United States Supreme Court case
POPULARITY
3 episodes with plessy
6 episodes with plessy
3 episodes with plessy
3 episodes with plessy
2 episodes with plessy
5 episodes with plessy
3 episodes with plessy
3 episodes with plessy
6 episodes with plessy
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) isn't holding back. CBC Chair Yvette Clarke and members of the caucus issued a fiery statement condemning President Trump's latest move to gut the Department of Education. A decision they say will devastate communities across the country, especially Black and Brown students. It comes just days after the firing of nearly half of the department's staff and an executive order aimed at tearing down the agency further. The caucus says this is a direct attack on students, civil rights, and decades of progress. They warned that dismantling will undercut protections for vulnerable students while crippling the government's ability to enforce laws that ban racial and gender discrimination. “In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that the ‘separate but equal' doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional. In the decades since, the Department of Education has played a vital role in ensuring equal access to education and enforcing desegregation laws,” Clarke said. The CBC warned that President Trump's executive actions "will make our schools more segregated and unequal." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Your two favorite JIT-heads are BACK as the Jeopardy! Invitational Tournament rides once again. We have a couple of stunning upsets, the return of many of our sweeties from years' past, and we get very distracted talking about the television show Reacher on this podcast about the television show Jeopardy!. Plus, Roger Craig returns in a big way with an ode to his legendary ToC moment and some news about his love life (which Jeopardy! fans also find a way to fume about, as is their wont), we get some very nice updates about our contestants' lives (Hannah Wilson owns a yarn shop! Troy is a dad now!), and we dive deep on a very unfortunate part of America's history, the Plessy v. Ferguson case. A reminder you can now donate to support the show and get our first-ever bonus episodes for your troubles! Head on over to patreon.com/jeopardypodcast and you'll get us talking about the first two weeks of this year's Celebrity Jeopardy!, access to our Discord, and more fun stuff. See you there! SOURCE: National Archives: "Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)"; Legal Information Institute: "Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)" A special thank you as always to The Jeopardy! Fan and J-Archive. This episode was produced by Producer Dan. Music by Nate Heller. Art by Max Wittert.
This Morning's Baking Ingredients Black in the News- "Racism and Fascism" by Toni Morrison via In These Times Kwanzaa Recollection Black Predictions for 2025 Quincy Jones Music Video Interlude @sireu Plessy v Zuckerberg and the new separate but equal The Paul Robeson Negro of the Week: @sza Burning Question for the Roach Join the conversation Tuesday & Thursday, at 8 am-ish on Instagram Live, YouTube, and Facebook. Follow us on Instagram @WakeNBakeWithBeMo! Learn more about the host of Wake N Bake With BeMo on BeMoauthentic.com. The Wake N Bake With BeMo Podcast is proudly presented by the Bridge Podcast Network. For more information about the Washington Informer and The Bridge visit WIBridgeDC.comCheck Out Sir EU "E He He Hahaha" Music Video.This week's Jam of the Week is brought to us by Detroit Rivers' Black Boy JoyIf you are interested in being a sponsor for Wake N Bake with BeMo, visit our insights page and shoot us an email.
A Forgotten Migration: Black Southerners, Segregation Scholarships, and the Debt Owed to Public HBCUs (UNC Press, 2024) tells the little-known story of "segregation scholarships" awarded by states in the US South to Black students seeking graduate education in the pre-Brown v. Board of Education era. Under the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, decades earlier, southern states could provide graduate opportunities for African Americans by creating separate but equal graduate programs at tax-supported Black colleges or by admitting Black students to historically white institutions. Most did neither and instead paid to send Black students out of state for graduate education. Crystal R. Sanders examines Black graduate students who relocated to the North, Midwest, and West to continue their education with segregation scholarships, revealing the many challenges they faced along the way. Students that entered out-of-state programs endured long and tedious travel, financial hardship, racial discrimination, isolation, and homesickness. With the passage of Brown in 1954, segregation scholarships began to wane, but the integration of graduate programs at southern public universities was slow. In telling this story, Sanders demonstrates how white efforts to preserve segregation led to the underfunding of public Black colleges, furthering racial inequality in American higher education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
A Forgotten Migration: Black Southerners, Segregation Scholarships, and the Debt Owed to Public HBCUs (UNC Press, 2024) tells the little-known story of "segregation scholarships" awarded by states in the US South to Black students seeking graduate education in the pre-Brown v. Board of Education era. Under the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, decades earlier, southern states could provide graduate opportunities for African Americans by creating separate but equal graduate programs at tax-supported Black colleges or by admitting Black students to historically white institutions. Most did neither and instead paid to send Black students out of state for graduate education. Crystal R. Sanders examines Black graduate students who relocated to the North, Midwest, and West to continue their education with segregation scholarships, revealing the many challenges they faced along the way. Students that entered out-of-state programs endured long and tedious travel, financial hardship, racial discrimination, isolation, and homesickness. With the passage of Brown in 1954, segregation scholarships began to wane, but the integration of graduate programs at southern public universities was slow. In telling this story, Sanders demonstrates how white efforts to preserve segregation led to the underfunding of public Black colleges, furthering racial inequality in American higher education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education
A Forgotten Migration: Black Southerners, Segregation Scholarships, and the Debt Owed to Public HBCUs (UNC Press, 2024) tells the little-known story of "segregation scholarships" awarded by states in the US South to Black students seeking graduate education in the pre-Brown v. Board of Education era. Under the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, decades earlier, southern states could provide graduate opportunities for African Americans by creating separate but equal graduate programs at tax-supported Black colleges or by admitting Black students to historically white institutions. Most did neither and instead paid to send Black students out of state for graduate education. Crystal R. Sanders examines Black graduate students who relocated to the North, Midwest, and West to continue their education with segregation scholarships, revealing the many challenges they faced along the way. Students that entered out-of-state programs endured long and tedious travel, financial hardship, racial discrimination, isolation, and homesickness. With the passage of Brown in 1954, segregation scholarships began to wane, but the integration of graduate programs at southern public universities was slow. In telling this story, Sanders demonstrates how white efforts to preserve segregation led to the underfunding of public Black colleges, furthering racial inequality in American higher education.
J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It's served him in his profession, and it's a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras. In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today. The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are: The Trial of Jesus The Salem Witch Trials Boston Massacre Trial Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson) O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday The Black Sox Trial The Scopes “Monkey Trial” The Lindy Chamberlain Trial The McMartin Preschool Trial The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn't known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams's representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States. Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents. In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren.
