Podcasts about lani guinier

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

What are some of the paradoxes of racial justice work? Why is it important to recognize those paradoxes so we can navigate them?In this series on healthcare and social disparities, Dr. Jill Wener, a board-certified Internal Medicine specialist, anti-racism educator, meditation expert, and tapping practitioner, interviews experts and gives her own insights into multiple fields relating to social justice and anti-racism. In this episode, Jill interviews Prof. Susan Sturm of Columbia Law School. They explore the importance of community and context and doing the challenging work of racial justice. Prof. Sturm shares examples of how the work of racial justice lifts all of us up, not just people who are impacted by racism and oppression, and the importance of using the platforms and privilege that we have.Susan Sturm is the George M. Jaffin Professor of Law and Social Responsibility and the founding director of the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School. Her work focuses on building the capacity of people and institutions to reduce discrimination, confront racism, transform the justice system, and move toward full participation in educational, legal, and cultural institutions.Along with numerous scholarly publications, Professor Sturm is the author, with Lani Guinier, of Who's Qualified: A New Democracy Forum on the Future of Affirmative Action. Her new book, entitled What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions, was published in February 2025 by Princeton University Press.LINKShttps://whatmightbe.me**Our website www.consciousantiracism.comYou can learn more about Dr. Wener and her online meditation and tapping courses at www.jillwener.com, and you can learn more about her online social justice course, Conscious Anti Racism: Tools for Self-Discovery, Accountability, and Meaningful Change at https://theresttechnique.com/courses/conscious-anti-racism.If you're a healthcare worker looking for a CME-accredited course, check out Conscious Anti-Racism: Tools for Self-Discovery, Accountability, and Meaningful Change in Healthcare at www.theresttechnique.com/courses/conscious-anti-racism-healthcareJoin her Conscious Anti-Racism facebook group: www.facebook.com/groups/307196473283408Follow her on:Instagram at jillwenerMDLinkedIn at jillwenermd

