Podcast appearances and mentions of Patricia J Williams

[SEGMENT 2-1] Observations Israel is at war with Iran; and who knows what happens next in that conflict All I know is Iran is in deep kimche, because supposedly Israel knocked out most of their defense systems. We are still sending money to Ukraine, but we have no updates on progress. The world is a mess. Have you seen the video where Trudeau sits down at a table, and China's president is looking at his phone and won't acknowledge him. The president of Brazil ignores him, as he tries to shake his hand.   Mitch McConnell is stepping down. Did you see him fall on a stage recently. He looks as bad as Biden Laura Loomer says the RINOs in the Senate want somebody who will do what McConnell did and work against Trump…        [SEGMENT 2-2] Trump the Central Park Five and OJ     I asked this question a while back, “What if Nicole Simpson were white?” Here's another question, “What if OJ were white?   If Nicole Brown-Simpson had been Black instead of white, the O.J. Simpson case would likely have been perceived very differently, both in the media and within American society. Speculating on this hypothetical scenario, there are a few key aspects that would shape how the trial might have unfolded in terms of public sentiment and racial dynamics.Racial Dynamics and Public Perception: The original O.J. Simpson case was already racially charged, as many Black Americans viewed Simpson as a symbol of triumph over systemic racism in the justice system, while many white Americans saw the trial as a clear case of guilt obscured by racial tension. Had Nicole been Black, the racial polarization may have shifted. Black and white communities might not have been as divided over Simpson's guilt or innocence, as the racial dimension that fueled such passionate reactions may not have existed in the same way.Media Coverage: The media played a significant role in shaping how the O.J. Simpson trial was perceived. Nicole Brown-Simpson's whiteness was central to how the case was framed, amplifying the notion of a Black man allegedly murdering a white woman, a narrative historically loaded with racialized fears and stereotypes. If Nicole were Black, the media may not have sensationalized the trial in the same way. The case might not have received the same level of attention, or the racial undertones would likely be different, potentially focusing more on issues within the Black community rather than interracial tensions.Race and Justice System Critique: The case spotlighted deep mistrust between Black Americans and the criminal justice system, with many believing Simpson was being unfairly targeted due to his race. If Nicole were Black, this critique of the system may have been less pronounced, as the racial dimension that fueled the "us vs. them" narrative might not have been as intense. The focus may have been more on domestic violence or celebrity culture than systemic racism.Historical Precedent: Historically, cases involving Black victims of crime, especially when committed by fellow Black individuals, have received less attention from the media and the public. It's possible that if Nicole had been Black, the case might not have reached the fever pitch of public interest that it did. Similarly, the reactions from both the defense and prosecution may have played out in a less racially charged environment.Some commentators and researchers have speculated on these hypothetical changes to the Simpson trial. For instance, in various discussions of race and media, analysts point to how white women victims often receive more sympathetic media portrayals and heightened public interest. This dynamic might have been different if Nicole had been Black, perhaps leading to less of a "racial trial of the century" moment and more of a celebrity-focused or gendered case. However, no significant academic work has tackled this exact hypothetical in depth. Still, the role of race in the justice system and media perceptions has been explored widely in other contexts. Authors like Patricia J. Williams and Ta-Nehisi Coates have written about how race impacts the narrative around criminal cases, especially when it involves white female victims and Black male defendants. This thought experiment is an extension of how deeply ingrained racial dynamics in America influence the interpretation of high-profile legal cases, especially those involving interracial conflict or violence.     Speculating on how the O.J. Simpson case would have unfolded if O.J. were white instead of Black introduces a fascinating exploration of race, celebrity, and the justice system. If Simpson had been white, several key aspects of the trial would likely have been dramatically different, particularly in how the media, the public, and the jury approached the case. 1. Public Perception and Racial Polarization One of the most defining features of the O.J. Simpson trial was the racial divide in how it was perceived. Black Americans largely viewed Simpson as a victim of systemic racism, while many white Americans saw it as a clear-cut case of guilt. If Simpson were white, this polarization may not have existed in the same way. The trial might have been less about race and more about the intersection of celebrity culture and domestic violence. Without the racial dimension, it is likely that Black communities wouldn't have rallied behind Simpson in the same way, and white Americans would not have perceived the trial as an example of a flawed justice system letting a guilty man go free based on racial issues. 2. Media Sensationalism The media played a huge role in portraying the case as a battle between racial justice and privilege. The dynamic of a famous Black man allegedly murdering his white ex-wife was key to the media frenzy. Had Simpson been white, the racial implications wouldn't have driven the narrative. Instead, the media might have focused more on Simpson's status as a celebrity or the brutal nature of the crime. Celebrity trials often attract media attention, but the racial tension added fuel to the fire in this case. Without it, the trial would likely have still been highly publicized, but the sensationalism would have centered on Simpson's fame and wealth rather than his race. 3. The Jury's Decision The racial composition of the jury was another critical element of the O.J. Simpson trial. In the actual case, the jury was predominantly Black, and race played a significant role in how they viewed the trial. If Simpson had been white, the jury's racial makeup would not have had the same implications, and the dynamics of the trial might have focused more on gender issues, such as domestic violence, rather than race. The defense's strategy, which leaned heavily on accusations of racism within the LAPD, particularly regarding Mark Fuhrman's testimony, would not have been as effective if Simpson were white. The defense might have been forced to focus more on evidence manipulation or police incompetence rather than race-based arguments, which could have led to a different outcome. 4. Race and the Justice System The O.J. Simpson trial came at a time when racial tensions in America, particularly between Black communities and the police, were at a boiling point. Just a few years after the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots, the trial tapped into deep-seated frustrations within the Black community regarding police brutality and systemic racism. If Simpson had been white, it is possible that the case would not have become such a lightning rod for conversations about race in America. Speculation and Commentary There has been some commentary regarding how the case might have been different if O.J. Simpson were white. Though no large academic pieces tackle this hypothetical directly, some legal analysts and social commentators have suggested that the racial dynamics significantly influenced how the public, media, and legal teams approached the trial. If Simpson were white, the media focus would have likely shifted to Simpson's celebrity status, wealth, and fame, without the same focus on systemic racism or police misconduct. While it's difficult to point to specific sources that deeply speculate on this hypothetical, there have been discussions in broader analyses of the case that recognize the pivotal role race played in shaping the outcome and the broader narrative around the trial. Conclusion Had O.J. Simpson been white, the trial would likely have been less about racial injustice and more about celebrity privilege or domestic violence. The media would have framed the story differently, and the defense would not have been able to rely on accusations of systemic racism to the same extent. Without the racial polarization, the outcome of the trial might have shifted, and the case wouldn't have become the cultural phenomenon it was. The O.J. Simpson trial, as we know it, is inseparable from the racial tensions that defined it.    [SEGMENT 2-3] Crime stats 1   The EXPERTS reported that crime went down under Biden. Down SIGNIFICANTLY. Meanwhile, people like me look at the REAL information and found that major cities had NOT REPORTED to the FBI, which would undoubtedly alter the report. Yes, I used LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE, did the math…IN MY HEAD, then looked at all the reports of criminal activity and determined that STATISTICALLY, there is (1) no way Biden won the 2020 election, and (2) no way crime went DOWN!1.     Keep in mind, the same people reporting crimes stats are the ones telling you that…2.     Illegals are less violent than Americans And they are cost-positive to the economy Fat meat and greasy and cobras make good house pets!! Here's a supercut of the media feeding us Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

