in the home. For more information and to get connected, please visit our website at ClassicalConversations.com. Classical. Christian. Get Connected. Get Community. https://www.classicalconversations.com/ They are hiring too: https://cchomeoffice.com/jobs-2/ How billions in pandemic relief funds went to everything but pandemic relief https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/covid-con-part-2-how-billions-pandemic-relief-funds-went-everything Just in the News is doing a multi-part series on where the pandemic money has actually been sent. The Republicans and Democrats passed about $5 trillion in stimulus money in less than one year. So, since we are in the middle of a “pandemic”, you would think all that money went to all the devastating losses from COVID, medical needs to combat the pandemic, and developing the 25th booster shot. Ah but never waste a crisis, as Rahm Emanuel would say. I pulled out the highlights, if I can call it that: -about $86 billion to save private unions' multiemployer retirement funds -$192 million and $419 million in emergency U.S. taxpayer funding to at least 125 Chinese firms with links to the Chinese Communist Party -Kentucky is devoting $250 million to water and sewer infrastructure projects across the state -Colorado plans to put $550 million of its federal funds toward affordable housing and home ownership efforts and another $380 million for transportation, infrastructure, parks, and agriculture -New Jersey only allocated only 27% of its federal pandemic relief for public health -Millions were used for COVID-19 bonuses, teacher pay raises, and even to cover payroll. For example, Detroit Public Schools using $60 million of its pandemic relief funds to give out bonuses and Connecticut spending $21.1 million on "personal services-salaries" and $2.6 million on employee benefits. -Washington state is using $340 million of its pandemic relief to provide one-time cash grants of $1,000 for illegal immigrants, according to the state's Recovery Plan Performance Report -Colorado put $1 billion toward fortifying the state budget and maintaining fiscal integrity -San Jose also devoted $3.7 million to an "Environmental Resilience Corp,"...and Another $1.4 million is going to clean up parks I dug a little bit in my town, and know that at least three of my local city council raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars. This data is public and you can research who got what in your town. https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/ is a helpful example for this. California weighing proposal that could double its taxes https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/california-proposal-double-taxes According to Fox: “California lawmakers unveiled a new bill at the beginning of the year that would establish a single-payer health care system – an ambitious plan that would be funded by nearly doubling the state's already-high taxes. A new analysis from the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan group that generally advocates for lower taxes, found that the proposed constitutional amendment would increase taxes by roughly $12,250 per household in order to fund the first-of-its-kind health care system. In all, the tax increases are designed to raise an additional $163 billion per year, which is more than California raised in total tax revenue any year before the pandemic. California would also expand the payroll tax paid by employees who earn more than $49,990 in annual income if they work for a company that has more than 50 workers. Walczak noted the plan could deter small businesses from expanding by inadvertently creating a tax cliff. For instance, if a company that had 49 workers earning $80,000 each hired one additional employee, they would suddenly create a tax bill of more than $90,000. The taxes would fund government-run health care for all Californians, which supporters say would offset the costs of higher taxes and would save money in the long run.” One of the best things imbedded in our state structure, is that if your state is going commie on you, you can pick up and move to a freer state. Listen to U-Haul Vice President Stuart Shoen has to say about this: Roll Clip I just hope all these people who are fleeing California have learned their lesson. Closing This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. With your partnership, together we will fight outdated and compromised media, engage news and politics with the gospel, and replace lies and darkness with truth and light. Go to fightlaughfeast.com to take all these actions. Have a great day. Lord bless

VISIT THE WEBSITE FOR INFO: PRIE PROCLAMATION!NSBA Letter to President Biden, Wednesday, September 29AG Merrick Garland called for DOJ, to Investigate, Monday, October 4Letter from Civil Rights Commission: to Merrick Garland, Friday, October 15Article RE: Panorama and AG Garland's Son-In-LawApology Letter from NSBA:As you all know, there has been extensive media and other attention recently around our letter to President Biden regarding threats and acts of violence against school board members. We wanted to write to you directly to address the matter.On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter. To be clear, the safety of school board members, other public school officials and educators, and students is our top priority, and there remains important work to be done on this issue. However, there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter. We should have had a better process in place to allow for consultation on communication of this significance. We apologize also for the strain and stress this situation has caused you and your organizations.As we've reiterated since the letter was sent, we deeply value not only the work of local school boards that make important contributions within our communities, but also the voices of parents, who should and must continue to be heard when it comes to decisions about their children's education, health, and safety.We are going to do better going forward. We are engaged in a formal review of our processes and procedures. We will announce specific improvements soon to ensure there is improved coordination and consultation among our staff, our board, and our members across the country. The review will include not only the proceedings leading to the letter, but also other related concerns raised by members even before the letter was sent.We will have more to share with you soon as our review continues. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you.Support the show (https://www.parentsrightsined.com/support-the-cause.html)

Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation and Commissioner on the Civil Rights Commission, rejoins the Dom Giordano Program to discuss the work his organization is doing centered on election integrity. In a newly released PILF report analyzing federal data from mail ballots, the organization uncovered that of 3.1 million absentee or mail-in ballots sent to voters in Pennsylvania, over 15 thousand were ‘undeliverable,' just over 34 thousand were returned by voters but rejected by officials, and over 425,000 were labeled ‘unknown' and thrown out by officials. Being that Biden only won Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes, Adams lays out what this would mean in the discussion of voter integrity and tells what's being done to strengthen future elections. (Photo by Getty Images) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Korea24 – 2021.08.24. (Tuesday) News Briefing: The main opposition People Power Party(PPP) has decided to expel one of its lawmakers and advise five others to leave the party over allegations of illegal real estate transactions. The move came a day after the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission announced the results of its two-month inquiry into 507 lawmakers and their families, which found 12 lawmakers connected to suspicious property deals. (Koo Hee-jin) In-Depth News Analysis: The U.S. special envoy for North Korea Sung Kim has wrapped up his four-day visit to Seoul. His trip came in the midst of South Korea-US joint summertime military drills, which North Korea has railed against. After his meeting with his South Korean counterpart, Noh Kyu-duk on Monday, the two are said to have discussed a number of ideas to bring North Korea back to the negotiation table, including humanitarian aid cooperation. To review his trip, Park Won-gon, Professor of North Korea studies from Ewha Women's University joins us on the line. Korea Trending with Walter Lee: 92-year-old Lee Yong-soo(이용수), a survivor of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery, has expressed strong opposition to a bill that seeks to prohibit the act of defaming fellow victims as well as related organizations (이용수 할머니 “내가 밝힌 정대협 진실도 위법인가...윤미향, 아직도 죄 몰라”). Meanwhile, suspicions have emerged that a man with disabilities choked to death after being forced to eat at the facility he was residing in (복지시설서 숨진 20대 장애인 "질식사 추정"…CCTV 보니 '강제로 먹여'). And a survey has highlighted how eating habits in Korea have changed during the pandemic ("엄마, 저녁은 뭐 시켜먹어요?" 한국인 35%가 이렇게 산다). Touch Base in Seoul: When Australian Chef Joseph Lidgerwood first came to Korea, he discovered a new world of ingredients he had never experienced before. He joins us in the studio to tell us about how his desire to explore these new tastes led him to put down roots in Korea, and open Evett restaurant in 2018… which a year later received a prestigious Michelin star, as well as Michelin’s inaugural Blancpain Young Chef Award for Lidgerwood himself. Morning Edition Preview with Mark Wilson-Choi: In tomorrow’s Korea Times, Jon Dunbar introduces an online exhibition that pays homage to the metaverse, put together by the Seoul-based nomadic curatorial collective Crazy Multiply. Meanwhile, in tomorrow's Korea Herald, Kim Ha-yeon writes about two books of Korean poetry that were recently published in the US.

Heads-up Monday-26th: Former South Gyeongsang Province Governor to be imprisoned again -27th: Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) to implement a public proposal for active public administration -28th: Ruling Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls to meet for their first TV debate -26일: 김경수 전 경남도지사 창원교도소 재수감 -27일: 소극행정 예방 및 재발방지를 위한 적극행정 국민신청제 시행 계획 밝힌 권익위 -28일: 더불어민주당 대선 후보들의 첫 TV 토론 Guest: Kim Soohyun, ReporterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Debunking Critical Race Theory in the Ohio Classroom Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, has stated that Critical Race Theory is destructive in the classroom and in the board room across America. Title VII clearly states there should be no discrimination based on race.  Last July, during the COVID shutdown, the Ohio State School Board rushed through a resolution to support Critical Race Theory in the Ohio classroom. Five members of the board voted against the resolution. One of the members voting NO was State School Board member John Hagan of the 8th District.  He explains how the resolution was rushed through and how parents of school children are rising up to challenge this new ridiculous destructive trend in the Ohio classroom.  Part 2  Encore presentation - Constitutional Studies Threatened Again in Ohio Schools Ohio's educational standards for American Government and American History are under threat again. This time, it's H.B. 73 that would limit the testing requirement and thereby eliminate the teaching requirement in the classroom of American Constitutional studies. One of the original sponsors of the Founding of America Documents Curriculum Bill is former State Rep. John Adams. He joins me on the program to talk about the triumph of the passage of the original bill that guaranteed every Ohio student from the 8th - 12th grade would learn the U.S. Constitution with an emphasis on The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Northwest Ordinance, and The Ohio Constitution. But, the liberal teachers' union has placed a target on this curriculum requirement, and they seek to replace it with critical race theory and other socialist philosophies. We're not going to let that happen on our watch. Tune in and tell a friend. Help us stop H.B. 73!  