Leaders who introduce anti-racist approaches to their organizations often face backlash. In What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions (Princeton UP, 2025), Susan Sturm explores how to navigate the contradictions built into our racialized history, relationships, and institutions. She offers strategies and stories for confronting racism within predominantly white institutions, describing how change agents can move beyond talk to build the architecture of full participation. Professor Sturm argues that although we cannot avoid the contradictions built into efforts to confront racism, we can make them into engines of cross-racial reflection, bridge building, and institutional reimagination, rather than falling into a Groundhog Day–like trap of repeated failures.  Drawing on her decades of experience researching and working with institutions to help them become more equitable and inclusive, she identifies three persistent paradoxes inherent in anti-racism work. These are the paradox of racialized power, whereby anti-racism requires white people to lean into and yet step back from exercising power; the paradox of racial salience, which means that effective efforts must explicitly name and address race while also framing their goals in universal terms other than race; and the paradox of racialized institutions, which must drive anti-racism work while simultaneously being the target of it. Sturm shows how people and institutions can cultivate the capacity to straddle these contradictions, enabling those in different racial positions to discover their linked fate and become the catalysts for long-term change. The book includes thoughtful and critical responses from Goodwin Liu, Freeman Hrabowski, and Anurima Bhargava. Our guest is: Professor Susan Sturm, who is the George M. Jaffin Professor of Law and Social Responsibility and the Founding Director of the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School. She is the coauthor with Lani Guinier, of Who's Qualified? A New Democracy Forum on the Future of Affirmative Action. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Teaching About Race and Racism in the College Classroom Black Women, Ivory Tower Transforming Hispanic Serving Institutions for Equity and Justice Black Woman on Board We Are Not Dreamers: Undocumented Scholars Theorize Undocumented Life in the United States Leading from the Margins Presumed Incompetent Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us to learn from experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Leaders who introduce anti-racist approaches to their organizations often face backlash. In What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions (Princeton UP, 2025), Susan Sturm explores how to navigate the contradictions built into our racialized history, relationships, and institutions. She offers strategies and stories for confronting racism within predominantly white institutions, describing how change agents can move beyond talk to build the architecture of full participation. Professor Sturm argues that although we cannot avoid the contradictions built into efforts to confront racism, we can make them into engines of cross-racial reflection, bridge building, and institutional reimagination, rather than falling into a Groundhog Day–like trap of repeated failures.  Drawing on her decades of experience researching and working with institutions to help them become more equitable and inclusive, she identifies three persistent paradoxes inherent in anti-racism work. These are the paradox of racialized power, whereby anti-racism requires white people to lean into and yet step back from exercising power; the paradox of racial salience, which means that effective efforts must explicitly name and address race while also framing their goals in universal terms other than race; and the paradox of racialized institutions, which must drive anti-racism work while simultaneously being the target of it. Sturm shows how people and institutions can cultivate the capacity to straddle these contradictions, enabling those in different racial positions to discover their linked fate and become the catalysts for long-term change. The book includes thoughtful and critical responses from Goodwin Liu, Freeman Hrabowski, and Anurima Bhargava. Our guest is: Professor Susan Sturm, who is the George M. Jaffin Professor of Law and Social Responsibility and the Founding Director of the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School. She is the coauthor with Lani Guinier, of Who's Qualified? A New Democracy Forum on the Future of Affirmative Action. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Teaching About Race and Racism in the College Classroom Black Women, Ivory Tower Transforming Hispanic Serving Institutions for Equity and Justice Black Woman on Board We Are Not Dreamers: Undocumented Scholars Theorize Undocumented Life in the United States Leading from the Margins Presumed Incompetent Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us to learn from experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Leaders who introduce anti-racist approaches to their organizations often face backlash. In What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions (Princeton UP, 2025), Susan Sturm explores how to navigate the contradictions built into our racialized history, relationships, and institutions. She offers strategies and stories for confronting racism within predominantly white institutions, describing how change agents can move beyond talk to build the architecture of full participation. Professor Sturm argues that although we cannot avoid the contradictions built into efforts to confront racism, we can make them into engines of cross-racial reflection, bridge building, and institutional reimagination, rather than falling into a Groundhog Day–like trap of repeated failures.  Drawing on her decades of experience researching and working with institutions to help them become more equitable and inclusive, she identifies three persistent paradoxes inherent in anti-racism work. These are the paradox of racialized power, whereby anti-racism requires white people to lean into and yet step back from exercising power; the paradox of racial salience, which means that effective efforts must explicitly name and address race while also framing their goals in universal terms other than race; and the paradox of racialized institutions, which must drive anti-racism work while simultaneously being the target of it. Sturm shows how people and institutions can cultivate the capacity to straddle these contradictions, enabling those in different racial positions to discover their linked fate and become the catalysts for long-term change. The book includes thoughtful and critical responses from Goodwin Liu, Freeman Hrabowski, and Anurima Bhargava. Our guest is: Professor Susan Sturm, who is the George M. Jaffin Professor of Law and Social Responsibility and the Founding Director of the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School. She is the coauthor with Lani Guinier, of Who's Qualified? A New Democracy Forum on the Future of Affirmative Action. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Teaching About Race and Racism in the College Classroom Black Women, Ivory Tower Transforming Hispanic Serving Institutions for Equity and Justice Black Woman on Board We Are Not Dreamers: Undocumented Scholars Theorize Undocumented Life in the United States Leading from the Margins Presumed Incompetent Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us to learn from experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Leaders who introduce anti-racist approaches to their organizations often face backlash. In What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions (Princeton UP, 2025), Susan Sturm explores how to navigate the contradictions built into our racialized history, relationships, and institutions. She offers strategies and stories for confronting racism within predominantly white institutions, describing how change agents can move beyond talk to build the architecture of full participation. Professor Sturm argues that although we cannot avoid the contradictions built into efforts to confront racism, we can make them into engines of cross-racial reflection, bridge building, and institutional reimagination, rather than falling into a Groundhog Day–like trap of repeated failures.  Drawing on her decades of experience researching and working with institutions to help them become more equitable and inclusive, she identifies three persistent paradoxes inherent in anti-racism work. These are the paradox of racialized power, whereby anti-racism requires white people to lean into and yet step back from exercising power; the paradox of racial salience, which means that effective efforts must explicitly name and address race while also framing their goals in universal terms other than race; and the paradox of racialized institutions, which must drive anti-racism work while simultaneously being the target of it. Sturm shows how people and institutions can cultivate the capacity to straddle these contradictions, enabling those in different racial positions to discover their linked fate and become the catalysts for long-term change. The book includes thoughtful and critical responses from Goodwin Liu, Freeman Hrabowski, and Anurima Bhargava. Our guest is: Professor Susan Sturm, who is the George M. Jaffin Professor of Law and Social Responsibility and the Founding Director of the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School. She is the coauthor with Lani Guinier, of Who's Qualified? A New Democracy Forum on the Future of Affirmative Action. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Teaching About Race and Racism in the College Classroom Black Women, Ivory Tower Transforming Hispanic Serving Institutions for Equity and Justice Black Woman on Board We Are Not Dreamers: Undocumented Scholars Theorize Undocumented Life in the United States Leading from the Margins Presumed Incompetent Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us to learn from experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening!

Leaders who introduce anti-racist approaches to their organizations often face backlash. In What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions (Princeton UP, 2025), Susan Sturm explores how to navigate the contradictions built into our racialized history, relationships, and institutions. She offers strategies and stories for confronting racism within predominantly white institutions, describing how change agents can move beyond talk to build the architecture of full participation. Professor Sturm argues that although we cannot avoid the contradictions built into efforts to confront racism, we can make them into engines of cross-racial reflection, bridge building, and institutional reimagination, rather than falling into a Groundhog Day–like trap of repeated failures.  Drawing on her decades of experience researching and working with institutions to help them become more equitable and inclusive, she identifies three persistent paradoxes inherent in anti-racism work. These are the paradox of racialized power, whereby anti-racism requires white people to lean into and yet step back from exercising power; the paradox of racial salience, which means that effective efforts must explicitly name and address race while also framing their goals in universal terms other than race; and the paradox of racialized institutions, which must drive anti-racism work while simultaneously being the target of it. Sturm shows how people and institutions can cultivate the capacity to straddle these contradictions, enabling those in different racial positions to discover their linked fate and become the catalysts for long-term change. The book includes thoughtful and critical responses from Goodwin Liu, Freeman Hrabowski, and Anurima Bhargava. Our guest is: Professor Susan Sturm, who is the George M. Jaffin Professor of Law and Social Responsibility and the Founding Director of the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School. She is the coauthor with Lani Guinier, of Who's Qualified? A New Democracy Forum on the Future of Affirmative Action. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Teaching About Race and Racism in the College Classroom Black Women, Ivory Tower Transforming Hispanic Serving Institutions for Equity and Justice Black Woman on Board We Are Not Dreamers: Undocumented Scholars Theorize Undocumented Life in the United States Leading from the Margins Presumed Incompetent Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us to learn from experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/academic-life

