Podcasts about metropolitan center

Thom Hartmann explores the Psychology of Fear with Dr. Justin Frank M.D., Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center, and the co-director of the Metropolitan Center for Object Relations in New York for a deep dive Conversation with Great Minds.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On The Kenny & JT Show we're paid a visit by Mike Brown, Director of Community Development at the Eric Snow Stark County YMCA, along with former McKinley Bulldog and Cleveland Cavalier Eric Snow himself, to promote their Kentucky Derby Party this Saturday from 5-9pm at The Metropolitan Center in downtown Canton.

Rendering Unconscious episode 273. Karen Dougherty and Maria Veronica Laguna are here to discuss their experiences at the International Sandor Ferenczi conference in Budapest celebrating his 150th anniversary. https://ferenczisandor.hu/en/category/conference/ The next conference is happening in Sao Paolo, Brazil, May 29-June 1, 2024. https://www.ferencziconference14.com/en Karen Dougherty is a Registered Psychotherapist and Psychoanalyst in private practice in Amaranth, Ontario. She is also a documentary filmmaker and a mental health consultant for film and television. https://www.karendougherty.ca She is also the host of Conversations in Psychoanalysis Today Podcast. https://www.en.psychoanalysis.ca/podcast/ Maria Veronica Laguna is a licensed clinical social worker and certified psychoanalytic psychotherapist. She works in private practice in New York City and is a faculty member of the Metropolitan Center for Training in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. She specializes in mental health treatment related to immigration issues. Visit her website: http://www.psychoanalysisandsocialjustice.com This episode available to view at YouTube: https://youtu.be/YAKk0QOJ9dk?si=P49MWuCtmTPfIDVI Mentioned in this episode: Nebulosa Marginal – a psychoanalytic institute and publisher in Brazil. https://nebulosamarginal.com.br FreePsy: https://freepsyproject.com Anna Borgos' book – Women in the Budapest school of psychoanalysis: girls of tomorrow https://catalog.lib.uchicago.edu/vufind/Record/13120088 Ferenczi House: https://www.sandorferenczi.org/the-ferenczi-house/ André De Takacs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_De_Takacs Takács Endre: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takács_Endre Check out previous episodes: RU244: FROM GRAD SCHOOL TO PRIVATE PRACTICE – MARIA VERONICA LAGUNA & LIAT SHKLARSKI RU80: KAREN DOUGHERTY, PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOTHERAPIST & DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER Support the podcast at our Patreon where we post exclusive content every week, as well as unreleased material and works in progress, and we also have a Discord server: https://www.patreon.com/vanessa23carl Your support is GREATLY appreciated! Rendering Unconscious Podcast is hosted by Dr. Vanessa Sinclair, a psychoanalyst based in Sweden, who works with people internationally: www.drvanessasinclair.net Follow Dr. Vanessa Sinclair on social media: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rawsin_/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drvanessasinclair23 Visit the main website for more information and links to everything: www.renderingunconscious.org Many thanks to Carl Abrahamsson, who created the intro and outro music for Rendering Unconscious podcast. https://www.carlabrahamsson.com Check out Highbrow Lowlife at Bandcamp: https://highbrowlowlife.bandcamp.com His publishing company is Trapart Books, Films and Editions. https://store.trapart.net Follow him at: Twitter: https://twitter.com/CaAbrahamsson Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/carl.abrahamsson/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@carlabrahamsson YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@carlabrahamsson23 The song at the end of the episode is “Overjoyed” from the new album “The Experience (For The Weird)” by Vanessa Sinclair and Pete Murphy. Available at Pete Murphy's Bandcamp Page. Our music is also available at Spotify and other streaming services. https://petemurphy.bandcamp.com Also available at Spotify and other streaming services. https://open.spotify.com/artist/3xKEE2NPGatImt46OgaemY?si=nqv_tOLtQd2I_3P_WHdKCQ Image: Sandor Ferenczi