ACTION ALERT: Urge your state Senator to support the Fair School Funding Plan now!Featured Education Matters guest: Stephen Dyer, Director of Government Relations, Communications & Marketing, Ohio Education Association Prior to joining OEA, Stephen Dyer was the Education Policy Fellow at Innovation Ohio, a Columbus-based Progressive think tank, where he fights for the right of all Ohio's children to receive a world-class education, regardless of where they live. He has authored several reports for IO that have sought to ensure the fundamental right of every Ohio child to a world-class education. He is widely considered one of the state's top education policy experts, and one of the few people in the country with the experience of actually implementing and leading the debate on every major aspect of education reform from teacher quality to student achievement to school choice to equitable financing. He has been published in Education Week – the nation's education policy newspaper of record, as well as The 74 and Real Clear Education. He has been quoted extensively in the New York Times, Washington Post and Rolling Stone, among other publications. Dyer has headlined conferences and town halls throughout the state, and is one of the state's most sought-after education policy panelists. He was the keynote speaker on Ohio's charter school experience at the Cleveland Press Club. His 2011 report for Innovation Ohio, which called into question ECOT's money-making practices, many have seen as the impetus for the eventual implosion of the school that has been revealed to be the state's all-time, largest taxpayer ripoff and scandal. He has written extensive, groundbreaking reports for Innovation Ohio on school funding, charter schools, teacher evaluation, accountability and the Cleveland Transformation Plan. He spent a year as a fellow with the Education Policy Fellowship Program through the Institute for Educational Leadership in Washington, D.C. and served as part of an American delegation to observe the Chinese education system in Shanghai and Beijing. He recently served on a panel before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, informing the commission about how school funding systems can affect academics. Dyer also is a Senior Lecturer in English at the University of Akron, where he has received accolades for his classroom teaching. Dyer has spent his career serving his community, first as an award-winning journalist with the Akron Beacon Journal, then as an award-winning State Representative representing Ohio's Summit and Portage counties.  As a reporter for the Akron Beacon Journal for about a decade, Dyer won awards and recognition from the Society of Professional Journalists, the Associated Press and the Cleveland Press Club. He collaborated on an innovative project called “Ohio: Look at the State We're In” that analyzed where Ohio ranked on various quality of life issues. That collaboration earned Dyer and two other reporters nominations for the 2003 Pulitzer Prize. After winning his seat in 2006 to represent the 43rd House District, Dyer fought tirelessly to once and for all fix our state's school funding system. He spent two years developing his own system, then when Gov. Ted Strickland introduced the Ohio Evidence Based Model in 2009, Dyer was the chairman of the subcommittee that transformed the new system into one that earned the Frank Newman Award from the Education Commission of the States – recognizing the country's most “bold, innovative, non-partisan” education reform of 2009. It remains the only school funding plan produced since the 1930s that promised to lower Ohio's property taxes to pay for schools. Dyer received the Leadership in Education Policy Award from the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, which was the group that sued the state over its old, unconstitutionally funded system. He is the only Ohio legislator ever given an award from the group. He received the 2010 Friend of Public Education Award from the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the 2010 Public Service Award from the Ohio Association of Career and Technical Education, the 2009 Homer F. Mincy Award from the Alliance for Adequate School Funding (a group representing the state's suburban districts), and the 2009 Civic Leadership Award from the Ohio Association for Gifted Children. Dyer grew up in Hudson, Ohio, and attended Western Reserve Academy, where his parents taught. He graduated from Tufts University in Massachusetts with a Bachelor's Degree in English, earned a Master's Degree in journalism from Kent State University and a law degree from the University of Akron. He lives in Green with his wife of 19 years, Melissa, and his two sons, Logan, 13, and Carson, 9, both of whom attend Green Local Schools.  In this episode:"It's a really exciting time, and it's essential that our educators exercise their voices at the state and local levels to make sure that this money gets spent in the best way possible to ensure the ultimate success for our students." 1:35 - $4.5 billion in ARP money for Ohio's schools: A lot of money and a lot of opportunity for our kids 2:30 - The ARP regulations require that educators and their unions be given the opportunity to provide input on how the money is spent. Read the full language here.  3:50 - The 16 ways the ARP money can be used, including investing in personnel, communities, buildings, and technology 5:00 - Different needs in different districts 5:30 - Maintaining and growing the ARP investments through the Fair School Funding Plan 8:45 - The Fair School Funding Plan in the hands of the state Senate and the fate of the last one-time federal education funding package in Ohio 11:40 - Call to action for Ohio's educators and community members to contact their state Senator to support the Fair School Funding Plan 12:45 - Advice for how to advocate for students' needs in local decisions about how ARP and FSFP money is spent 13:45 - "If they're getting away with it, it's your fault." 15:00 - The opportunity to use ARP money to implement the FSFP faster 16:46 - A former state legislator's perspective on whether the state would ever be at this point: "If you had told me ten years ago that we'd go from the state defunding education by 1.8 billion to the state investing in education by 1.8 billion, and the state going from no school funding formula to a rational one that actually calculates costs and needs of students, I would have told you we must have legalized pot because you're high" 17:55 - "We are on the precipice of doing something great for our kids, and not just now but into the future." "What we want to make sure happens is that every kid in every community, regardless of zip code, regardless of background, is able to achieve their dreams. And right now, we have the opportunities lying right in front of us to deliver this to every student in the state, and it's up to us to make sure that it happens." Connect with us: Email educationmatters@ohea.org with your feedback or ideas for future Education Matters topics Like OEA on Facebook Follow OEA on Twitter Follow OEA on Instagram Get the latest news and statements from OEA here Learn more about where OEA stands on the issues  Keep up to date on the legislation affecting Ohio public schools and educators with OEA's Legislative Watch About us: The Ohio Education Association represents about 120,000 teachers, faculty members and support professionals who work in Ohio's schools, colleges, and universities to help improve public education and the lives of Ohio's children. OEA members provide professional services to benefit students, schools, and the public in virtually every position needed to run Ohio's schools. Education Matters host Katie Olmsted serves as Media Relations Consultant for the Ohio Education Association. She joined OEA in May, 2020, after a ten-year career as a television reporter, anchor, and producer. Katie comes from a family of educators and is passionate about telling educators' stories and advocating for Ohio's students.  This episode was recorded in May, 2021.