Leaders who introduce anti-racist approaches to their organizations often face backlash. In What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions (Princeton UP, 2025), Susan Sturm explores how to navigate the contradictions built into our racialized history, relationships, and institutions. She offers strategies and stories for confronting racism within predominantly white institutions, describing how change agents can move beyond talk to build the architecture of full participation. Professor Sturm argues that although we cannot avoid the contradictions built into efforts to confront racism, we can make them into engines of cross-racial reflection, bridge building, and institutional reimagination, rather than falling into a Groundhog Day–like trap of repeated failures.  Drawing on her decades of experience researching and working with institutions to help them become more equitable and inclusive, she identifies three persistent paradoxes inherent in anti-racism work. These are the paradox of racialized power, whereby anti-racism requires white people to lean into and yet step back from exercising power; the paradox of racial salience, which means that effective efforts must explicitly name and address race while also framing their goals in universal terms other than race; and the paradox of racialized institutions, which must drive anti-racism work while simultaneously being the target of it. Sturm shows how people and institutions can cultivate the capacity to straddle these contradictions, enabling those in different racial positions to discover their linked fate and become the catalysts for long-term change. The book includes thoughtful and critical responses from Goodwin Liu, Freeman Hrabowski, and Anurima Bhargava. Our guest is: Professor Susan Sturm, who is the George M. Jaffin Professor of Law and Social Responsibility and the Founding Director of the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School. She is the coauthor with Lani Guinier, of Who's Qualified? A New Democracy Forum on the Future of Affirmative Action. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who works as a developmental editor for scholars, and is the producer of the Academic Life podcast. Playlist for listeners: Teaching About Race and Racism in the College Classroom Black Women, Ivory Tower Transforming Hispanic Serving Institutions for Equity and Justice Black Woman on Board We Are Not Dreamers: Undocumented Scholars Theorize Undocumented Life in the United States Leading from the Margins Presumed Incompetent Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us to learn from experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

What if the institutions we rely on—our workplaces, schools, and legal systems—aren't built for full participation? And what if real change starts not from the top, but in small, intentional spaces we create ourselves? In this episode Heidi Brooks and legal scholar and change-maker Susan Sturm explore the paradoxes of institutional transformation, and how facing uncertainty–rather than seeking to eliminate it–can create new possibilities for participation, collaboration and justice.  Drawing from her new book, What Might Be: How Universities and Other Institutions Can Change, Susan shares how we can confront the tensions within our systems—between power and powerlessness, justice and exclusion, certainty and humility—without rushing to resolve them. Through personal stories and deep insights, she introduces the concept of micro spaces of justice—small but intentional environments where people model the institutional change they wish to see. These spaces, she argues, offer a path forward amid today's polarization and institutional inertia.  This episode invites listeners to rethink their role in shaping institutions, reimagining power, and embracing paradox as a source of transformation. Listen now and join the conversation on what might be possible. Learning Through Experience is produced through the Yale School of Management. What resonates with you about this conversation? We'd love to hear from you—reach out to LTEpodcast@yale.edu. And subscribe to the monthly LinkedIn newsletter for additional insights and reflections about episode topics and questions to ponder.  Watch this episode on YouTube. Resources

It is a singular privilege to interview an author when their work is as powerful, instructive and intimate as What Might Be, Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions. In this episode of Power Station, I speak with Susan Sturm, Professor of Law and Social Responsibility at Columbia School of Law about her book, which explores her experience in tackling racism in American institutions and invites those who feel stuck on the sidelines to join in. Susan reflects on the “loving struggle” she has engaged in as a white woman working in multiracial collaborations, a practice supported by her treasured colleague, the late Lani Guinier. The book provides a window into the practice of confronting racism in predominately white institutions and the striking outcomes this work has generated. This includes the transformation of a court system whose routinized approach to calling balls and strikes each day obscured deeply embedded patterns of racial inequities which harmed litigants, court personnel of color and the broader community. We delve into Susan's vision for moving forward in a political environment that denies the existence of racism altogether. Listen, learn and share.  