J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It's served him in his profession, and it's a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras. In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today. The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are: The Trial of Jesus The Salem Witch Trials Boston Massacre Trial Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson) O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday The Black Sox Trial The Scopes “Monkey Trial” The Lindy Chamberlain Trial The McMartin Preschool Trial The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn't known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams's representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States. Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents. In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
J. Craig Williams believes empathy is an important quality to be a trial lawyer. It's served him in his profession, and it's a tool he has also been using as an author trying to get into the minds of people from past eras. In How Would You Decide? 10 Famous Trials That Changed History, Book One, Williams examines cases and trials from history through the lens of a modern trial lawyer. He uses the accounts of the historical proceedings to illustrate current principles of litigation and civil rights, and explains what each can tell us about the rule of law. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Williams tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles that empathy was key in trying to understand the people involved in events like the Salem Witch trials, and figuring out how injustices could be perpetrated. He realized there were parallels to be drawn between society in late-17th century Salem and American society today. The 10 trials featured in this first volume of How Would You Decide? are: The Trial of Jesus The Salem Witch Trials Boston Massacre Trial Civil War Tipping Point and Aftermath Trials (Dred Scott, John Brown, Plessy v. Ferguson) O.K. Corral Shootout Trial of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday The Black Sox Trial The Scopes “Monkey Trial” The Lindy Chamberlain Trial The McMartin Preschool Trial The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial The case that most readers bring up when speaking with Williams is the Boston Massacre trial. Williams, who grew up in New England, says he was surprised to find during his research that there was much he hadn't known about the case himself. Founding Father and future president John Adams was the attorney who successfully defended the British soldiers who fired into the Massachusetts crowd, an extremely risky professional and social decision. Williams and Rawles discuss Adams's representation and what it meant for the establishment of the rule of law in the United States. Listeners might best know Williams from his Lawyer2Lawyer podcast, which he launched in 2005, making him a pioneer in legal podcasting. Since Williams was already familiar with audio production, How Would You Decide? was a natural fit for multimedia. He launched a companion website, 10FamousTrials.com, making available more of the source material he relied on to write the book. He also partnered with Legal Talk Network to release a miniseries podcast, which is currently in production. In Dispute covers one of the 10 trials each episode, featuring commentary and reenactments drawn from trial transcripts and historical documents. In this episode, Williams and Rawles discuss his research process, how he selected which trials to feature, and what might make it into Book Two. They also get into the holiday spirit by talking about The Sled, a Christmas story Williams and his wife wrote for their grandchildren.
This Day in Legal History: Gong Lum v. RiceOn November 21, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gong Lum v. Rice, a landmark case concerning racial segregation in public education. The case arose when Martha Lum, a nine-year-old Chinese American girl, was denied entry to a school for white children in Mississippi. Local authorities directed her to attend a school designated for Black students under the state's racially segregated education system. Her father, Gong Lum, challenged the decision, arguing that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Supreme Court, however, ruled unanimously that Mississippi's actions were constitutional. It extended the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to include Asian Americans, thereby reinforcing the legality of segregated schools. The Court maintained that states had the authority to classify students by race and assign them to separate schools, as long as the facilities were deemed equal. This decision effectively placed Chinese Americans and other non-White groups under the same discriminatory segregation laws applied to African Americans in the Jim Crow South.The ruling was a significant blow to the Lum family and a stark reminder of the pervasive racial hierarchies embedded in U.S. law at the time. It also illustrated how the "separate but equal" doctrine legitimized widespread exclusion and inequality, beyond Black and White racial dynamics. The precedent set by Gong Lum v. Rice remained unchallenged for decades, contributing to the entrenchment of racially segregated education across the United States.This decision underscored the systemic nature of racial discrimination in early 20th-century America. It wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that the Supreme Court overruled the doctrine of "separate but equal," marking a pivotal shift toward dismantling segregation in public education. Gong Lum v. Rice remains a critical case in the history of American civil rights law, reflecting the broader struggles of minority groups against institutionalized racism.The latest round of year-end bonuses at major law firms reflects a cautious approach to associate compensation as firms prioritize protecting partner profits amid rising revenues. Milbank LLP initiated the bonus announcements, offering payments up to $140,000, including special bonuses introduced earlier in the year. At least five firms have matched Milbank's bonus structure, with others expected to follow. However, the stagnant bonus scale, unchanged since 2021, indicates a broader effort to manage costs while maintaining profitability.This year, firms are separating special bonuses from regular ones to avoid setting new precedents for higher compensation scales. Recruiters note that Milbank's early announcements help attract associate attention, a valuable branding strategy. The firm's financial success, with $1.5 billion in gross revenue and over $5.1 million in profits per equity partner last year, underscores its robust position, even as it faces some high-profile departures and lateral hires.Despite the cautious bonus adjustments, top law firms are thriving. A Wells Fargo survey revealed a 15% revenue increase and a 25% net income rise among the 50 largest firms, driven by higher demand, productivity, and billing rates. Still, associate productivity has only slightly improved from record lows, and firms are increasingly focusing on partner-level recruitment to sustain profitability. Traditional leaders like Cravath remain influential in finalizing bonus decisions, reinforcing long-standing industry customs.Big Law Hedges Associate Bonuses to Protect Partner ProfitsIndian billionaire Gautam Adani has been charged by U.S. prosecutors in a $265 million bribery scheme involving payments to Indian officials to secure power contracts and develop India's largest solar power project. The indictment, which includes securities fraud and conspiracy charges, also implicates Adani's nephew, Sagar Adani, and former Adani Green Energy CEO Vneet Jaain. The scheme allegedly defrauded American investors by concealing corruption in financial materials for bond offerings, including one that raised $750 million in 2021.The U.S. has issued arrest warrants for Gautam and Sagar Adani, intending to involve foreign authorities under an extradition treaty with India. Adani's conglomerate, already under scrutiny after a critical report by Hindenburg Research in 2023, saw its market value plunge by $20 billion following the indictment. Adani Green Energy canceled a $600 million bond sale, and shares of Adani-related firms dropped sharply.Indian regulators, including SEBI, have yet to comment on the U.S. charges, while opposition parties in India demand further investigations into the group. The Adani Group denies the allegations and plans to challenge the charges, but the scandal has intensified scrutiny over the company's operations and political connections.Indian tycoon Gautam Adani charged in US over $265 million bribery scheme | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed sweeping measures to address what it calls Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. Prosecutors argue that Google must divest its Chrome browser, share search data with competitors, and potentially sell its Android operating system to restore competition. The proposals aim to dismantle Google's dominant market position, as it processes 90% of U.S. searches.Other recommendations include banning Google from exclusive agreements with device makers like Apple, ending its preference for its search engine on Chrome and Android, and restricting acquisitions of search rivals or AI products. A five-member technical committee would oversee compliance for up to a decade, with powers to review documents, interview staff, and inspect software code.Chrome and Android are central to Google's business, as they collect user data crucial for targeted advertising. Prosecutors claim these platforms unfairly entrench Google's dominance by limiting rivals' market access. The DOJ also proposes mandatory licensing of search results to competitors at low cost and unrestricted data-sharing unless privacy laws prevent it. Google opposes the measures, calling them government overreach that would harm consumers and innovation. A trial is scheduled for April 2025, during which Google can present alternative proposals. These measures could reshape the digital landscape and are being closely watched by competitors like DuckDuckGo, which supports the DOJ's initiatives.Google must divest Chrome to restore competition in online search, DOJ says | ReutersThe U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has finalized a rule to regulate major technology firms like Apple Inc. that offer digital wallets and payment apps. Companies processing more than 50 million U.S.-dollar transactions annually will now face oversight similar to banks. This rule significantly raises the initial threshold of 5 million transactions proposed last year. It empowers the CFPB to supervise these firms regularly, not just when legal violations occur, as digital payments become increasingly essential to consumers.CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasized that digital payments are now a necessity, warranting heightened oversight. The shift comes as digital wallet usage in the U.S. surged to 62% in 2023, up from 47% the previous year, with Apple Pay maintaining dominance in the sector.The new regulatory environment follows global scrutiny of tech firms. Apple recently agreed with European regulators to open its near-field communication technology to competitors, a notable change in its approach. Other firms, like PayPal, are also cooperating with the CFPB on compliance questions regarding digital wallet features.The rule, set to take effect 30 days after its publication, introduces a significant shift in how large tech firms are governed. However, it remains an open question how these regulations will fare under the Trump administration, given the potential for policy shifts in the new political climate.Apple Pay, Other Tech Firms Come Under CFPB Regulatory Oversight This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Though with the 1896 case of Plessy verses Ferguson, American local and state governments forcing racial segregation was upheld as legal, individuals also chose to enforce the separation even if there were no laws. But all over the nation one can find instances where individuals and groups quietly associated together in spite of the times and in one place that happened on occasion was the recording studio. Author and jazz historian Stephen Provizer has painstakingly investigated the recording logs and records and made a comprehensive discography of recordings where blacks, whites and others made some wonderful truly American music together. His book is called As Long As They Can Blow and Mr. Provizer has come Back by the Woodpile to talk about his experience in putting the book together and gives what backstories he can about some of the specific recordings.
Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College. In this case, the court considered this issue: May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does Harvard College's and UNC's race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The case was decided on June 29, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Harvard and the UNC admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion. First, the Court concluded that Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) had organizational standing because it is a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith. Second, while the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was to ensure that laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, both the Supreme Court and the nation failed to uphold this principle, most notably in Plessy v Ferguson, which sanctioned “separate but equal” facilities. However, the landmark case Brown v Board of Education overturned this, and the equal protection principle has since expanded to various areas of life. Any exceptions to equal protection must satisfy “strict scrutiny”; that is, the government must show that the racial classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In Regents of the University of California v Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell's opinion became the touchstone for evaluating the constitutionality of race-based admissions, reasoning that diversity in the student body could be a “compelling state interest,” but that race could only be used as a “plus” in admissions and not as a quota. In Grutter v Bollinger, the Court adopted Powell's viewpoint, while also setting limits to ensure race-based admissions did not result in stereotyping or harm to non-minority applicants, and stating that such race-based programs should eventually come to an end. Harvard's (and UNC's, in the consolidated case) race-based admissions systems fail to meet the strict scrutiny, non-stereotyping, and termination criteria established by Grutter and Bakke. Specifically, the universities could not demonstrate their compelling interests in a measurable way, failed to avoid racial stereotypes, and did not offer a logical endpoint for when race-based admissions would cease. As a result, the programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court noted that nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined (except Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case against Harvard). The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support
The Supreme Court didn't JUST rule that presidents have absolute presidential immunity. They actually ruled that presidents have absolute presidential immunity PLUS.Constitutional scholars left, right, and center are excoriating the new Supreme Court opinion that 1. contradicts the expressed language of our constitution, 2. actually repeals portions of our constitution, and, in essence, 3. declares the constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, that is illogical, but that is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts and the radical right-wing block of justices did in Trump vs. United States.This ruling gives Donald Trump a blueprint to convert America into a banana republic. And Donald Trump is exactly the kind of day-one-dictator who will do it. This ruling not only excuses lawless conduct by a corrupt president, it endorses such conduct, and thereby encourages future presidents to act lawlessly and to direct others to to the same then simply exercise his core constitutional power of the presidential pardon to pardon all of his criminal associates who carry out his unlawful commands. This is not just absolute presidential power. It is absolute presidential power PLUS. And like Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this opinion must not stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Supreme Court didn't JUST rule that presidents have absolute presidential immunity. They actually ruled that presidents have absolute presidential immunity PLUS.Constitutional scholars left, right, and center are excoriating the new Supreme Court opinion that 1. contradicts the expressed language of our constitution, 2. actually repeals portions of our constitution, and, in essence, 3. declares the constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, that is illogical, but that is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts and the radical right-wing block of justices did in Trump vs. United States.This ruling gives Donald Trump a blueprint to convert America into a banana republic. And Donald Trump is exactly the kind of day-one-dictator who will do it. This ruling not only excuses lawless conduct by a corrupt president, it endorses such conduct, and thereby encourages future presidents to act lawlessly and to direct others to to the same then simply exercise his core constitutional power of the presidential pardon to pardon all of his criminal associates who carry out his unlawful commands. This is not just absolute presidential power. It is absolute presidential power PLUS. And like Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this opinion must not stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
By granting Donald Trump immunity for the crimes he committed against the American people; the radical, right-wing block of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, actually encourages presidents to commit crimes.Eventually, this Supreme Court opinion will go the way of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, and Plessy vs. Ferguson - it will be reversed and will go down in American history as an opinion that sought to destroy honest and honorable governing, and accountability for crimes a president commits against the American people.But given that the opinion is in effect at the moment, President Joe Biden needs to exercise the powers the Supreme Court has given him to hold treasonous actors accountable and protect American democracy from the likes of Donald Trump and those who support his efforts to destroy American democracy.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
By granting Donald Trump immunity for the crimes he committed against the American people; the radical, right-wing block of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, actually encourages presidents to commit crimes.Eventually, this Supreme Court opinion will go the way of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, and Plessy vs. Ferguson - it will be reversed and will go down in American history as an opinion that sought to destroy honest and honorable governing, and accountability for crimes a president commits against the American people.But given that the opinion is in effect at the moment, President Joe Biden needs to exercise the powers the Supreme Court has given him to hold treasonous actors accountable and protect American democracy from the likes of Donald Trump and those who support his efforts to destroy American democracy.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Supreme Court just can't quit Donald Trump. Interestingly, the Supreme Court does nothing to help Trump's criminal flunkies: Steve Bannon just reported to prison; Peter Navarro is serving a prison term; and Rudy Giuliani was just disbarred in New York and is facing multiple criminal prosecutions. Yet the Supreme Court just bestowed absolute presidential immunity on presidents, unleashing them to commit crimes against the American people with impunity and immunity. In a very real sense, the Court gave Trump a blueprint for totalitarianism.Glenn reviews the democracy-ending implications of this new Supreme Court ruling. Like Dread Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this new Supreme Court ruling must not be allowed to stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Supreme Court just can't quit Donald Trump. Interestingly, the Supreme Court does nothing to help Trump's criminal flunkies: Steve Bannon just reported to prison; Peter Navarro is serving a prison term; and Rudy Giuliani was just disbarred in New York and is facing multiple criminal prosecutions. Yet the Supreme Court just bestowed absolute presidential immunity on presidents, unleashing them to commit crimes against the American people with impunity and immunity. In a very real sense, the Court gave Trump a blueprint for totalitarianism.Glenn reviews the democracy-ending implications of this new Supreme Court ruling. Like Dread Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this new Supreme Court ruling must not be allowed to stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube! FULL TRANSCRIPT: Wilmer Leon (00:00): Let's play a word association game. When I say eugenics, what comes to mind? What does it mean? Is the opposition to critical race theory? A eugenics construct is eugenics alive and well and still impacting our culture? Does eugenics influence the character portrayals in movies that you see in commercials? And what are your children being taught in school and why? Announcer (00:35): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:43): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which most events take place. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that are impacting the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is eugenics. Is it a warped pseudoscience of the past or is it still impacting how people view each other? My guest is a historian and journalist whose work documents deconstructs and interprets eugenics themes in popular culture, identify formation among African-Americans and reproductive apartheid in carceral spaces and within marginalized communities. She's the author of In Search of Purity, popular Eugenics and Racial Uplift Among New Negroes, 1915 to 1935, and Pop U, popular Eugenics in television and film. She is Dr. Chantel Sherman. Chantel, welcome to the show. Dr Shantella Sherman (02:19): Thank you. I appreciate you having me. Always. Wilmer Leon (02:23): Before we get to your work as a researcher and historian, let's talk about your work as a researcher, historian, and journalist. You're the founder of the Acumen Group and you're also the Acumen Group, publishes Acumen Magazine. What is the Acumen Group? Dr Shantella Sherman (02:43): The Acumen Group is basically an institution where we are training, it's a nonprofit where we're training folks to deconstruct the things around them, specifically related to eugenics, but also related to race to the world around them, how we construct identities not only racially, but within our families, within our nation, and how we view and observe the worlds around us. So the goal with the Acumen Group was to take what it is that we have in institutions and do a trickle down, or I like to say like a sprinkler system, so that every person has the ability to actually see what it is that we're studying, know what folks are saying when they create policy, understand the dynamics that go into creating policy and the power that they have to change it. But since most people aren't comfortable being in school anymore, or they figure once they reach the 12th grade, then that's it. They stop reading, they stop, I'm having conversations. They stop really engaging with the process of life. And so the goal is to tool people up, first of all, by making them comfortable with being in classrooms again, being armchair historians and armchair politicians so that they understand the world around them and then giving them the tools to actually go out and change the things that they need to change. Wilmer Leon (04:06): And Acumen Magazine, how often is it published? Where do people get it? What's in Acumen Magazine? Dr Shantella Sherman (04:14): Acumen Magazine came about because we have students, a lot of students who once they got the information, they were on fire. They really wanted to be able to tell this information and represented it and reproduce it. And so we created the magazine as a quarterly. It is student led, it is student produced with me at the helm doing much of the graphic design and the editing. But it is students from around the globe at this point that showcase their research. It is dialed down in a way that it's journal quality, but in a rather popular and inviting way of reading it. So it's more like a magazine, even though it feeds like a journal. Wilmer Leon (05:00): One of the things that has stood out to me, as you and I talk about all the work that you're doing, all the research that you're doing, all the presentations, it seems as though, and if I'm wrong, please correct me. It seems as though there's a lot more interest in your work abroad as in Europe than there is here in the United States. Dr Shantella Sherman (05:24): Yes, it's the quick answer. I think that there's a real passion across the globe, but specifically in these European spaces, because even though eugenics took off here in America, and I think it was the perfect laboratory for the pseudoscience, it in fact originated in Europe. And so the concept of how to create better people, the concept of how to nation build it comes from them as part of the colonial mainframe. And so it's that colonizing empire with its tentacles. But how do you manage people that you consider to be less than, to be inferior, to be the world's workers, to be low on the totem pole? How do you manage them? And so Europeans are still looking at this in other ways. They never stopped the eugenic mainframe. They never stopped the cogs and the wheels from spinning. And so when we look at things today, and I know we'll get to this artificial intelligence or people talking about genomes and helping with medicine, creating the medicine that you need based upon gene pools and gene sets, these are all tentacles and legs of the original eugenics movement. (06:45) And so if we don't understand what that is, then the folks in Europe understand it. And so they're courses, they're college courses are designed to fit around this, whether it's law, whether it is political science, whether it's journalism, they understand that eugenics is still a part of the conversation. So for instance, Francis Go, who's considered to be the father of Eugenics, his original laboratory, the Eugenics Records lab, those societies are still very much in existence under different names. So the original Eugenics Institute under Francis Galton has now been renamed, and it's called the Adelphi Forum. And they're still having meetings early or as late as 20 23, 20 24. So part of, again, what the Acumen Group does is we send researchers, or I will attend myself, and we go in and we listen to how eugenics is now being talked about, or genetic research is now being talked about in a rather deconstructed way, so that folks are studying what happened, for instance, with Covid trying to determine through blood types or through environment who was more prone to having contagions. (08:07) And that way it's no longer about the survival of the fittest, about who can survive different catastrophes and disasters based upon the help of science. Because if it's survival of the fittest, when the smoke cleared according to data, 63.7% globally of the folks who died from covid or complications from Covid were white people. So it makes sense that you then want to try and figure out if survival of the fit is about white people dominating people of color, but you have a pandemic come through, and the majority of the folks who passed away from this epidemic pandemic were white people. How do you explain that in a scientific way? So you'd start to study them all over again. So again, that's that eugenic tentacle still reaching out the way it does. Wilmer Leon (09:00): So let's take a step back and start with a definition of this pseudoscience known as genetics, known as eugenics. And after you define it, explain why it's a pseudoscience. Dr Shantella Sherman (09:16): Perfect. The term itself came about roughly 1840, though folks have believed that you could create or build better people or better societies through reproduction probably since the beginning of time. So the idea was that you can, in the same way you manufacture or manipulate the DNA, we weren't using the term DNA then, but germ plasm of plants and animals. You want to breed in certain things and breed out certain things. We believe that some point in this country and across the globe that you could actually do the same thing with people. And Francis goin took this science to a different level. And at the time it was considered a science. It was a bonafide science. The theories were that in the same way that you reproduce height and weight and hair color and eye color and things like that and pass them on to your children, that you could also pass along your characteristics. (10:15) So they were stuck. There was a gene for lying, there was a chromosome for stealing. It is the belief that if you mix this type of person with this type of person, you'll end up with these type of children. And the belief eugenically was that these genes sat for generation after generation after generation. So if you had a great, great grandfather who was a criminal, that criminality was in your genes and the genes of your children, and that it was just one thing that would potentially push it on out, or in other instances it just manifested itself. So we know it to be a pseudoscience. All of the theories were fallible because if that was the case that meant that we just have a world full of criminals, we would have a world full of liars. And it's not to say that this, to some extent we don't, but these are things that can't be set aside. (11:13) One of the things that is really defining about eugenics as well is that poverty is considered to be in your DNA. So this is the reason why, again, when we start talking about social sciences and reform work, the belief is that if you are born poor, you're going to stay poor. If your parents were burden on society, you will be a burden on society. If you had a child born out of wedlock somewhere along this family tree, that that immorality is in you and therefore you have to be watched, monitored, segregated, kept from doing things that other Americans do or other British do or other whomever do, because there is a discogenic taint, if you will, a contamination to your gene pool. And so that's where we get the marriage laws that are restricting folks. So we get segregation to restrict people from coming together. Wilmer Leon (12:12): So as a part of this, and I say this all the time, and usually people look at me, the