You can support the podcast at our Patreon, where we post exclusive content every week: https://www.patreon.com/vanessa23carl Your support is greatly appreciated! Rendering Unconscious episode 244. Dr. Liat Shklarski and Maria Veronica Laguna, LCSW are here to discuss their new book From Grad School to Private Practice: A Roadmap for Mental Health Clinicians (2023). https://titles.cognella.com/from-grad-school-to-private-practice-9781793554260 Maria Veronica Laguna, LCSW is a licensed clinical social worker and certified psychoanalytic psychotherapist. She works in private practice in New York City and is a faculty member of the Metropolitan Center for Training in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. She specializes in mental health treatment related to immigration issues. Visit http://www.psychoanalysisandsocialjustice.com Liat Shklarski, Ph.D., LCSW is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at Ramapo College of New Jersey. She received her Ph.D. from Hunter College, New York, in 2019. Dr. Shklarski opened her private practice in New York City in 2014 and grew it into a group practice in 2020. This is her second book examining the development of mental health clinicians; her 2021 book, A Contemporary Approach to Clinical Supervision: The Supervisee Perspective, discusses effective supervision. https://www.mpslcsw.com/liat-shklarski This episode available at YouTube: https://youtu.be/wf5IgDD6q7Q Rendering Unconscious Podcast is hosted by Dr. Vanessa Sinclair, a psychoanalyst based in Sweden, who works with people internationally: www.drvanessasinclair.net Follow Dr. Vanessa Sinclair on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/rawsin_ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rawsin_/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drvanessasinclair23 Visit the main website for more information and links to everything: www.renderingunconscious.org The song at the end of the episode is “Another big storm tonight” from the album "The pathways of the heart" by Vanessa Sinclair and Carl Abrahamsson. Available at Bandcamp. All music at Swedish independent record label Highbrow Lowlife Bandcamp page is name your price. Enjoy! https://highbrowlowlife.bandcamp.com Music also available to stream via Spotify & other streaming platforms. Many thanks to Carl Abrahamsson, who created the intro and outro music for Rendering Unconscious podcast. https://www.carlabrahamsson.com Image: book cover

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

Good morning, RVA! It's 72 °F, and while we've got some cooler temperatures today with highs in the mid 80s, I think we've also got a decent chance of rain throughout. NBC12's Andrew Freiden says to watch out for downpours this afternoon and evening.Water coolerAs of this morning, the Virginia Department of Health reports the seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths as: 204, 34, and 7.7, respectively. VDH reports a seven-day average of 22.3 new cases in and around Richmond (Richmond: 6.3; Henrico: 6, and Chesterfield: 10). Since this pandemic began, 1,330 people have died in the Richmond region. 44.6%, 55.7%, and 52.1% of the population in Richmond, Henrico, and Chesterfield have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Lots of folks, myself included, are nervous/keeping an eye on the rise of new COVID-19 variants (which the WHO has helpfully designated alpha, beta, gamma, and delta). Are our current vaccines effective against the variants? Can a variant “breakthrough” your vaccination? And, most importantly, if I'm vaccinated can a variant make me seriously ill or send me to the hospital? Unfortunately there's not a ton of data out there to answer a lot of these questions, but Emily Oster has a good piece this morning running through some of them, and provides, as always, a good chunk of math to help you estimate your own risk.The City's Urban Design Committee meets today and will consider the plans to remove nine monuments and/or pedestals from neighborhoods across the city. This includes the remaining pedestals on Monument Avenue, cannons from the median of Monument Avenue, the column on Libby Hill, a plinth in Monroe Park, plus the entire kit and caboodle at Laburnum and Hermitage. Remember, this is not the final plan for any of these locations!—just the first step in removing the racist garbage to make way for whatever we want to do next. I'm excited generally, of course, but also specifically because the removal of several of these things will make a handful of intersections way, way safer for people walking, rolling, or riding through. I would love to see the City's first protected intersection at Laburnum and Hermitage!Also in City Council-related news, the Education and Human Services committee will meet today to consider the Mayor's Equity Agenda, which you can now read in its final form. I haven't read through the updated version yet to scope out any updates, but I did snag the original versionif anyone wants to diff the two so we can easily see what's changed.Whoa, how did I miss something called Tacos for Transportation?? Two of my most favorite things! VPM reports that yesterday “Richmond city officials announced the public engagement phase of a multimodal transportation plan…[the Office of Equitable Transit and Mobility] is hosting several community events to encourage public participation. The series of events is called ‘Tacos for Transportation.' In exchange for taking a survey, attendees will receive a ticket for a free taco.” I don't think city officials are in the draft-document stage of things yet, but you can learn a little more about their plans moving forward over on the OETM website. Get excited, because this is going to be something you'll hear a lot from me on over the next year or so.Yesterday's storms brought flash flooding to parts of town, mostly on the Southside, NBC12 reports. The Richmond Fire department rescued 19 people from cars stuck in high water! Some of the flooding is probably just a result of geography, but a lot of it happens because of the historical disinvestment in basic infrastructure on the City's Southside. We've got a couple of opportunities to make huge, once-in-a-generation investments in the Southside coming up, namely the ARP and, potentially, a big chunk of casino money. We should celebrate, take advantage of those opportunities, and not fritter away the chance to do something transformational by earmarking those funds for a million pet projects in each councilperson's district.STAY RVA will host Dr. David E. Kirkland for one of their STAY TALKs tonight at 6:30 PM. Dr. Kirkland is the Vice Dean for Equity, Belonging, and Community Action at NYU and the executive director of the Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools. Sounds like you should expect a fascinating talk: “Dr. Kirkland will help support crucial conversations on how a culturally responsive-sustaining education can best serve our students during COVID and how it can help us reimagine schools beyond it.” Get your tickets over on the Eventbrite for a suggested donation of $25.Richard Hayes at RVAHub has some pictures of a train derailment that took place yesterday morning down by the river near the North Bank Trail! What the heck! Sounds like most of the train cars were either empty or carrying paper and rocks, so, whew.This morning's longreadThe Age of Reopening AnxietyYou know I love this sort of thing. Also, I feel seen because I literally just texted a friend about staying in and watching some horror movies over text.The process by which they rejoin society after such an experience is called “reëntry,” she said. She considers the pandemic a transformational experience for everyone. Reëntry is upon us all. “There's extraordinary anxiety in that phase, and it's not illogical or irrational anxiety,” she said. “We have to ask the questions that reëntry asks. They start with practical questions like, Do I wear my mask? Do I say yes to this invitation? Do I take my children even if they're not vaccinated?” What seem like logistical queries are actually “philosophical and existential questions,” Parker said. “Like, Who are my people? How do I want to spend my time?”If you'd like your longread to show up here, go chip in a couple bucks on the ol' Patreon.Picture of the DayGolden hour!