Department of Africology and African American Studies Panel Discussion on “The Impact of US Elections on African Americans” on The Neoliberal Round Podcast Moderator: Rev. Renaldo McKenzie, Temple PhD Student, Author of Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty and Resistance Chairman: Dr. Ama Mazama, Author of The Afrocentric Paradigm, Head of the Africology Department at Temple Panelists: Dr. Jared Clemmons, Temple's Political Science Professor Dr. Zamir Ben-Dan, Temple's Law Professor Date: 11.05.2024 1. Opening Remarks: What has been the impact of US Elections on African Americans? 2. Panelist Introductions: Brief introduction of each panelist, their background, and relevant expertise. 3. Moderated Questions (1 hour, with approx. 5-7 minutes per question): Below are the suggested questions, covering a range of political, economic, and cultural impacts. 4. Audience Q/A: Open to questions from the audience. 5. Closing Remarks and Take-aways. Questions: 1. Historical and Structural Impact  What has been the impact of U.S. elections on African Americans historically? 2. Progress or Symbolism?  With Kamala Harris, an African American and South Asian woman, serving as Vice President, is this symbolic progress, or does it signal genuine political and social advancement for African Americans? 3. Electoral Process and Representation  Civil rights lawyer Lani Guinier argues that the electoral process fails to provide adequate representation for African Americans. Do you believe this is a fair criticism, and how does it apply in today's political climate? 4. Policy Impact and Economic Disparity  How effective have policies like the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, DEI initiatives, and Obamacare been in addressing economic and social disparities for African Americans? Follow-up: With recent attacks on Affirmative Action and Critical Race Theory, how could these shifts impact African Americans' socioeconomic status and political power? 5. Crime, Poverty, and Urban Investment  In areas with large African American populations, high rates of poverty, crime, and limited investment are common. Have recent election outcomes led to effective policies that address these issues? Follow-up: What does data suggest about the correlation between elected officials' actions and improvements in these communities? 6. The Role of Agency and African-Centered Consciousness  Some argue that political empowerment for African Americans begins with a consciousness rooted in African identity and heritage. Should policies focus on fostering a cultural consciousness as a basis for African American empowerment, and is there political will for such policies? Follow-up: Can fostering African-centered institutions or education contribute to better representation and agency within the political system? 7. Economic Opportunities and Systemic Challenges  What specific economic policies have been effective in uplifting African Americans, considering historical discrimination? Follow-up: Given the recent economic challenges and a history of exclusion from generational wealth-building opportunities, is there room for transformative policies like reparations or investment funds targeted at African American communities? 8. Media and Political Narratives  How has the media shaped African Americans ' perceptions of political figures and policies, and what role does it play in influencing voting behaviors and policy support? 9. Future Directions in African American Political Engagement  Looking ahead, how can African Americans leverage their voting power to drive more significant policy changes? Are there any current movements or leaders effectively channeling this potential? Follow-up: How can African American communities build coalitions or use collective agency to push for long-term structural changes? https://theneoliberal.com A Production of The Neoliberal Round by Renaldo McKenzie Support us https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/support --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theneoliberal/support

Will interest rates be cut? Who will win for president? Alan Lichtman says the Dems definitely have it, Nate Silver predicts Trump. And- Mark Pocan adds his insights.Plus - Thom reads from "Tyranny of the Majority" by Lani Guinier.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Guest Preacher Dr. Mtangulizi Sanyika: An examination of what the soul of America might feel like in 2050 given projections that "minorities" will then be the" majority." How will we culturally and spiritually respond to this new multi-cultural democracy populated by people of color and progressive Anglos?  "BABA" DR. MTANGULIZI SANYIKA is a recognized scholar-activist with over 60 years of experience as an activist, planner, professor and researcher. He has been active in many of the major social movements of the 20th century including the Civil Rights, Peace, Ecology, Black consciousness, Black conventions, Pan african, Million Man March and New Independent Politics         During the latter half of the 20th century, he was the National leader of the racial justice movement in the Unitarian- Universalist Church (BUUC and BAC) and led the Exodus(exit) from the church of 1599 Black members over funding disputes and irreconcilable cultural/racial/spiritual differences.  He went on to develop the first modern day concept of "Black Humanism," and assisted in founding the first Black Humanist Fellowship (BHF) in the country. He has taught at 12 universities, such as Harvard, MIT CAL, Dillard, TSU, Starr-King and O.U.T. in Africa.  His disciplines have ranged from Political Science, African World Studies, Urban Planning, Community Development, Participatory/Sustainable Economics to Social Theology. His students included public intellectuals Dr. Cornell West, Theologian Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Atty. Lani Guinier.  Dr. Sanyika has authored 70 articles, studies, commentaries, manuals and critiques, and has authored 4 book chapters. Additionally, Baba has worked with almost all of the major leaders of the Black freedom movement including Dr. King, John Lewis, Marion Barry, Stokeley Carmichael, Shirley Chisholm, Dick Gregory, Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, Susan Taylor, Amiri Baraka, Barbara Lee and Mayor Richard Hatcher, and many others, He has traveled to all regions of the world (i.e. Africa/Asia/Europe/Caribbean/So Pacific/Central America) and is a frequent speaker or consultant at conferences and events.  His special interest is transmitting his lessons and learnings from his last 8 decades to future leaders and generations in preparation for the multi-cultural democracy of the future..

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 2653: Ira Israel explores the profound relationship between our mindset towards money and overall happiness in "Mindful Money." He delves into societal views on wealth, contrasting the scarcity mentality with beliefs in abundance and how these perspectives shape our lives. Israel's insights encourage a reflective examination of our own attitudes towards money, urging a shift towards valuing freedom and personal fulfillment over financial status. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://iraisrael.com/mindful-money/ Quotes to ponder: "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do." ~ Bob Dylan "I desire more freedom, ease, opportunities, and options." "Any problem that can be solved by money isn't a real problem." Episode references: "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" by Paul Fussell: https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253 "The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America" by Lani Guinier: https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Meritocracy-Democratizing-Education-America/dp/0807078123 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 2653: Ira Israel explores the profound relationship between our mindset towards money and overall happiness in "Mindful Money." He delves into societal views on wealth, contrasting the scarcity mentality with beliefs in abundance and how these perspectives shape our lives. Israel's insights encourage a reflective examination of our own attitudes towards money, urging a shift towards valuing freedom and personal fulfillment over financial status. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://iraisrael.com/mindful-money/ Quotes to ponder: "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do." ~ Bob Dylan "I desire more freedom, ease, opportunities, and options." "Any problem that can be solved by money isn't a real problem." Episode references: "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" by Paul Fussell: https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253 "The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America" by Lani Guinier: https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Meritocracy-Democratizing-Education-America/dp/0807078123 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 2653: Ira Israel explores the profound relationship between our mindset towards money and overall happiness in "Mindful Money." He delves into societal views on wealth, contrasting the scarcity mentality with beliefs in abundance and how these perspectives shape our lives. Israel's insights encourage a reflective examination of our own attitudes towards money, urging a shift towards valuing freedom and personal fulfillment over financial status. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://iraisrael.com/mindful-money/ Quotes to ponder: "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do." ~ Bob Dylan "I desire more freedom, ease, opportunities, and options." "Any problem that can be solved by money isn't a real problem." Episode references: "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" by Paul Fussell: https://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253 "The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America" by Lani Guinier: https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Meritocracy-Democratizing-Education-America/dp/0807078123 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1993, the term "woke" had not been invented yet. But a prominent law professor nominated for a high position in the US government Saw her nomination done in by what we would now know as "anti-woke" sentiment. Her name was Lani Guinier. President Bill Clinton nominated her to be assistant attorney general for civil rights. That's, of course, when closer scrutiny of her past writings began. And, she says, that's when the misrepresentations of her writings began. Guinier was a strong advocate of voting rights, and a strong believer that all minority voices should be heard in a democracy.