“And Jesus came and touched them, saying, ‘Get up and do not be afraid…” (Mt. 17). Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, CA 2D12 Last Epiphany (Year A) 11:00 a.m. Sunday 19 February 2023 Exodus 24:12-18 Psalm 99:1-8 2 Peter 1:16-21 Matthew 17:1-9 Last week in an email my friend Hugh Morgan observed that when it comes to social justice the Old Testament prophets sound strikingly modern to him. He wonders if the Old Testament has a stronger social justice message than the New Testament. [1] Today we consider this question.   But first let's define social justice as equality in wealth, political influence, cultural impact, respect… in opportunities to make a difference, to love and serve others. It involves creating a society in which every person is treated with dignity as a child of God, as bearing God's image. Jesus calls this the realm of God. Martin Luther King calls it “the beloved community.”   Today we celebrate the Last Sunday of Epiphany. Epiphany means a shining forth. You might call it a realization that utterly transforms us. The culminating story of this season occurs on a mountain top when Jesus' friends experience a mystical encounter with God.   In a recent conversation the law professor Patricia Williams spoke about two epiphanies that she had had. [2] For her whole life she had taken at face value family stories she had heard about her great-great-grandmother. These described her as a lazy person who was constantly fishing, as someone that no one liked. Then when Williams was in her twenties her sister discovered the bill of sale for their great-great-grandmother. In an instant she realized the truth. At the age of eleven her great-great-grandmother had been sold away from all that she had ever known. Two years later she was pregnant with the child of the dissatisfied thirty-five year old man who had bought her. She was traumatized so alienated from his children, who were taught to look down on her, that the only thing they chose to tell her descendants was that she was unpopular. To get to the truth Patricia Williams had to interpret those two stories together and to have empathy for someone's suffering. We have to do the same thing in order to understand the Bible.   Getting back to our question, Hugh makes a wise observation about the importance of social justice in the Old Testament. The deceased Berkeley sociologist Robert Bellah (1927-2013) wrote a book called Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age. He asks about how religious belief makes large human societies possible. He notes that Israel first appears in Egyptian records in the year 1208 BCE, long before anything written in the Bible.   He points out two notable features about the social world that produced the Old Testament. First, that this it attempts to establish a society not on the role of one man as a divine king (like most Egyptian pharaohs) but rather on a covenant between God and the people. Moses is a prophet not a divine king.   The second thing he notices is that the prophets, for instance, Amos does not just condemn failures of religious ritual but the mistreatment of the weak and poor. Amos criticizes both foreigners and his own people. He writes, “Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes” (Amos 2). [3]   At this point I feel compelled to tell you more about the Old Testament. It will be a long time before Chat GPT can write an accurate sermon. I am totally astonished by how incorrect search engine results are when it comes to some of the most basic issues in religion. This includes how we determine when these books were written. There was no journalist taking notes in the Garden of Eden or the court of David. The books of the Bible were not written in the order in which the events they record happened, or in the order in which they are presented. One way to look at it is to see them growing up around the two ideas I just mentioned from the prophet Amos – that there is one God for all people and that God cares how the poor are treated. Scholars believe that the words of the prophet Amos were among the first in the entire Bible. So it is not as if the world was created, Noah built an ark, Abraham met God, God chose the Tribes of Israel, David's kingdom was established, many other kings reigned and then social justice became important. Social justice, this idea of God's universality and the dignity of every person, comes first. The other stories are ancient but put together by writers with this conviction in mind.   So the twentieth century rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel calls the prophets, “the most disturbing people who ever lived” and “the [ones] who brought the Bible into being.” They “ceaseless[ly] shatter our indifference.” They interpret our existence from the perspective of God. Heschel writes that the prophets have assimilated their emotional life to that of the Divine so that the prophet, “lives not only his personal life but also the life of God. The prophet hears God's voice and feels His heart.” [4]   The Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew with three main types of literature the Torah (instruction or) the law, the Nevi'im or prophets, and the Ketuvim or the writings. The New Testament was written in Greek under Roman occupation and includes totally different genres: gospels, epistles or letters, and John's apocalyptic conclusion the Book of Revelation. As Jesus alludes to in the Book of Matthew, the New Testament is built on the foundation of the old – that there is one God for all the nations who cares about human dignity. It has a different feeling because it is composed at a different time, under different social circumstances for a different audience. But for me it is not less focused on social justice. Christians do not worship the Bible, but the person of Jesus. Jesus is how we understand our lives and our connection to God.   We see this in today's gospel. The story of the Transfiguration is not so much about a private mystical experience, but a meditation on Christ's passion. It exists to shape our response to Jesus' death on the cross. Imagine the Book of Matthew. We climb up one side through Jesus' teaching and healing until we finally hear Jesus describe how his death will be. The disciples cannot take it in. We go down the other side to Jerusalem where Jesus will be killed. And for a reassuring moment we linger at the mountaintop.   Let me briefly tell you three things about the Greek text. Matthew uses the emphatic word idou or “Behold! Look!” three times. First, before the appearance of Moses who represents the law, and Elijah who stands for the prophets. Then again when a shining cloud appears and yet again when God says, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased” (Mt. 17). Jesus' friends feel so afraid they fall down like dead people. Jesus tells his friends to rise up and uses the same word he does when he says that the Son of Man will be raised from the dead. Jesus touches them in a reassuring way. The Greek word hapsamenos means to touch, hold or grasp. But it also can be translated as to light or ignite a flame.   