This is Season 1, Episode 6 of FocusED, and it features guest, Dr. Pedro Noguera. It was originally recorded live for a studio audience in Delaware, provided as a professional development experience for Delaware teachers and leaders. Don’t miss what Dr. Noguera says about equity in schools and so much more. This is a must listen for all educators. ________________________________________ Dr. Noguera Brings Tons of Experience to FocusED Listeners Dr. Pedro A. Noguera is the Distinguished Professor of Education at the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies and Faculty Director for the Center for the Transformation of Schools at UCLA. He is a sociologist whose scholarship and research focuses on the ways in which schools are influenced by social and economic conditions as well as by demographic trends in local, regional and global contexts. He serves on the boards of numerous national and local organizations and appears as a regular commentator on educational issues on CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio and other national news outlets. Prior to joining the faculty at UCLA, he served as the Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education at New York University and the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools (2003 – 2015), the Judith K. Dimon Professor of Communities and Schools at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (2000 – 2003), and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley where he was also the Director of the Institute for the Study of Social Change (1990 – 2000). Dr. Noguera has published over 200 research articles on topics such as urban school reform, conditions that promote student achievement, the role of education in community development, youth violence, and race and ethnic relations in American society. His work has appeared in multiple major research journals. Dr. Noguera is the author of several books including: City Schools and the American Dream, Unfinished Business: Closing the Achievement Gap in Our Nation’s Schools, The Trouble With Black Boys, and Creating the Opportunity to Learn. His most recent books are Excellence Through Equity with Alan Blankstein and Race, Equity and Education with Jill Pierce and Roey Ahram. ------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for listening to FocusED, an educational leadership podcast brought to you by TheSchoolHouse302 @ theschoolhouse302.com. FocusED is your educational leadership podcast where our mission is to dissect a particular focus for teachers and school leaders so that you can learn to lead better and grow faster in your school or district with more knowledge, better understanding, and clear direction on what to do next. This episode was brought to you by GhostBed, a family-owned business of sleep experts with 20+ years of experience. With 30K+ 5-star reviews, you can’t go wrong with GhostBed. Their mattresses are handcrafted, and they come with a 101-night-at-home-sleep trial. For a limited time, you can get 30% by using our code — SH302 — at checkout. And, even if you tell someone about GhostBed, you can earn a $100 referral reward. Go to Ghostbed.com today and use SH302 at checkout.

These are traumatic times we are living through, and virtually all of us are paying a price physically, economically, and maybe above all, psychologically. Bob talks about the powerful psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with his guest, Dr. Michael Sweeney, a psychologist who is the director of the Metropolitan Center for Cognitive Behavior Therapy, located in New York City.