Question of the Hour: What is Internalized Racism and How Is It Manifested? Internalized Racism Definition and Reality:"Internalized racism is the situation that occurs in a racist system when a racial group oppressed by racism supports the supremacy and dominance of the dominating group by maintaining or participating in the set of attitudes, behaviors, social structures and ideologies that undergird the dominating group's power." Donna Bivens, Antiracism Trainer and Consultant"As a country, we are in a state of denial about issues of race and racism. And too many of our leaders have concluded that the way to remedy racism is to simply stop talking about race." Lani Guinier. Imitation of Life in Perspective - 1959 film classicImitation defined - the assumption of behavior observed in other individualsPivotal historical events in Black history between 1950 and 1959.Brown vs. Board of Education decision, the murder of Emmitt Till, the dawn of the civil rights movement, etc. Synopsis 1959 Film Classic Imitation of Life Two mothers facing problems with rebellious daughters.Lora Meredith, Annie Johnson, Sarah Jane, SusieTwo families, two single mothers, two little girls, one Black, one White. Listen to the conversation as we explore...Internlized racism in childrenDistorted relationshipsThe Clarks Doll Experiment and Brown DecisionIll-equipped to deal with social injustice - Dr. Lani Guinier Explore the Social Impact Mastermind: A Transformational Journey Towards AntiracismSponsored by The Place to SOAR. Learn More and Apply for a Discover Call at https://theplacetosoar.com/social-impact-mastermind.

This week, Joi Chaney, our Executive Director and Senior Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, sits down with Jelani Cobb, historian and author who currently works as a staff writer at the New Yorker. Together, they debunk myths and misinformation around critical race theory, a term that, although coined in the 1980s, has regained traction since the tragic death of George Floyd and the United States' racial reckoning. They also discuss Derrick Bell, the architect behind this theory, and his influence. They also discuss how CR has evolved into one that is currently weaponized by conservative candidates in recent local elections and the upcoming midterm elections. More importantly, they outline how we can educate ourselves in order to decipher the misinformation that currently exists. Discussed in this episode: critical race theory, history, Derrick Bell, Lani Guinier, racial reckoning, George Floyd, elections, midterm elections, Black America, African Americans, Race, Balck Women, Black Families, Black Men, Politics, State of Black America, For the Movement, National Urban League, Urban League Movement, Young Professionals Contact and Follow our Guest(s) on Twitter @jelani9 or visit his page on the New Yorker to read his recent pieces website at https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/jelani-cobb Contact and Follow the National Urban League at: Web: www.nul.org Email: podcast@nul.org Twitter and Instagram: @NULpolicy | @NatUrbanLeague Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NULPolicy | https://www.facebook.com/NatUrbanLeague/ The State of Black America Podcast is the official podcast of the National Urban League, formerly For the Movement Podcast. The show is hosted by Joi Chaney, Executive Director of the Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President, Policy and Advocacy and produced by Niambe Tomlinson, Senior Director of Communications. The show is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. Thank you to our sponsor and our listeners. Please follow us and tune for the next episode.  You can find old episodes of For the Movement Podcast at https://open.spotify.com/show/1QQUhFUddChkMEYxQniJmj

Listen now | John draws linguistic lessons from the surnames of three Black Americans. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.booksmartstudios.org/subscribe

Maria and Julio are joined by Elie Mystal, justice correspondent at The Nation, for a conversation about the latest on voting rights and the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. They unpack the whitewashing of Dr. King's words, what he stood for, and how to meaningfully honor his work. ITT Staff Picks: In this article for The Nation, Elie Mystal writes about what the late Harvard Law professor and icon, Lani Guinier, taught him about voting rights. “When Biden fully entered the battle, the other warriors were already bloody, bruised and exhausted,” writes opinion columnist Charles Blow about President Biden's speech on voting rights in this piece for the The New York Times. “This holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., sees a nation embroiled in conflicts that would have looked numbingly familiar to him,” writes Jelani Cobb in this article for The New Yorker.Photo credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The significance of Sidney Poitier's Caribbean origins  … Revisiting the Lani Guinier controversy  … How Guinier's views eventually triumphed … Where are the “heterodox” black women?  … Glenn: I'm worried about the stability of our electoral process … Are we on the precipice of violent political conflict? … An update on John's prodigious output …

The significance of Sidney Poitier's Caribbean origins  ... Revisiting the Lani Guinier controversy  ... How Guinier's views eventually triumphed ... Where are the “heterodox” black women?  ... Glenn: I'm worried about the stability of our electoral process ... Are we on the precipice of violent political conflict? ... An update on John's prodigious output ...