Some of the highlights of the show include: The Civil Rights Commission and its work to ensure fair housing for all Ronnell's role with the Commission and how he became involved The Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act and how they are both important The impact COVID has had at the commission The new memo from HUD in regards to discrimination against persons based on sexual orientation and gender identity being prohibited as sex discrimination

In this episode we hear from Stefan Bradley, Ph.D. Reared in Yakima, Washington, Dr. Bradley is currently the inaugural associate dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives in the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts and Professor of African American Studies at Loyola Marymount University. Bradley received his Ph.D. in 20th Century US History with an Emphasis on the Black Experience from the University of Missouri-Columbia; an M.A. in the same from Washington State University; and, a B.A. in History from Gonzaga University. An educator at heart, Bradley's life ambition is to personally teach/mentor/inspire the young people who change the world for the better. He is authored several award-winning books including Upending the Ivory Tower, Harlem vs. Columbia University, and Alpha Phi Alpha: A Legacy of Greatness, The Demands of Transcendence. Generous with his time, Bradley frequently volunteers on and off campus. In the wake of the tragic events in Ferguson and St. Louis, he engaged in discussions with representatives from the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Commission, and Department of Education. As a voice from the community, Bradley has appeared on BET, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and in the New York Times. Dr. Bradley is an overall good brother. I have worked with him on in a professional since and when I lured away from St. Louis, Dr. Bradley was among a group of good friends that threw a send-off that will always be near and dear to my heart. If you would please help me welcome this giant in the academy.

In this episode of Giving Voice, IHB historian Jill Weiss Simins talks to Adrianne Slash and Aaron Welcher, Indianapolis community leaders working on social justice issues. Slash serves on the board of the Civil Rights Commission and writes columns for the Indianapolis Business Journal and the Indianapolis Recorder. Welcher serves as the Programs & Communications Coordinator at the Jewish Community Relations Council and works to build coalitions of Jewish, Black, LGBTQ+, and other groups and faiths. Their important discussion in this episode considers how white Hoosiers can be allies for their Black neighbors in the ongoing struggle for civil rights, the responsibility of Jewish Hoosiers for continuing this work, and how people can get involved in the work that needs to be done in their own communities.