We hear from David Kirkland (@davidekirkland), who leads a community of education justice innovators and movement builders at NYU's "Metro Center" (@metronyu): The Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools.

We speak with Dr. David E. Kirkland, Executive Director of NYU’s Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools. A leading voice in culturally responsive and sustaining education, the Metro Center helped write New York State Education Department’s new Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework. The Framework is founded on a view of education that regards culture as a critical component of learning. Multiple expressions of diversity, including race, ethnicity, gender, language, and sexual orientation, are regarded as assets to be recognized and cultivated.

Dr. Lonnie Sarnell tackles the world of mental health issues in sports, particularly performance anxiety and the overlap between anxiety and disordered eating.      * Athletes are humans and struggle with mental health issues! The thoughts around mental health and anxiety are that if we struggle with it it's a personal failing versus something that is extremely prevalent and can be treated. Lonnie tackles myths around mental health in the sports world. * The average delay between onset symptoms of mental illness and intervention can be 8 to 10 years. * We need a little anxiety to help with motivation and performance but when anxiety and stress lead to suboptimal performance, that's when it can become a problem. So you know she’s legit: Lonnie Sarnell, Psy.D. is a licensed clinical psychologist who provides clinical and sport psychology services to adolescents and adults. Dr. Sarnell has experience working with a wide range of concerns, including anxiety, depression, academic stress, life transitions, eating disorders, and relationship concerns. Dr. Sarnell specializes in peak performance and anxiety management. She has worked with athletes at all levels, including high school, college and professional athletes. Dr. Sarnell completed her B.A. in psychology at Yale University, where she played as a goalie on the Division I women’s lacrosse team. Dr. Sarnell received her Psy.D. in clinical psychology with a concentration in sport-performance psychology from La Salle University, where she provided sport psychology services within the athletic department. She completed a pre-doctoral internship and post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Delaware’s Center for Counseling and Student Development, where she consulted with Student Services for Athletes and provided sports psychology and personal counseling services for students. Dr. Sarnell’s post-doctoral specialization areas were performance anxiety and eating disorders. From 2013 – 2016, Dr. Sarnell worked at the Metropolitan Center for Cognitive Behavior Therapy, a private practice on the Upper East Side of New York City that specializes in the treatment of anxiety. Connecting with Dr. Sarnell: http://www.drlonniesarnell.com/

Cultural responsiveness is the ability to learn from and relate respectfully with people of your own culture as well as those from other cultures. It is a framework that recognizes the importance of including students’ cultural references in all aspects of learning. According to Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, cultural responsiveness encompasses eight principles: Communication of High Expectations Active Teaching Methods Practitioner as Facilitator Inclusion of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Cultural Sensitivity Reshaping the Curriculum or Delivery of Services Student-Controlled Discourse Small Group Instruction New York University's Metropolitan Center for Urban Education says that these 8 principles should lead to "stronger connections between educators & students." I struggle with the concept. I find myself asking "for what?" And, "to what end?" What would be the purpose of having stronger connections between educators & students? Why is that important...ultimately? I mean, when I think about it at the surface it sounds like "making education culturally relevant" could mean dumbing material down or communicating material in a way that digestible by the minds of other (i.e. lesser) non-European cultures. It's as if education needs to be culturally responsive so that non-White cultures can understand it and have a better chance at surviving "in this White Man's World" (queue Tupac). And yea...there's a valid point to that, right? We Blacks in America need to be educated in such a way that we know how to interact in this White Man's world. We need education that helps us to understand and appreciate our Stolen Legacy. And yea: this White Man's world should care enough to incorporate non-Whites in a way that appreciates "the other." Rather than treating others as part of a degenerate or lesser culture, White America should see the other as a valued contributor who is a needed part of our pursuit toward becoming a "More Perfect Union." So, the goal of cultural responsiveness should not be...cannot be a one-directional overture from the Educational System. I began searching out an empowering aspect of cultural responsiveness. For it to be valuable as a concept, it had to have application for the people...not just the system. Cultural responsiveness has to be a tactic/technique useful to marginalized people, not just useful for a system trying to serve those that have been marginalized by the system. Martial Arts has helped. You see, in studying the Arts you come to understand and appreciate energy transfer and redirection. The peace and beauty of Martial Arts enhances ones ability to remain calm enough to see  the attacks that come at you and identify how to redirect those attacks. The power of the Arts is found in the precision and speed of response. So, what if in the hands of the marginalized cultural responsiveness is an approach by which people are keenly observant and understanding of the majority culture? And what if marginalized people learned to respond in ways that enable them to protect their seat at the table and advance their stake in the things determined at that table? I like that perspective...what you think? Dr. Don Trahan brought all of this to my attention in the conversation we had in this episode of Blacks with Power. He's the Director of Diversity, Inclusion & Community Engagement at Thomas Jefferson University. And he suggest that cultural responsiveness will help us move beyond surface level actions that don't amount to much of anything. What do you think of he approach to diversity and empowerment? Check out this week's episode and let me know what you think. Sharpen Your Cultural Responsiveness in the BWP Facebook Group! Join with others and harness the power to protect our legacy as Black Americans and advance the Cause of Freedom for our people and all people. Apply for membership today!