The significance of Sidney Poitier's Caribbean origins  ... Revisiting the Lani Guinier controversy  ... How Guinier's views eventually triumphed ... Where are the “heterodox” black women?  ... Glenn: I'm worried about the stability of our electoral process ... Are we on the precipice of violent political conflict? ... An update on John's prodigious output ...

Civil Rights trailblazer and legal scholar Lani Guinier died on January 7, 2022 at the age of 71. In her honor I'm posting an interview I did with her in 2015 about her book, THE TYRANNY OF MERITOCRACY: Democratizing Higher Education in America. Guinier was the first African American woman to be a tenured law professor at Harvard University.  She also worked on Voting Rights issues with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.  Here is an excerpt from and a link to an article on the Harvard Law School web site: In Memoriam: Lani Guinier 1950 - 2022 - Harvard Law Today. “If I had to think of one idea I would associate with Lani, it is ‘meaningful participation,'” said Kenneth Mack '91, the Lawrence D. Biele Professor of Law and affiliate professor of history, Harvard University. “Lani spent her career thinking about, and working for, the proposition that people, particularly those without power, should be able to participate meaningfully in the institutions that affected their lives. Her work on voting and democracy — the work that would bring so much controversy — was all about the fragility of democratic systems. African American communities and their continuing struggles to participate, were the ‘miner's canary,' to use a term she later coined with Gerald Torres — evidence of largely unseen problems with the ability of many groups to engage with the democratic process.”  Picture credit to Steve Rubin.

DeRay, Myles, Kaya, and De'Ara cover the underreported news of the week— including Black climbers on Mount Everest, false positive drug tests in state prisons, and the life and death of Black political icons Sidney Poiter and Lani Guinier. DeRay interviews activist Samira Sangare about her work and advocacy with Saratoga Black Lives Matter in New York State.   News: DeRay https://www.news10.com/news/nys-inspector-general-report-reveals-rampant-false-positive-drug-test-results-in-state-prisons-led-to-undue-punishment/ Myles https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/a38695714/oprah-sidney-poitier-interview/ Kaya https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/mount-everest-black-climbers/2021/12/31/b5d28a70-3757-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html De'Ara https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/us/politics/lani-guinier-dead.html   Transcript coming soon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

1.10.2022 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: GA Voting Groups warn Biden-Harris; 2 Black NC men murdered; Remembering Guinier, Mtume, Simon, Craig President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will be heading to Georgia to speak on voting rights. Several voting rights organizations say the time for speeches is over. It's time to pass voting rights legislation. Co-Founder of Black Voters Matter, Cliff Albright, explains why the Coalition of Georgia Advocates is fed up with the pandering. Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death, and shedding those pounds could lessen your chance of dying from Covid. We have an expert who will break down a study that finds found people with obesity are 46-percent more at risk of getting the virus. Two black men are dead in North Carolina. One is shot dead in the middle of traffic by a white man, the other by a white off-duty police officer.  We'll tell you the details of both. Plus, a white teacher in Kentucky is fired for racially insensitive comments to a black student.   And we'll have some civil rights giants to pay tribute to Lani Guinier. We'll be joined by some musical icons and the daughters of James Mtume, Ife and Benin.   We are also paying tribute to one of the founding members of Parliament-Funkadelic, Calvin Simon, and film producer Carl Craig. #RolandMartinUnfiltered partners: Nissan | Check out the ALL NEW 2022 Nissan Frontier! As Efficient As It Is Powerful!

On this Saturday episode of THE POLITICRAT daily podcast: Omar Moore remembers and pays tribute to Lani Guinier, civil rights attorney, law professor, scholar, critical thinker, voting rights activist, advocate and author. Professor Guinier passed away yesterday at the age of 71. A massive loss for the United States, Lani Guinier will be missed immensely. This episode features audio clips of Ms. Guinier. January 8, 2022. Please get involved! Call Senator Joe Manchin (202-224-3954) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (202-224-4521) and tell them to vote YES on voting rights and the John Lewis Voting Advancement Act. The future of the country depends on it! Call now! Call all U.S. senators at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121. Tell the Senate to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For The People Act. FREE: SUBSCRIBE NOW TO THE BRAND NEW POLITICRAT DAILY PODCAST NEWSLETTER!! Extra content, audio, analysis, exclusive essays for subscribers only, plus special offers and discounts on merchandise at The Politicrat Daily Podcast online store. Something new and informative EVERY DAY!! Subscribe FREE at https://politicrat.substack.com Buy podcast merchandise (all designed by Omar Moore) and lots more at The Politicrat Daily Podcast Store: https://the/politicrat.myshopify.com The Politicrat YouTube page: bit.ly/3bfWk6V The Politicrat Facebook page: bit.ly/3bU1O7c The Politicrat blog: https://politicrat.politics.blog PLEASE SUBSCRIBE to this to this podcast! Follow/tweet Omar at: https://twitter.com/thepopcornreel

On this week's episode of ‘The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross:' Thursday marked the one year anniversary of the January 6th insurrection – a reminder that our current democracy is fragile and requires change.  Plus, Senator Joe Manchin turns his back on his $1.8 trillion counteroffer to President Biden's build back better agenda. Democrats prioritize voting rights as we get closer to 2022 midterm elections. All this and more on this week's episode of ‘the Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross.' 