whole construct of race is an artificial construct. Race does not exist. Racism exists because that is a thought process based upon the artificial construct of skin color, hair type, nose type, all of these types of elements that we attribute to race. That's an artificial construct grown out of the whole eugenics. Pseudoscience. Dr Shantella Sherman (12:56): Absolutely. And the reason why America became such a tremendous laboratory for the quote science at the time, is that Africans came over looking like traditional stereotypical Africans, very, very dark in complexion, very broad noses, very thick lips. And by the time you get to emancipation, you need eugenics to go through and measure noses and measure the thickness of lips because skin color is no longer attributed necessarily to white or black. You have enough black people who are, their skin tone is light enough that you cannot tell them from a white person, Wilmer Leon (13:37): Hence passing. Dr Shantella Sherman (13:39): Exactly. And there were enough at this point that you end up with your Dred Scott Case with your Plessy versus Ferguson with people saying, how can I identify this person as black when I can't by the naked eye see that they're black? And so we start to attribute within the eugenics mainframe things like 60 or 70 different measurements that every American at some point has to go through, whether it's through the school system, the public health system, which is just being birthed all around the same time. And so you have these folks like Frederick Hoffman who was a statistician who worked for Prudential Life Insurance, which is still around, who literally came up with a 330 page manifesto. He called it an article, I called it several volumes, but it was about who the Negro was and his health deficiencies and why black people as a whole did not deserve life insurance or health insurance because they were naturally predisposed genetically to cancers, to calamity, to disease, through filth, and just we were immoral, and it was our behaviors that created the discogenic bodies, the unfit bodies. So eugenics is the science of the fit over the unfit. And when you understand it that way, you also understand that there were as many, at some point as many white people who had to deal with this concept that they were not white enough. And so understand that any white person, when we start getting into things like the Racial Integrity Act, any white person who is not white enough is automatically classified in the black column. All right? Anyone who's not white, 100% white is now considered to be black. Wilmer Leon (15:34): So this takes us to the whole discussion about the one drop rule, and if there's one drop of black blood in your body, you are black. And in the south, particularly, I want to say Louisiana, but it might've been other places you had designations such as quadron, which meant you were one quarter black terone, you were one eighth black. That's where a lot of these designations came from. And I think it's important, I think for people to understand that if you're trying to construct a society that has in it a racial hierarchy, that white people are at the top of the pecking order, and black people are at the bottom of the pecking order, that white people are the dominant black people are the servant, then if you're trying to construct and maintain this type of social order or what you and I'll call disorder disorder, then you need this type of pseudoscience as the mechanism of proving or validating these warped racist theories. Dr Shantella Sherman (16:44): Absolutely. And within that same mainframe, Wilma, also understand that because you have so many people who at this time could be classified as mixed race, I could be classified as mixed race at this point based on the fact that I'm not dark enough. But then there were qualifiers that were put into place according to skin tone, even within darkness. So I think that you see the film cast, it touches on eugenics so briefly that I went, but that wasn't their purpose. That's okay. But the reality is you also had these qualifiers attached to different skin tones. So the closer a person was to whiteness, it was also debilitating to that black person. Wilmer Leon (17:32): Why do you say, wait a minute, why do you say whiteness and not just white? Are you being grammatically correct or is Oh, Dr Shantella Sherman (17:38): Yeah, I'm Wilmer Leon (17:39): No, no, no, but or is there a differentiator between, because when you say whiteness as opposed to just saying white, what distinction are you drawing? Dr Shantella Sherman (17:54): When I say whiteness, I'm taking on the character. I'm taking on the tone. Thank you. Not just the physicality of it. Thank you. I'm also taking into consideration the mentality of it. So sometimes I use film so that you'll get this, the Birth of a nation, the fear was not about the dark-skinned person that you could know and identify. It was all of a sudden about this mixed race, black person who gets into the White House, who gets into, I want you to pay attention to where I'm going with this. Who gets into Congress, who gets into these places where he does not belong? And so all of a sudden there's a different level of fear that says, if this person who I can't necessarily identify as black, black, see, we started out as docile and lazy and these characteristics, but all of a sudden you mix the parents, white man, black woman. (18:48) Then they're ledgers that I read that say things like the lighter the person is, they take on the sinister qualities of the white master who produced this person. So all of a sudden he's crafty, he's diabolical, he's a rapist because he's taking on his daddy's quality. So in the birth of a nation, what did the woman say? This is a fate worse than death to have a black man touch me and rape me the way his father, this white man has done previously. This is a part of that white character, eugenically showing itself in this now mixed race, black child, the virtue of white women basically is code. You're putting a mirror to those genes. And basically the fear was these are not just enslaved people or newly emancipated people. These are the sons and daughters. In many instances of the whiteness, the power structure that has been there. (19:49) So if you're telling me that eugenically within the DNA, all of those things that have been experienced and lived experiences and in the DNA and in the germ plasm of the oppressors are now in their offspring who are free to do whatever it is that they wish to do on the face of the earth, and they have the mobility to move about, all of a sudden this fear is driven into the average white male that says, now I have to be concerned not just with my children, my black children having sexual contact with the white children that I don't want them to have contact with. But I also have a fear that my children will have the type of sinister character that would allow them to elevate themselves in a way that corrupts genetically, socially, medically in every possible way, these children that I'm looking to protect in the first place. (20:51) And so you end up with, I sometimes call it a schizophrenic nature of racism, which is I must protect, there's a fear of me dying or being annihilated. And so you end up with folks like Starter who's talking about the rising tide of blackness. You're talking about fear of losing genetic power, but if this is survival of the fittest and you are superior, there's nothing in my black jeans that could possibly contaminate you. That's just not possible. So it's not logical, it's not scientific in any way, but it has become the social and medical mainframe for what we do under racism. Wilmer Leon (21:39): In your work, you have the ABCs of eugenics, and we don't have time to go through all of them. So folks, go to the acumen group.org, dot com Dr Shantella Sherman (21:57): Org. Wilmer Leon (21:58): Go to the acumen group and.dot org. So for example, you have the American Breeders Association, the first national membership based organization promoting Eugenics. Talk about just quickly, the American Breeders Association and breeding out and cultural lag, these kinds of constructs and ideas that this whole thing was built around. Dr Shantella Sherman (22:28): Well, I mean the American Breeders Association, it was about breeding cattle. It was about breeding animals, farm animals. But the belief was, again, if I can breed out certain things in my animals, why can't I breed them out of my children or the community around me? And so the American Breeders Association understand that they were the first informal university, I would say, because most people were farmers. We were in an agrarian society. Everyone was still building and growing. And so what comes out of that are your beauty contests. So when you had your state fair, you would have the American Breeders Association sponsoring it, and they would have the section for the fattest calf and the biggest cow and the nicest squash and the best tasting cherry pie. And then on the other end, they would have the baby contest, the fitter families contest. And the idea was, if you're going to have this much control over everything else in your environment, why wouldn't you also have that same level