Nicka Sewell-Smith discusses attaining her Cherokee Nation citizenship; being a descendant of Cherokee Old Settler Chief John Rogers Jr., who by force, reproduced with her 4th great grandmother Annie May, of African descent and enslaved by another Cherokee, resulting in their daughter Martha May who became a teacher; Martha’s son, Isaac Rogers, enlisting in the 1st Kansas U.S. Colored Troops, working for a "hanging judge" in Arkansas, capturing outlaw Cherokee Bill who was later hung, then, Bill's brother shooting and killing Isaac on a train platform in Indian Territory in 1897; paternal ancestors enslaved by a founder of Amherst College and the father of Ole Miss; President Andrew Jackson's niece buying a share of her enslaved 3rd great grandfather, King Atlas, who was owned by a lawyer in Jackson's family, Atlas being allowed to keep in profits from hiring himself out while enslaved by his progressive slave owner who was against secession and poor treatment; contrasting with 5th great grandparents Sago's and Fatima's slaveholder and Harvard graduate, Israel Trask, profiting and living off loan interest from their enslavement while living in Massachusetts and his daughter marrying into an abolitionist family; and Revolutionary War patriot Richard Field, a European from Virginia, marrying Susanna Emory, a Cherokee; growing up in Southern California; audiophile father teaching her to swim and having lots of animals; participating in cheerleading, dance, honor society, in high school with yearbook and newspaper clubs helping her decide to major in journalism; attending Menlo College in the San Francisco Bay area with affluent classmates, being one of few blacks on an academic scholarship, having a radio show, and participating in cheerleading, newspaper, talent shows and joining Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc; father passing a month before graduating college; her job verifying doctors' credentials, like medical genealogy; recovering from dad's passing by researching his family; seeing family tree as a child then expanding it to 50 feet; leveraging family research skills to land a health policy communications position; consulting for Ancestry, producing Black ProGen LIVE genealogy web series and a podcast, writing, doing reveals for individuals and celebrities, appearing on TV's "Who Do You Think You Are?", consulting for TV pitches and individuals hitting brick walls; interest in sewing and gardening, growing crops of ancestors; maternal family including Freedom Riders and an ancestor who testified for U.S. Civil Rights Commission; Isaac Rogers, marrying Sarah Vann, a Cherokee and not enslaved; slavery as a national system; pursuing DAR since she was also applying for Cherokee Nation citizenship, both requiring the same documentation; Uncle Ben, Cherokee brother of Sarah Vann, listing family and leading to patriot on his application for Trail of Tears compensation; Uncle Ben denied rights in Cherokee Nation being on Freedman roll not listing blood quantum although his grandfather was by blood; choosing Cherokee line to join DAR; joining to add credibility to research, show black ancestry is more than slavery, and on behalf of ancestors who couldn't stake their claim; standing proxy for those who will come after her into DAR; black and East Indian friends helping with her application; joining a Tennessee DAR chapter having members with an ancestor who served as Deputy Marshall with Isaac Rogers; chapter service awards to people of color in community feeling like they were preparing for day she would get there ; “My own history is important and the fabric of what makes nation what it is ...it is varied, complicated, painful, beautiful but it is me and it is us, that's our strength.”Read Nicka's biography at www.daughterdialogues.com/daughtersSubscribe to the newsletter at www.daughterdialogues.com

Director of Economic Opportunity for the Stand Together Chamber of Commerce Erica Jedynak joins the podcast to talk about the American worker. With a new presidential administration and many states' legislatures in session, we focus on the future of independent contracting, worker freedom, and whether new regulations will make it harder for all of us to pursue and find a choice in our work. As a social entrepreneur, Erica leads a national strategy to remove barriers in government, business, communities, and education, so every person can rise. Prior to her work at Stand Together Erica served as the New Jersey State Director for Americans for Prosperity and was recognized as one of the New Jersey Globe's Top 100 Most Powerful People and was voted “Top Young Female Talent on the Right” by Save Jersey readers. Finally, Erica has been published in The Wall Street Journal and Forbes and has appeared on Fox Business, NJ News 12, and Bold TV and She currently serves on the New Jersey State Advisory Committee for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.She Thinks is a podcast for women (and men) who are sick of the spin in today's news cycle and are seeking the truth. Once a week, every week, She Thinks host Beverly Hallberg is joined by guests who cut through the clutter and bring you the facts.You don't have to keep up with policy and politics to understand how issues will impact you and the people you care about most. You just have to keep up with us.We make sure you have the information you need to come to your own conclusions. Because, let's face it, you're in control of your own life and can think for yourself.You can listen to the latest She Thinks episode(s) here or wherever you get your podcasts. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends. If you are already caught up and want more, join our online community.Sign up for our emails here: http://iwf.org/sign-upIndependent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day.Check out the Independent Women's Forum website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org.Be sure to subscribe to our emails to ensure you're equipped with the facts on the issues you care about most: https://iwf.org/sign-up. Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/IWF06.Follow IWF on social media:- https://twitter.com/iwf on Twitter- https://www.facebook.com/independentwomensforum on Facebook- https://instagram.com/independentwomensforum on Instagram#IWF #SheThinks #AllIssuesAreWomensIssues See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission (MCRC) recently released a report on Education Equity in Michigan. This 62 page report addresses some of the inequities present in public education.  Chris and Tim invite Dan Quisenberry and Buzz Thomas into The Fishbowl to discuss the MCRC's findings. Dan is the President of MAPSA and Buzz Thomas is a former state legislator and is the Co-Founder of Thomas Group Consulting. Follow this link to see the MCRC Report Follow this link for more information about Buzz Thomas Follow this link to Michigan Association of Public School Academies webpage

Leonard Jones welcomes Latrice Lacey, Director of the Davenport, Iowa, Civil Rights Commission, to discuss the way African American women are treated in the United States today.The Black Conscience is produced by Lenord Jones. It is recorded and edited in the KALA-FM studios, St. Ambrose University - Davenport, Iowa, USA. Production assistance is provided by KALA-FM. This show is made possible by a grant from the St. Ambrose Kokjohn Foundation and support from St. Ambrose University faculty, staff, cabinet, and administration.Resources: Email: bsu@sauInstagram: click here

African-America Peter Kirsanow, recently reappointed by Rep. Steny Hoyer to his fourth term on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, explains why he does not believe America or the Police Departments of America are “systemically racist.” With Mark S. Golub.