1.7.2022 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Hollywood legend Sidney Poitier, civil rights lawyer Lani Guinier die; Arbery murderers get life in prison The three white men convicted for killing Georgia jogger Ahmaud Arbery were sentenced today. We'll show you what happened in the courtroom. And we have lost a Hollywood giant. Sidney Poitier has died at the age of 94. We will have a special tribute with Lou Gosset, Jr., Debbie Allen, Blair Underwood, Glyn Turman, and many more as we celebrate the life of Sidney Poitier. #RolandMartinUnfiltered partners: Verizon | Verizon 5G Ultra Wideband, now available in 50+ cities, is the fastest 5G in the world.* That means that downloads that used to take minutes now take seconds.

Welcome to System Check. On this podcast, we’re going to break down the big, unwieldy, seemingly immovable systems that structure our politics and our lives. In the ten episodes in this season, we will delve into the history of these systems, and along with our guests, we will seek ways to move beyond or redesign these systems. In our first episode, your hosts Dorian Warren and Melissa Harris-Perry are focusing on the system at the top of everyone’s minds: Voting. More than 75 million Americans have already cast a ballot, (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/elections/75-million-americans-have-already-voted.html) but election watchers are warning that long lines, false information, and purposeful barriers may deter many Americans from exercising their right to vote. America’s convoluted voting system is deeply and purposely unfair to many Americans, especially African Americans, Spanish-speakers, caregivers, and those with the least education and the fewest financial resources. It’s time for a system check. Sherrilyn Ifill, (https://www.naacpldf.org/about-us/staff/sherrilyn-ifill/) President and Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (https://www.naacpldf.org/) joins us to consider the long history of voter suppression in the United States and to outline how state laws, federal court decisions, and digital misinformation continue to depress voter turnout. After listening to this interview, we know you will want to learn more. Check out Sherrilyn Ifill, Civil Rights Superhero (https://www.glamour.com/story/sherrilyn-ifill-women-of-the-year-2020) by Melissa Harris-Perry (Glamour, October 13, 2020); Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t know his civil rights history (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/17/mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-know-his-civil-rights-history/) by Sherrilyn Ifill (Washington Post, October 17, 2019) and the testimony of Sherrilyn Ifill, before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2019 (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190129/108824/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-IfillS-20190129.pdf) (January 29, 2019). Also in this episode, co-host Melissa Harris-Perry delivers the weekly “System Analysis” with a surprising take on the rationality of voting. She concludes by drawing on the wisdom of Professor Lani Guinier. (https://www.fairvote.org/lani_guinier_champion_of_democracy) legal scholar and a champion of voting rights and racial justice. Twenty years ago, as the 2000 election between Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush descended into a chad-hanging fiasco, Lani Guinier wrote Making Every Vote Count (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/making-every-vote-count/) for The Nation. Her analysis remains relevant today. In the second half of the episode, we talk to Alicia Garza (https://aliciagarza.com/) , co-founder of #BlackLivesMatter (https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/) , founder of the Black Futures Lab (https://blackfutureslab.org/) , co-founder of Super Majority (https://supermajority.com/) , host of her own podcast, Lady Don’t Take No (https://lady-dont-take-no.simplecast.com/) , and author of the new book, The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/565184/the-purpose-of-power-by-alicia-garza/) . Alicia Garza is insightful, impactful, and vulnerable in this interview you will not want to miss! Transforming analysis into action, we give listeners three action items this week: Read Alicia Garza’s The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/565184/the-purpose-of-power-by-alicia-garza/) . If you haven’t already voted—VOTE! Not sure if you’re registered? You can check here (https://www.vote.org/) .  If you or anyone you know encounters difficulties while trying to vote, call Election Protection: 1-866-OUR VOTE (https://866ourvote.org/) Be sure to keep listening until the end of the episode, because organizer Linda Sutton of Democracy North Carolina (https://democracync.org/) has an inspiring final word this week. System Check is a project of The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/) , hosted by Melissa Harris-Perry and Dorian Warren and produced by Sophia Steinert-Evoy. Our executive producer is Frank Reynolds. DD Guttenplan is Editor of The Nation, Erin O’Mara is President of The Nation. Our theme music is by Brooklyn-based artist and producer Jachary (https://jachary.bandcamp.com/) . Special thanks this week to our guests Sherrilyn Ifill and Alicia Garza. Support for System Check comes from Omidyar Network, a social change venture that is reimagining how capitalism should work. Learn more about their efforts to recenter our economy around individuals, community, and societal well-being at Omidyar.com (https://omidyar.com/) .

Thom tackles the rot behind the sale of the Republican party to billionaires and giant corporations- from giving lobbyists total control of government agencies, to Trump's coverups, to climate-change denial, to phony wars- where is this all going? - In the book club today- "Don't Label Me" by Irshad Manji. - A rundown of the latest corruption- Trump appears to be lining us up for a possible war with Venezuela. And meanwhile, the recently-sold CNN appears to have picked a GOP operative and former advisor to Ted Cruz, among others, to head its coverage of the 2020 election. What could go wrong? - Ed Asner plays God in the new play 'God Help Us', written by Firesign Theater alums, and now touring the country. In it, a couple tries to overcome their differences due to the fact that she is conservative, and he is Progressive. Thom chats with the authors of the play and with God himself, in the form of Ed Asner. - Also in the book club today, Thom reads from 'The Tyranny of the Majority' by Lani Guinier. - Thom asks about the chances of having a conversation with a conservative that leads to consensus? Wendy in Ohio has an idea about this. And Marty in Missouri wonders if we can ever come together when Fox news has made a large part of the population delusional. - Bob Ney of Talk Media news, former Republican congressman, shares an insider's view of Republican corruption, oh and by the way- lots of huge corporations including Amazon and Google are claiming a refund on their taxes this year. - And Bob in Missouri puts a bow on it referring back to our fresh new Attorney General William Barr's resume at hiding presidential crimes last time he was Attorney General.