of control over your household and over the people around you? (23:35) And also Wiler, it sets up this thing where we do this all the time without thinking about it, you can go down the street and look at a person and them based on how they look. And I'm not saying, oh, his shoes are run over. You look at the face and you say, oh, his eyes are too close together. There's something wrong with that brother. Or Look at the slope on his head, or his lips are just way too big. Or We do this unconscious, we don't think about it. But these are all those eugenic theories and thoughts that were brought down to a playground level, if you will. And we went through this thing called the ugly laws, where anything that didn't satisfy our eyes, we could then conscript to being unfit. And so people who wear glasses, people who weren't wearing braces at this point, so if your teeth were not quite the way they could be, if your ears were bigger than folks thought they should be, you were nicknamed, you were bullied, you were pushed aside. Usually your teachers or nurse or doctor would say there was something wrong with you when really there wasn't, and you were then segregated from the rest of the children because you were an eyesore. Wilmer Leon (24:49): That takes me to, in your ABCs, there's language, and I'm glad you put it at the playground level, because there's language that became adopted into our dialogue that had to do with, I think the word is infirm, putting people in institutions, institutionalizing people. So words such as feeble-minded words such as retarded hearted. There were classifications that were associated or ascribed to people. And again, a lot of that language has become common parlance, but there was eugenic constructs tied to this language. Dr Shantella Sherman (25:37): Eugenics birthed that language, and I keep saying it did not exist in that way beforehand. You may have said this person a little slow or we're going to put the dunks cap on 'em, that type of thing. But you still saw that there was value in the person. You wouldn't segregate them from the rest of society or from the village or from the town. This was just the person who was a little slow. They still, for the most part, went to the same school. When eugenics enters into the frame though, what it says is that if other children see this, they will believe that this is normal, and we need to determine not what is natural, but what is normal, what we will and what we will not accept. And so you get terms like moron, idiot, buil, and within those high grade buil, low grade buil, medium grade buil, and each one of these was based upon iq. (26:27) And so you have early IQ tests. At the time, there was the term test, you had the Goddard test, you had different social scientists and psychiatrists who were coming in and basically saying, if I give this child this test, it shows that they have the aptitude of a two to 3-year-old. If they're in that range, then we're going to say that there are moron. If they have an aptitude of four to a 5-year-old, we're going to say they're an idiot. And you keep going up this way. The problem is not everyone's going to school. Not everyone is in the same region. So I mean, as of Wilmer Leon (27:05): 20 agrarian cultures did not see the need for advanced mathematics and science and reading. You don't need that to bale hay. You don't need that to chop cotton Dr Shantella Sherman (27:18): Wilmer. When I do the research, I find that organizations like the four H Club was originally a eugenic organization. Wilmer Leon (27:27): Wow. Did not know that Dr Shantella Sherman (27:29): The goal was to keep all of the people who were migrating. See, black people weren't the only ones migrating from the south because this became an economic imperative. You also had white people migrating from the Midwest into these other areas. But when they did, they lost the character of the Midwest and they started doing things. They started doing way too much drinking, way too much partying. The girls went wild. They lost their biblical way, they lost their American way. And so the goal was to give them something that would make them stay in the Midwest. They'll make them shun all of the other stuff that's out there. So you started saying, the folks out there are unfit and you are fit, and you live from the land. And so the goal was to make sure you had four H folks who understood you are America. And so when we look at the IQ test and your SATs and your acts today, all of these eugenic tests were originally designed for the Midwest. And that's why folks outside of the Midwest do the worst on the test because Wilmer Leon (28:32): No, wait a minute, I didn't know. Now I've taken the LSAT, I've taken a lot of these tests. I did not realize that there was a geographic basis or higher that I did not know people from the Midwest do better. Why do people from Iowa do better on the exam than people from California Dr Shantella Sherman (29:01): Easily? Because the person who designed the test was in Iowa, creating it with the folks in Iowa so that they set the rubric. This is his name is escaped. VP Franklin, the historian who did this great piece about the test is designed for the dog. He said, A cat and the dog kept tapping each other and whatever. The dog wouldn't move. The cat is popping him in the head and running around. The dog is just sitting there. And it's like someone would say that that dog is lazy. No, the test is designed for the dog. The cat is the one with the problem, but you focused on the dog ignoring him. The cat is the one over here losing his mind. The goal is to change how you frame things. How are you looking at things? And so again, Wiler, you have to take a step back from everything that you're looking at and just kind of deconstructing and pull it back up. As a black man, if you go somewhere and you're defending your wife, they say, oh, he's brave. Depending on where you are. If you're a black man in the Midwest and you're defending your wife, I don't care from what it becomes. If it's a squirrel that runs out across her, then he's an animal abuser. Okay? It's all in. Wilmer Leon (30:18): He's a squirrel hater. Dr Shantella Sherman (30:20): He's a squirrel hater. Get him. It's all in the examination. Masculinity and manhood are defined by patriotism, Americanism fighting the rugged cowboy. It's all of that. When you see a black man stand up, he goes to save the day. They say, why is he looking like that? Wilmer Leon (30:39): Why is he so aggressive? Dr Shantella Sherman (30:41): Why is he so aggressive? He could have shot one bullet instead of 20. But you don't say that to Arnold Schwarzenegger, come on. How many times can you kill him? It is that. And so you start to pull back from all of that. Why are your children being suspended more than others? All children. It used to be you had psychiatrists, psychologists that would say all children begin to rebel between the ages of eight and maybe 12. And then again, when they hit a growth spurt of 14, 15, 16-year-old child, teenager is one of the worst animals to have to encounter because nothing is logical. Everything is either too much or too little. We used to understand that they're teenagers and they're doing teenagery things. All of a sudden they become criminals depending on who they are. And as the nation and the world becomes majority minority, many of the things that were once considered just to be the trappings of life, this is how people grow. This is a part of what children and teenagers do. They rebel a little bit. This is Jimmy Dean and all of this, all of a sudden that's out the water. It becomes, they're a menace to society. They are dangerous. They are aggressive. They're taking the funds of the nation. It's a waste because the people are a waste. Wilmer Leon (32:09): So let's go to, because you mentioned Jimmy Dean. I think rebel without a cause was the film. And I remember when my son was in high school, I had to say to him more than once, look, you can't do what your white friends do. You can't get away with the same things they're going to get away with. The police will come and take them home. They will come and take you away. So you need to be sure that you can't fall for that Okie-doke and the banana and the tailpipe trick. Dr Shantella Sherman (32:46): Exactly. Wilmer Leon (32:47): Right. Exactly. So you have a book called Pop You EU popular eugenics in television and film. And again, you mentioned Rebel Without a Cause, and Minister Society was the other term that you used, which is a very popular film. So how does this whole eugenics dynamic play itself out in the commercials? In fact, let me just, this is a very long-winded way, but to show my age, I remember when I started seeing interracial couples in commercials. That is a relatively new phenomenon. Folks younger than me, my son, he sees it as normal. When I first saw that, it might've been the Cheerios commercial with the biracial child, the father, the African-American father is on the couch. The biracial child comes and pours Cheerios on him while he is laying on the couch. And that child was obviously biracial. I lost my mind. What am I seeing on television? Because before that, there was no way in the world that you were going to see, particularly an