THE PETE SANTILLI SHOW Episode #1726 - Friday - December 27, 2019 - 6PM  Live Broadcast Link -  https://youtu.be/3BG-svynMzc    Virginia Gun Sanctuary Leaders Respond To VA AG; Compare American Revolution - 1726-6P The clash in Virginia over gun control has reached a new level, with proponents of a gun “sanctuary” movement urging active resistance to Democratic proposals in Richmond, citing the arguments that led to the American Revolution. The movement sweeping Virginia has in less than two months become the national model for fighting gun control. In November, the Democrats took control of the state legislature and, backed by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, have offered several gun control proposals. In reaction, gun owners have flooded into county and city meetings to demand that their representatives approve sanctuary resolutions to ignore gun control laws. E-Militia Article: Virginia Gun Sanctuary Leaders Respond To VA AG; Compare American Revolution – E-Militia News http://ow.ly/lw8G30q5dq5  GUEST: Professor Ronald J. Rychlak is the Jamie L. Whitten Chair of Law and Government and Professor of Law. He has been on the faculty since 1987. He currently serves as the university’s Faculty Athletic Representative, and he is the former Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. He is a graduate of Wabash College (BA, cum laude) and Vanderbilt University (JD, Order of the Coif). Prior to joining the faculty, Ron practiced law with Jenner & Block in Chicago, and he served as a clerk to Hon. Harry W. Wellford of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ron is an advisor to the Holy See’s delegation to the United Nations and a member of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. He is on the committee appointed by the Mississippi Supreme Court to revise the state’s criminal code, and he serves on the editorial board of The Gaming Law Review. He is also on Advisory Boards for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Ave Maria School of Law, and the International Solidarity and Human Rights Institute. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rrychlak  Twitter: https://twitter.com/rrychlak  https://law.olemiss.edu/faculty-directory/ronald-j-rychlak/  AMAZON LINK:https://www.amazon.com/Ronald-J.-Rychlak/e/B003BX6FJS%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share  Save Our APP To Your Smartphone! https://one.cards/PeteSantilli Morning Prayer Requests: http://petelive.tv/prayer 

In this Deibertribe, Dan says we've now crossed into a new realm of stupidity with some of the former members of the Davenport Civil Rights Commission.

Bob Frantz, filling in for Sebastian out of Cleveland, talks with Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about President Trump's historically high approval rating among black votersSupport the show: https://www.sebgorka.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this Deibertribe, the nonsense with the Davenport Civil Rights Commission has to stop. It's making a mockery of the actual intent of a civil rights commission.

Taking your calls on the coincidence of Hickenlooper announcing a presidential run and the end of Colo. Civil Rights Commission case against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our culture has tended, up until recently, to think of serious sexual harassment as characterizing a bygone era. Scenes from the television show Mad Men, for example, set in 1960s advertising firms, startle us with the blatant sexism that female characters face. A 2016 report by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on workplace harassment included the results of a random sample survey that found that 25% of female employees reported having been sexually harassed in the workplace. When the term "sexual harassment" was not used in the question, but unwanted sexual advances by employers were described, 40% of female employees reported having experienced these behaviors. When the question described people's being treated with hostility in relation to their gender (as opposed to experiencing unwanted sexual advances or sexual touching), that percentage went up to 60. This survey demonstrates, first, that sexual harassment in the American workplace is anything but dead, and second, that many women notice sexually inappropriate and gender-biased behavior in their workplaces but don't define these behaviors to themselves as sexual harassment. The harassment is happening, but victims don't always recognize it as such. The problem of sexual harassment is remarkably widespread across the culture. The same EEOC report indicates that sex-based harassment is reported equally in federal workplaces, state and local government workplaces, and private workplaces, so the problem is not relegated to certain types of employer. The #MeToo movement has shown that sexual harassment doesn't fall into neat ideological lines either. Starting with Gretchen Carlson, multiple women accused Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News of sexual harassment before he resigned in 2016, but women have accused left-leaning politicians such as Al Franken and journalists such as NPR's Michael Orestes of harassment as well. Sexual harassment is not limited to an ideology, a type of person, a type of job, or even to a single gender. 17% of the sex-based harassment charges examined in the EEOC report were brought by men, and a 2017 study by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission indicated that 90% of transgender individuals -- male and female -- experience workplace harassment. Nor does harassment stop in the workplace. The sexual assault charges brought against numerous clergy members in recent years indicate that churches are no more immune to predatory sexual behavior than anywhere else. It is impossible to deny that sexual harassment remains a serious problem across the board in American culture.