What does it mean for social justice, to have at the heart of our religion a man who gives up his life and is executed? It is not just what Jesus says that matters. He gives his life to help make real this idea that God loves every human being, that each life has innate dignity. This includes the truth that death is not the end.   Although Christians often get lost in the belief that faith is about an isolated individual's personal salvation, there is a deep tradition of meditating on the way Jesus' death reverses the overwhelming evil all around us. I do not have time for more examples but I would like to mention Basil of Caesarea (330-379).   In the Gospel of Luke Jesus tells the story about a rich man who has so much property that he decides to build a bigger barn to hold it all so that he can “eat, drink and be merry” (Lk. 12). That night the foolish man dies. So the fourth century Basil wrote a sermon about this. He says that what we think we need constantly changes. We are metaphorically building smaller and bigger barns all the time. When we think we need too much we cannot be generous to others.   Basil says, “How can I bring the sufferings of the poverty-stricken to your attention? When they look around inside their hovels… [and] find clothes and furnishings so miserable… worth only a few cents. What then? They turn their gaze to their own children, thinking that perhaps by bringing them to the slave-market they might find some respite from death. Consider now the violent struggle that takes place between the desperation arising from famine and a parent's fundamental instincts. Starvation on the one side threatens horrible death, while nature resists, convincing the parents rather to die with their children. Time and again they vacillate, but in the end they succumb, driven by want and cruel necessity.” [5] The Christian tradition in every generation is filled with appeals like this. They beg us to recognize the full humanity of every person.   Let me tell you the second of Patricia Williams' two epiphanies. When she was a child there were very few women or Black people who were judges, law professors, law partners, attorney generals, etc. Virtually all law had been written by white men. Because of this there were blind spots, basic failures to understand society that had crucial legal ramifications. [6]   Professor Williams and other intellectuals invented Critical Race Theory to address this, to help the law work for all people, not just those in power. These debates were largely for people in universities until about ten years ago. In our conversation Professor Williams expressed her surprise when she heard a powerful political consultant talk about how he had made millions of Americans fear and hate this social justice project. He had successfully convinced them to regard Critical Race Theory as divisive and dangerous to white people. He explicitly stated that increasing their anger was a means of getting their votes. [7]   The great twentieth century Jewish expert in building healthy religious congregations Edwin Friedman frequently repeats this warning. “Expect sabotage.” [8] When we are working for good, to change how things are, we will be opposed. Those who care about social justice need to understand that there will be people who actively seek to thwart it.   Patricia Williams is a prophet for me, shattering my indifference. Many here this morning are prophets to me also. Behold. Be ignited. Shine forth. Let the realization of Jesus' love utterly transform us. [1] Hugh Morgan, 9 February 2023. “In reading Isaiah and the minor prophets, I am struck by how modern they sound, when calling out issues of social justice.  Of course, our thinking has been influenced by the enlightenment and all that came after it, so my brain may be predisposed to see these threads in the text.  But they are there. You do not see the same strength of views on social justice in the New Testament, certainly little about upsetting the then current order.  And I do not think you see similar messages supporting the oppressed in Greek or Roman writings (I have a super limited sense of what these are.) And, you do not see "social justice thought" - a very modern thing - called out, developed, emphasized from the OT texts in the early church, nor through the reformation, not even in the revivals in America and England in the late 1800s. Two questions to ponder 1. Where did the social justice message in the OT come from? 2.  Are there strains of this message in church history that I / we are not aware of?” [2] Patricia J. Williams on the Grace Cathedral Forum, 1 February 2023. https://youtu.be/8h-xHY7OIuY . Also see Patricia J. Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991) 17-19. [3] Robert Bellay, Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011). Quoting Michael Walzer and David Malo on a covenant between the people and God (310f). Amos' ethical statements (302). [4] Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets: An Introduction, Volume One (NY: Harper, 1962) ix-26. [5] “How can I bring the sufferings of the poverty-stricken to your attention? When they look around inside their hovels… [and] find clothes and furnishings so miserable… worth only a few cents. What then? They turn their gaze to their own children, thinking that perhaps by bringing them to the slave-market they might find some respite from death. Consider now the violent struggle that takes place between the desperation arising from famine and a parent's fundamental instincts. Starvation on the one side threatens horrible death, while nature resists, convincing the parents rather to die with their children. Time and again they vacillate, but in the end they succumb, driven by want and cruel necessity.” Basil of Caesarea, “I Will Tear Down My Barns.” Tr. Paul Shroeder. Cited in Logismoi. http://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-social-justice-by-st-basil-great.html [6] Professor Patricia J. Williams and I talked about “stand your ground” laws that result in much higher rates of death among Black men, because white people are more likely to be afraid of them. [7] In an online interaction I heard from someone who is monomaniacally focused on the idea that Critical Race Theory must necessarily involve government forced discrimination against white people. He did not have the time to see the Patricia Williams interview. He had already made up his mind. [8] “Sabotage is part and parcel of the systemic process of leadership.” Edwin Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (NY: Church Publishing, 2017 revised).

Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice.[1] Critical race theory examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism.[2][3] Critical race theory originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] It emerged as a movement by the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4] Both critical race theory and critical legal studies are rooted in critical theory, which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5] Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that white supremacy, i.e. societal or structural racism, exists and maintains power through the law;[6] and second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, is possible.[7] Critics of critical race theory argue that it relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.[8][9][10]

This week, Thea Lenarduzzi and Lucy Dallas are joined by Patricia J. Williams to discuss ‘Giving a Damn: Racism, romance and Gone with the Wind’, Williams’s deeply researched, and deeply felt, essay on the roots and legacy of racial injustice in the United States; Douglas Field considers a novel about a 'human mole' by Richard Wright, the African American writer best known for 'Native Son', which now sees the light of day, eighty years after it was written; plus Sylvia Plath’s domestic embellishments and the greatest novels of the twenty-first century to date (cont.)Giving a Damn: Racism, romance and 'Gone with the Wind' by Patricia J. Williams, published next week by TLS Books The Man Who Lived Underground by Richard WrightA special subscription offer for TLS podcast listeners: www.the-tls.co.uk/buy/pod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Patricia J. Williams, the renowned feminist theorist and legal scholar joins Carla Kaplan and Durba Mitra, two of the coeditors of the upcoming special issue of Signs on “Rage,” to talk about the multiple crises we face at the current moment, from Donald Trump’s cruel legacy of misogyny and racism to the failures of market-based approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic. They also discuss new forms of surveillance that have emerged during the pandemic and the disproportionate levels of emotional labor that particular groups, particularly black women, have been expected to take on throughout Trump’s presidency.