 NCTE presents  sj Miller,  Deputy Director of Educational Equity Supports and Services. NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools, New York University, and his topic is Teaching, Affirming, and Recognizing Trans*+ and Gender-Dynamic Youth

Tonight's special guest is Laura Murphy, Ph.D. in African and African American Studies, who now teaches at Loyola University in New Orleans. She'll be discussing the anti-trafficking programs at the Metropolitan Center for Women & Children. The mission at Metro is to break the cycle of domestic violence and aid survivors of sexual assault through advocacy, intervention, empowerment and transformation. The goals are focused on providing services for survivors of trauma through trauma-informed care. The Center helps families regain their physical and emotional strength, resulting in empowerment and transformation. As survivors become stronger, the community is strengthened. Metro is also active in community education and outreach, operating on the premise that an informed public makes for a safer and more concerned citizenry. In 1986, Metropolitan Battered Women's Program was founded as a private 501(C)(3) non-profit organization in Jefferson Parish to offer services for victims of violence. In 2006, Metropolitan Battered Women's Program was renamed Metropolitan Center for Women & Children (Metro), in order to identify more closely with the nature of the organization's mission. In 2007, Metro started offering services to survivors of human trafficking. Currently Metropolitan Center for Women & Children offers individual and group counseling for domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking survivors. Metro also provides a children's program, legal advocacy, and community outreach for the Greater New Orleans area.

C. Mark Miller MSW LCSW ABD is the director of Alumni Relations at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work - Yeshiva University – he is also a therapist at Metropolitan Center for Mental Health in Manhattan. He extensive experience in the field of social work, with many years focused on issues related to the needs of the homeless, homebound frail elderly and the GLBTQ community. He currently provides licensure preparation information and study sessions for students of the Wurzweiler School of Social Work and Alumni. www.yu.edu/wurzweiler

The University of Alabama College of Education presents Dr. Pedro Noguera as the 2010 Julie Laible Memorial Lecturer on Anti-Racist Scholarship, Education and Social Activism. Noguera is the inaugural Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education at New York University. In addition to serving as a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Development at New York University, he also holds tenured faculty appointments in the department of sociology at NYU the department of humanities and social sciences at Steinhardt. In 2008, New York Governor David Paterson chose Noguera to serve on the State University of New York Board of Trustees. Noguera is executive director of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education and co-director of the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Education in Urban Settings. As an urban sociologist, Noguera has made a noted impact with his research on the influence of social and economic conditions on urban school environments. He has over one hundred and fifty publications in his field of research and has appeared as a commentator on CNN and National Public Radio among other national news providers.

Our next stop on the Meditation Now tour, 2002, takes us to the Metropolitan Center, Calgary, AB Canada, where S.N. Goenka discusses Vipassana meditation. Meditation Now Talk with Q&A Metropolitan Center Recorded July 3, 2002 74 minutes Listen to Audio Download Audio (27 MB)   Meditation Now: Copyright, 2002 Vipassana Research Institute There is more information about vipassana meditation at Dhamma.org, and books and audio resources available for purchase in the Pariyatti bookstore. May all beings be happy!

Beth Ribblett co-owns Swirl with Kerry Tully. The retail wine shop, located in historic Faubourg St. John, opened in 2006. Beth explains how she found the courage to embark on a new business venture post- Katrina. She tells us about her shop and describes the weekly Swirl wine tastings. Beth hosts the tastings, in part, to help people get to know each other and Swirl has become a popular neighborhood gathering place. Beth is very community minded; she holds fundraisers for groups such as the Metropolitan Center for Women and Children.