African-American man with a biracial child. That had to mean the mother in terms of this dynamic was white. Oh my God, no. So that's a very long-winded way of me, Dr Shantella Sherman (34:34): Wil. No, but you're very right. It's a quick turn. It is been a very, very quick turn. And it's not even as if it's being presented the way it would stereotypically be presented. Again, you have to understand, this man is in the house. He's not, I don't want to mess with him because oj, this isn't something that's volatile. This is something that's very relaxed, and it normalized. It kind of evened it out. Those who had problems with it were ostracized. And Wilmer Leon (35:03): Of course, but a lot of people had serious, oh, a lot of folks, they took that commercial off. Dr Shantella Sherman (35:13): But what you do is you keep pushing against the breaker. You keep pushing against the breaker. And so one of the chapters that's coming up in the second volume of Pop U, which would be out later this year, it looks at the interracial dynamic and how you can now popularize this to a point where not only is it accept it, but it's lauded. So the series 9 1 1, you get a character like Angela Bassett leading the show who has a black husband starting out who comes to her after 20 years and says, I've been hiding the fact that I'm gay and I don't want to be with you anymore. And then enter this wonderful fire chief who's tall and blonde, and he's given all of the John Wayne in a modern context, and he's overwhelmingly in love with her, and he falls right into place. And everyone was like, oh, it's such a brilliant dynamic. And all I keep saying is, I actually love the show. I love the content, but could you have saved her husband? Could you have left an actual black family intact? Wilmer Leon (36:28): And why do you have to be gay? But this interracial, the introduction and the acceptance of the interracial then brought us into the LB two dynamic. Dr Shantella Sherman (36:48): You get to the first episode, this happens in the first episode, Angela Bass and this, and I can't, Athena and her husband. This is episode one, Athena. So if you're going to watch this, you're going to grow into this, and you're going to love the characters so much, it breaks that eugenic mainframe open. And I can understand why you have these old traditionalists who are literally watching television saying, it's garbage. It's the left. It's these people that don't, you're feeding us this garbage. They're going deep. But you're right, everything becomes, you have a lesbian couple there who's adopting biracial kids from a white drug addict. They threw in everything except the eugenic asylum. They put it all right there and then made each and every last one of them heroes. So every week you, yay. And they then the fight. So now it becomes normalized, not that it wasn't already happening around you in the first place. So is life imitating art? Is art imitating life? Who's fueling what? And so my thing is, so long as you can find a way of making sure that all sides are represented positively, you may be okay, but that's not necessarily what's been happening. So back to your original question with this, you can go back as far Sidney porter and the blackboard Wilmer Leon (38:13): Junk. Oh, I would say that who was coming to dinner to Dr Shantella Sherman (38:17): Be a waste? (38:21) Well, in the heat of the night. So again, I think that he was the original testing ground. All of the isms in our society went through City 48 because he was beautiful and dark and upstanding, and they put him in a good looking suit. And he went in and he did the work. So you can do in the heat of the night when you're talking about whiteness and you have a black man standing in a room where there's a white girl having sex on the top of graveyards in the cemetery with indiscriminate men. And the fight is, why did you let my little sister say that? She's basically a whore in the presence of that black man. How dare you? We all know she's not right, but you made her say it in the front of him. You can't do that. So we're going to skip all of these other reasons why her whiteness is in question. And now the fault is on the white police chief for allowing a black man to understand she ain't really white. All of these are built into that Hollywood mainframe, and when you pull 'em apart, you kind of go, wow. Wilmer Leon (39:31): It's interesting that you, well, two things. One, blackboard jungle wasn't that set in London? Dr Shantella Sherman (39:37): No, no, no. That was the other one to start with. Love. Wilmer Leon (39:41): Oh, to start with love. Okay. Right. Dr Shantella Sherman (39:44): I'm sorry. Go ahead. Wilmer Leon (39:45): Well, Sidney Poitier, not African-American. Does the fact that particularly at that time is one of the reasons or one of the factors that enabled him to have those roles was because he was an African-American. Because we know at that time that foreign blacks were given much more latitude than African-Americans. That's why, for example, there were many African-American musicians that changed their names to foreign sounding names. I can't remember the brother, but there was one musician that used to wear this turban. The brother was from Cleveland, I think, and he used to wear a turban so that the promoters of the shows would think he wasn't from here, and then he would have more latitude. But you're saying that had nothing to do with Sidney Poitier. Dr Shantella Sherman (40:55): I think with him, he may have been slightly different. One, visually he fit the optics. And again, I think that you had a whole series of directors and producers at this point that were really trying to push the envelope. So I think originally in the first book, I deal with the fact that you have Sidney Poitier doing three different films that are dealing with discogenic children, the bad children, the teenager thing. So you get the blackboard jungle first, and then 10 years later you get to serve with love where he's in England dealing with British kids. And the first one, he is one of the students like Gordon General, he is one of the throwaways and they're calling them waste. Now, the concept of human waste, that's eugenic. There's certain people that should not be born. There's certain people who are burdened on society, and what you do is you put them in a garbage can and you have the school system sit on the lid all day so that people, you're babysitting, but you're not to teach them anything because they don't have the capacity to learn. (41:53) The second one, you get British students, but it's Sidney Poitier teaching young white girls that you don't do the things that they were doing in the film. He's teaching manhood to British white kids. So once again, you're like, but it's him. And then the third film is a piece of the action where you have him back in America in an inner city, and you'll see the difference in how the children are viewed and what happens when you put Sidney Poitier and Bill Cosby in front of these discogenic black kids in the middle of Chicago. How do you place them at that point? And so all of these things optically, what are you saying? Where are you trying to go with this? And so what are you saying about these kids? Are they still throwaways? And as they talk Wilmer Leon (42:44): About the objects, I want to be sure if you could spend just a couple minutes on, because I think a lot of times folks will look at these films and they don't realize what they're looking at. They don't understand the optics. Dr Shantella Sherman (43:01): Anytime you find a particularly dark-skinned man, see the darker person is the closer they are to their primitive ancestry. So anytime you get a beautifully dark black man and you put him in front of a screen, what the average person is looking for in this country is someone who's scratching their head and Yael Boston and scared and running, and whose eyes get big Manan Morton and someone who has the capacity of a child, he will have to be saved by whoever is the white hero because he doesn't have the capacity to think, to learn to do anything, but still scream and run. But you put Sidney Poitier in there, again, being beautifully black and eloquent and having integrity. Notice in each one of these films, Sidney Poitier is coming in unquote whiter than the white person that's in the film. He's coming in, they're more educated than the white people in the film. (44:08) He's coming in as a sex object in many of the instances that you start to see. And that was not just taboo. It was literally turning the eugenic theories upside down. It literally cut out the bias. It slid it. And so it made you have to think, am I judging the elevator operator because he's doing something else? He actually has a brain. Am I conscripting people to places where they actually have a capacity beyond what it is that I'm seeing? If he's this dark and he's this brilliant, he has this type of mind and he has this type of integrity, and he has a wife and children back, and he's making money and all of these other things. And he attended college understanding everything that we're seeing in television and film was going against the reality of what was in front of people. That's the other thing. (45:07) It's fantasy. It was