Distinguished writer, commentator and American legal scholar Patricia J. Williams joins Paul Gilroy to talk about the legacies of Critical Race Theory, the eugenic character of racialised governance and the current call to defund the police.This conversation was recorded on 12th June 2020. Apologies for the noise of a smoke alarm in the background.Speaker: Patricia J. Williams, University Distinguished Professor of Law and Humanities at Northeastern University, BostonExecutive producer: Paul GilroyProducer and Editor: Kaissa KarhuRead the transcript for this podcast See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

“How much do you make things happen or let them happen to you?” “Can women be happy alone?” – questions such as these form the basis of a series of interviews with women, from heiresses to factory workers, conducted in the 1960s by the British writer Nell Dunn; as a reissue of Talking To Women appears Kate Webb introduces us to this seminal feminist text. And Patricia J. Williams discusses the role and lingering influence of the Progressive Era's 'American Plan' to stamp out immorality through policies including compulsory STD tests and government-endorsed sterilizationBooksTalking To Women by Nell DunnFixing the Poor: Eugenic sterilization and child welfare in the twentieth century by Molly Ladd-Taylor The Trials of Nina McCall: Sex, surveillance, and the decades-long government plan to imprison 'promiscuous' women by Scott W. Stern See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In Conversation: Paul Gilroy and Patricia Williams Patricia J. Williams (Columbia University) will join Paul Gilroy (King’s College London) in conversation at the launch of the CRASSH Impact series, Law, Race, Gender and Public Policy. The discussion will be chaired by former President of the Cambridge University Students' Union, Priscilla Mensah.

Speaker: Patricia J. Williams (Columbia University) Patricia Williams will remark on tensions between discourses of universalised longing for human identity, human rights, unbounded, globalised connection – and the traumatised and traumatising language of dislocation and dis-identification with ever more fragmented categories of 'other'.

A Black Feminist conversation: Black life, law, love and survival in times of Trump and Brexit Feminist professors of colour Patricia J. Williams (Columbia University) and Heidi Safia Mirza (Goldsmiths, University of London) will debate Black life, law, love and survival in times of Trump and Brexit. The discussion will be chaired by Sarah Franklin (University of Cambridge). Patricia Williams is perhaps America’s most distinguished writer on law, race and gender. She is the James L. Dohr Professor of Law at Columbia University and writes a regular column for The Nation. Her books include The Alchemy of Race and Rights, The Rooster’s Egg and Seeing a Color-Blind Future: The Paradox of Race.

Bill Moyers sits down with Columbia University professor Eric Foner, who specializes in political and African-American history, and Patricia J. Williams, a professor of law at Columbia University.

A Bill Moyers essay on change and the new administration. And, Bill Moyers sits down with Columbia University professor Eric Foner, who specializes in political and African-American history, and Patricia J. Williams, a professor of law at Columbia University. And, does Barack Obama's victory mean a new and permanent political alignment in American politics? Bill Moyers speaks with Kevin Phillips about how America has changed since Phillips penned THE EMERGING REPUBlICAN MAJORITY 40 years ago. And, Bill Moyers on Studs Terkel and John leonard.