When we do a Supreme Court term preview, we of course turn to Slate’s amazing Dahlia Lithwick, and then we proceed not to discuss the upcoming term. We begin with a whirlwind fourteen minutes of feedback on, among other things, an index for the show, the Cyberloquium, the potential for classes in our goofy style, the North Dakotan listening trend, listening while cooking, the possibility of a Dworkin episode, surname vs. last name, the use of “antepenultimate,” the dearth of recent speed trap law discussion, and a tease further discussion of law and morals. With Dahlia, we then talk about the Supreme Court’s new rule on standing in line for oral arguments, what it means when the Court does things that are not manifest in written opinions, the idea of Supreme Court previews, and looking ahead. This show’s links: Dahlia Lithwick’s page, featuring her recent writing and podcasting, at Slate Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick Oral Argument and the Oral Argument Index The brand new Narrowest Grounds blog The Supreme Court’s new rule against “line standers” for members of the Supreme Court bar; Oral Argument 55: Cronut Lines (guest Dave Fagundes) Joan Biskupic, Janet Roberts and John Shiffman, At America’s Court of Last Resort, a Handful of Lawyers Now Dominates the Docket The Court’s new repository of PDFs of its web citations and a page featuring samples of the way it will highlight post-hand-down revisions of its opinions Justice Breyer on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert A Conversation with Elena Kagan Oyez, which hosts audio and (interactive) transcripts of decision announcements as well as oral arguments Oyez’s audio for Glossip v. Gross Oral Argument 22: Nine Brains in a Vat (guest Dahlia Lithwick), talking about hand-down days Lani Guinier, Supreme Cout 2007 Term Foreword: Demosprudence Through Dissent Jill Duffy and Elizabeth Lambert, Dissents from the Bench: A Compilation of Oral Dissents by U.S. Supreme Court Justices (containing a list of all dissents from the bench since 1969 and updated through summer 2014) William Blake and Hans Hacker, 'The Brooding Spirit of the Law': Supreme Court Justices Reading Dissents from the Bench Supreme Court Opinion Announcements: An Underutilized Resource (noting Justice Stevens’ oral dissent in Citizens United replaced a comparison between “Tokyo Rose” and “Allied commanders” to one between “Tokyo Rose” and “General MacArthur”) Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, The Supreme Court’s Most Important Cases of the New Term SCOTUSblog page for Evenwel v. Abbott, the new one-person, one-vote case Special Guest: Dahlia Lithwick.

Lani Guinier is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Formerly Assistant Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, she became a household name when her nomination as Assistant U.S. Attorney General was withdrawn by President Clinton. Her primary objective for the year ahead is developing support for a White House conference on civil rights that would be modeled on the White House Economic Summit. "I would like to see something where people come and testify to their own experiences, where the conversation is really a forum for telling the stories of discrimination, and for allowing people an opportunity to hear those whose perspective they don't share."

Lani Guinier on merit in college admissions, Caroline Lee on the public engagement industry, and Bill Press with Congressman John Larson on Social Security.   High school seniors are waiting to see what college they will get into, and Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier says true merit admissions should be based on how well a student will contribute to society. Sociologist Caroline Lee explains the movement toward “public engagement,” a form of activism that brings diverse stakeholders together. And Bill Press talks with union leader Congressman John Larson about the future of Social Security.   Lani Guinier Lani Guinier is a Harvard Law professor with some thoughts on how to introduce true merit into the college admissions process, which she says now privileges only the wealthy.   Caroline Lee Professor Caroline Lee tells us about the concept of “public engagement,” which tries to avoid professional activism in solving both corporate and community problems. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199987269.do   John Larson Bill Press and his guest, Congressman John Larson.   Jim Hightower Obama resorts to government by sucker punch.

Lani Guinier on what’s wrong with the college “testocracy”. Chad Broughton on how NAFTA killed a major manufacturer. And Bill Press interviews Congressman Peter Welch.   With high school students mulling over which college to attend next fall, prominent legal scholar and educator Lani Guinier says the admissions testing system is all wrong. Progressives are up in arms about new trade agreements on the table. Labor sociologist Chad Broughton tells us what NAFTA did to a once-thriving Midwestern town. And Bill Press talks with Vermont Congressman Peter Welch about Cuba.   Lani Guinier Legal scholar Lani Guinier says the SAT and other college admissions tests are simply a proxy for wealth and that universities, thus, do not train people to contribute to society. http://www.beacon.org/The-Tyranny-of-the-Meritocracy-P1042.aspx   Chad Broughton Labor sociologist Chad Broughton has done a case study on how NAFTA helped shift bargaining power away from unions to corporations.   https://global.oup.com/academic/product/boom-bust-exodus-9780199765614?cc=us&lang=en&   Peter Welch Bill Press and his guest, Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont   Jim Hightower   Shoveling America's wealth to the top.  

Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 4:00pm Salomon 101 Speakers: Lani Guinier & Jim Sleeper In her now-infamous speech to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Sotomayor’s statement reinvigorated a national discussion regarding the issue of minority representation in American politics. Our speakers shine a light on this topic in addressing the question: when, to what extent and why could members of a minority group or identity better represent that group’s interests than non-members? Speakers: Jim Sleeper is a writer and teacher on American civic culture and politics and a lecturer in political science at Yale. He is the author of The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New York and Liberal Racism. Lani Guinier is an American civil rights scholar and the first black woman tenured professor at Harvard Law School.