Earlier this year, the nation's highest court handed down a decision in the case of Jack Phillips, the baker from Colorado who had been found guilty by the state’s Civil Rights Commission of having violated the rights of LGBT persons by refusing to create cakes with certain messages. The result was a seven-two decision in favor of Jack. But now Jack—after the US Supreme Court victory—has some of the very same folks coming back for him again. Alliance Defending Freedom—the group that successfully defended Jack Phillips all the way to the Supreme Court—is representing him again. What you haven’t seen reported much is that this is—to put it succinctly—a scam. His opponents in Colorado have made a crusade out of pestering him with outrageous cake requests and then complaining to state officials when he refuses. The issues here are much bigger than just Jack Phillips.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Frank Sontag turns to Jonathan Keller, of the California Family Council, to share about the latest on California AB2943 and the open hostility it and the LGBT Caucus has towards Christian morality. Georgene Rice invites Alliance Defending Freedom's Kristen Waggoner, who successfully argued Jack Phillips' Supreme Court case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), to share about Colorado's renewed effort to destroy Jack's business. Dr. Albert Mohler takes a look at the implosion of the Catholic church in Pennsylvania involving over 300 predatory priests and over 1,000 abused children. Catholic John Zmirak of "The Stream," shares his deep-seated concerns about what this means for the Catholic church as a whole. Craig Roberts turns to Annabelle Rutledge, of Concerned Women for America, share her efforts to put pressure on Congress to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Eric Metaxas has accomplished Christian author and apologist Douglas Groothuis share the story of he and his wife "suffering well" in his book, Walking Through Twilight: A Wife’s Illness—A Philosopher’s Lament.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we’ll talk with Kristen Waggoner, Senior Vice President of the US Legal Division and Communications and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, on the ADF suit filed in the US District Court in Colorado, against the Civil Rights Commission in Denver on behalf of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cake Shop and Katie Reid, author of “Made Like Martha: Good News for The Woman Who Gets Things Done” (WaterBrook).See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I didn't get to this story Wednesday night so we'll start here. Christian baker Jack Phillips, who was recently handed a victory at the Supreme Court over the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has filed a new lawsuit against the Civil Rights Commission because the Civil Rights Commission has issued a preliminary ruling penalizing him for not baking a gender transition celebration cake. In the latest on the topic of the failing of intersectionality, Vanderbilt University has changed the name and description of a scheduled workshop that accused “white women” of failing to do enough to combat white supremacy. New York governor Andrew Cuomo took his progressive rhetoric a little too far when he declared that he's not interested in "making America great again" because it was "never that great." A young American couple who believed that evil was a make-believe concept end up proving that ISIS is evil. At the top of the second hour, I will be joined by Seamus Bruner, Associate Director of Research at the Government Accountability Institute and the author of the new book Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption to discuss what is going on in the FBI and in the DOJ.

I didn’t get to this story Wednesday night so we’ll start here. Christian baker Jack Phillips, who was recently handed a victory at the Supreme Court over the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has filed a new lawsuit against the Civil Rights Commission because the Civil Rights Commission has issued a preliminary ruling penalizing him for not baking a gender transition celebration cake. In the latest on the topic of the failing of intersectionality, Vanderbilt University has changed the name and description of a scheduled workshop that accused “white women” of failing to do enough to combat white supremacy. New York governor Andrew Cuomo took his progressive rhetoric a little too far when he declared that he's not interested in "making America great again" because it was "never that great." A young American couple who believed that evil was a make-believe concept end up proving that ISIS is evil. At the top of the second hour, I will be joined by Seamus Bruner, Associate Director of Research at the Government Accountability Institute and the author of the new book Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption to discuss what is going on in the FBI and in the DOJ.

In this summer of international religious freedom, Matt Hawkins and Travis Wussow visited the State Department to speak with Ambassador Sam Brownback then welcomed Commissioner Kristina Arriaga to the ERLC Leland House. Brownback serves as Ambassador at large for International Religious Freedom and Arriaga serves as Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The U.S. officials give an update on Pastor Andrew Brunson, the Christian detained in Turkey. The conversations come as a wrap up to the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. Article | State Department hosts a first-ever Ministerial on Religious Freedom Article | American pastor imprisoned in Turkey transferred to house arrest Podcast Episode | Meet the staff of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Article | What you need to know about the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Article | What is the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act? ERLC | Resources on International Religious Freedom Guest Bios Sam Brownback was sworn in as Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom on February 1, 2018. He served as Governor of Kansas from 2011 to 2018, U.S. Senator from 1996-2011, and a U.S. Representative in the House of Representatives from 1995-1996 from Kansas. While a member of the Senate, he worked actively on the issue of religious freedom in multiple countries and was a key sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Kristina Arriaga was first appointed to the Commission on May 13, 2016 by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI). Arriaga has worked on the defense of Freedom of Religion or Belief in the United States and internationally for over 20 years as Advisor to the United States delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, an appointee to the Civil Rights Commission, and as the Executive Director of a U.S.-based public interest law firm that defends all religious traditions. iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Tune in

1st Amendment free exercise over-rules civil rights of a gay couple in this specific instance - due to the colorado civil rights commission’s obvious hostility to a religious belief.

This program originally aired on March 28, 2018 . Today on the show, a conversation with Dr. Mary Frances Berry. She is a scholar, an author and activist whose new book chronicles the history of American protest and resistance movements, from the Roosevelt administration through the Obama years. From the Vietnam War to the end of apartheid in South Africa, to her long tenure on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that spanned several administrations, Dr. Berry brings deep experience and erudition to her fascinating book. It’s called History Teaches Us to Resist: How Progressive Movements Have Succeeded in Challenging Times.

Let’s say there had been a Michigan Civil Rights Commission in 1961, and it announced that it was going to start investigating claims of discrimination against black people. Undoubtedly that would have met considerable opposition, since there was, as yet, no legal basis to try to prevent someone from hiring you, or renting to you, because you were black. I don’t know how successful their efforts would have been. Probably not very, at least at first. They would have risked verbal attacks, or worse. But I know that we would look back on them today as heroes. And their efforts might have gotten us thinking about open housing and employment anti-discrimination acts sooner than we did. Well, something like that happened yesterday. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission voted to start taking claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. We now live in a crazy parallel universe where you can marry someone of the same sex anywhere in Michigan, but you can still be

Today on the show, a conversation with Dr. Mary Frances Berry. She is a scholar, an author and activist whose new book chronicles the history of American protest and resistance movements, from the Roosevelt administration through the Obama years. From the Vietnam War to the end of apartheid in South Africa, to her long tenure on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that spanned several administrations, Dr. Berry brings deep experience and erudition to her fascinating book. It’s called History Teaches Us to Resist: How Progressive Movements Have Succeeded in Challenging Times.

Devon and Sarah discuss the GOP's health care bill that the Senate is trying to push through without adequate input or debate, a Civil Rights Commission that is investigating the Trump administration, Trump enriching himself via the presidency, and more about the widening net of the Trump Russia investigation, headed by special counsel Robert Mueller. They also award the Donald Trump Dishonor in Dickwaddery.

Mrs Magee Harvey will give us update on flint water lawsuit update

First Liberty Attorney Matthew Kascmaryk discusses a recent U.S. Civil Rights Commission report stating the terms "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" are code words for "Intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance." Learn more about the First Liberty Institute at firstliberty.org.

This week Georgene Rice sits in for host Don Kroah. In the show: Rice talks with The Heritage Foundation's Edmund Haislmaier about Aetna pulling out of Obamacare. Pastor Albert Mohler warns us about California Senate Bill 1146. Don Kroah speaks with Christina Holcombe of the Alliance Defending Freedom about anti-Christian action being taken by the Civil Rights Commission in Iowa. Rice interviews John Zmirak of "The Stream" about ISIS. Frank Sontag talks with John Stonestreet of "Breakpoint Commentaries" about God's judgment on our nation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A church in Des Moines has sued the state of Iowa. The state's Civil Rights Commission asserts the right to ban "public accommodations" from expressing views of human sexuality if they would "directly or indirectly" make persons of any particular "gender identity" feel "unwelcome".  Of course, the state of Iowa defines church services as "public accommodations". Also: Wikileaks founder hints that man killed in D.C. may have been source of leaked Democratic emails; emails show that donors to Clinton Foundation got special access to Hillary's State Department; FBI agent apparently egged on ISIS terrorist in Texas; Muslim Brotherhood demands that Italy accept polygamy; and Temple Institute pushes construction of Third Temple.

Henry Allen Bullock devoted his life to advancing African American education in Texas—and made history in the process. His history of African American education in the South earned him the Bancroft Prize. He testified for the inclusion of African American history in Texas history textbooks and served on the Texas advisory committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. In 1969, he became the first African American appointed to the faculty of arts and sciences at The University of Texas at Austin.

Frankie Muse Freeman, age 98, shares her story of civil rights activism and how she became a lawyer in a deeply segregated society. She was a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and helped enact progress through the Civil Rights Commission.

Frankie Muse Freeman, age 98, shares her story of civil rights activism and how she became a lawyer in a deeply segregated society. She was a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and helped enact progress through the Civil Rights Commission.

Frankie Muse Freeman, age 98, shares her story of civil rights activism and how she became a lawyer in a deeply segregated society. She was a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and helped enact progress through the Civil Rights Commission.

Frankie Muse Freeman, age 98, shares her story of civil rights activism and how she became a lawyer in a deeply segregated society. She was a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and helped enact progress through the Civil Rights Commission.

Host Lakota Harden talks with Reno/Sparks Indian Colony Tribal Chairperson Arlan Melendez who sat on the Civil Rights Commission for 6 yrs concerning the recent attack on a Native family by Skinheads in Fernley, NV. Also Autumn Washington of the Autumn Rose Canoe Club of Lummi Indian Nation, who  traveled to NYC taking third in  the Liberty Challenge.  Music by Buddy Red Bow, and Robbie Robertson as well as the AICA Bay Area Indian Community Calendar The post Bay Native Circle – June 29, 2011 appeared first on KPFA.