fantasy. So all of a sudden, if folks don't have the capacity to know the difference between what is real and what is imagined through Hollywood, and all of a sudden I start giving you beautiful dark men who are brilliant and bright, I start giving you black women who have integrity and who are business women and who are matriarchs of their household and don't curse and beat their kids. And I'm walking around with the on welfare and this, this, and this, and all of a sudden you start to look at the people around you and realize you've been in fantasy land for a long time. The people around you really are wonderful and brilliant and American and all of these other great things. Wilmer Leon (45:50): Guess who's coming to dinner 1967. So this is a year before Dr. King is assassinated. Sidney Poitier. Talk about that dynamic in, and I think Spencer Tracy plays the father of the woman, the white woman that Sidney Poitier falls in love with. Dr Shantella Sherman (46:12): Well, and the whole thing, women becomes hokey after a while because it's almost as if they're preaching to you. Spencer Tracy is like, and as we go through the annals of history and just like, right. I love the fact though, in this film that you have the older black characters. You have the maid saying, you know, ain't got no business up in here with this girl coming into a house like this. Years ago, it wasn't even that you would've gone into the back door. You'd have been swinging from a tree. You ought to know better. And because you can't separate that, Wilmer Leon (46:45): You have to know your place. Dr Shantella Sherman (46:47): And I really did not like the fact that you had his parents, Sidney Poitier's parents are trying to warn him off like, listen, I didn't like that. Because it's like, in reality, those warnings are real today. Oh, absolutely. Hey, you watch where you step, right? Again, you don't do what they do Wilmer Leon (47:06): Well, so take us with that, because I wanted to try and show some type of lineage here. So where are we with this today? Because a lot of people would think that eugenics and how it manifests itself, that was then, we're not really seeing that. Now. You touched on it with 9 1 1 and all, but give us some examples of, because you spend an awful lot of time researching in terms of what we're seeing today. How is it manifesting itself today Dr Shantella Sherman (47:43): At the pendulum, wil, we quite frankly, you can swing too far in one direction and then it flips over. The reality is that many of the eugenic theories that we started with, we still have, we call them by different names. We don't say that a person is an idiot buil all of that anymore. What we say is their sub normal. We say that they need an emotional assistance program within the school. We say that we don't want to segregate them out, but we're going to find a way of pulling these things together. So even I Wilmer Leon (48:18): Think it's called a EP and alternative educational plan. Dr Shantella Sherman (48:21): Absolutely. But you keep everyone in the same space. And even the rubric is not really, it's still a eugenic rubric. Do you have both parents in your house? What is the income of the household? It's all of these other things that go back to what we call the three Ds. Delinquent dependent. What's the other one? Delinquent dependent. I always get to that last one. Wilmer Leon (48:48): It'll come to you. Dr Shantella Sherman (48:50): Yeah. All right. But it's the three Ds that most school systems, most medical systems use that determine how the child will fare in the school. But they start using this rubric when the three or four, and this is the reason why you have three year olds being suspended and expelled from school. They don't listen. They're aggressive. They're throwing tantrums. That's what three year olds do. But now there's a pathology that's attached to it. And so when you look at, yes, if I look at things like the cloning, because we moved into transhumanism and people go, oh, this AI and all of this other stuff, these are just fancy terms so that you don't understand that that original theory, survival of the fittest and white gene power and all of this, covid showed you something. So you're getting television shows where you're talking about cloning people, you're talking about orphan black, you're talking about AI integrated into things. You're talking about, we need to build better humans externally, because internally, white women are not having babies, and when they do, they're having non white men. Okay, the Wilmer Leon (50:02): Browning of America, Dr Shantella Sherman (50:03): Right? The browning of the world, right? Say there's a reason why they're calling London Stan now, because everybody, these aren't immigrants coming in. These are births in the nation. And so all of a sudden the culture of the nation is beginning to shift. So what we want to do is start having the people who would normally clean the streets or do other things. We have machines that do this now. And so what you're doing is creating a poverty class where folks won't be able to do anything except what you want them to do. And so we are getting back, you can't put 'em in asylums, but you can't put 'em in ghettos. You can't put'em in counsel housing. And so you start to understand that the television is starting to help you do this. You're getting different films about when we create better people that can assist us with being more human, you have more time to be human and go to yoga and do this other stuff. If someone else is doing the thinking for you. That becomes problematic in a number of ways. But what it does supposedly is secure your cells, your good cells, that fitness, because you're now being outnumbered. Wilmer Leon (51:19): I'm not even sure how to frame this question, but in listening to what you've just said, it ties to a conversation I was having yesterday in that we seem to be moving away from the collective to the individual with the iPhone and the iPad. It is a whole lot more about me as the individual and what satisfies me as the individual. I remember seeing these dance parties where kids will go with their iPods, listen to music in their own ears, in a group of people. Everybody's listening to different music. Everybody's dancing the same rhythm. Everybody's dancing to different rhythms because they're listening to different things. And this is supposed to be a party. I don't even know if that ties it, but that just came into my Dr Shantella Sherman (52:21): Head. No, but it does, because again, when I'm speaking of the term outnumbered, when we talk about transhumanism, the belief is that society, the world is going to basically at this point, because the good, the fit have been outnumbered by the unfit. Those who have the least ability and capacity to raise children are having the most children. Years ago, you would sterilize these folks, you would strike 'em as an idiot, em basil, you put 'em in an asylum or at the public health center for a couple days, you would sterilize them, do full hysterectomies or surgeries for the men, and then you let 'em back out on the street and say, okay, you can do all the damage you can do in your lifetime, which won't be long based upon your behavior, but you will not reproduce this foolishness into another generation. We're going to stop this. They're still doing this in prisons, by the way, today. Alright, so that's first and foremost. But what starts to happen is it's not that you want to be individual in and of yourself, you also want to be a celebrity. So everywhere you go Wilmer Leon (53:26): Likes taking Dr Shantella Sherman (53:27): Pictures of yourself, Wilmer Leon (53:29): I have to be liked. Dr Shantella Sherman (53:30): And then you can't function when enough people don't like it. But I've seen people sitting at a table and everyone's taking pictures of the food they're eating, the food they're drinking, they may look over at each other a little bit, but you all are family and you came together, but you're not even having conversations. So you're in a bubble by yourself and your own self. It's all Wilmer Leon (53:50): About this, Dr Shantella Sherman (53:51): Right? You're in a bubble by your own self and you can't relate. The mainframe is also speeding up so that I'm feeding you so much information at one time that you can't focus. And since you can't focus, it means it's doing something internally to you as well. At some point, Wilma, we may talk about the Rosetta Effect. Alright, go Wilmer Leon (54:13): Ahead. Dr Shantella Sherman (54:16): And this is one of my champion causes because it's about size and it's about weight and it's about happiness. Back in the 1950s, sixties, the country was trying to figure out where the healthiest spaces in America were, and they found that it was a little community upstate New York called Rosetta. And when they got there, they were like, this doesn't make sense. It was mostly a Italian spot, and everyone over there was just gargantuan. These are some big people. Wilmer Leon (54:42): This sounds like a Twilight Zone episode. No, Dr Shantella Sherman (54:44): No, no. And I don't mean I shouldn't say it like that, but it was the men had bellies out in front of them. The women were B, and people were short and styled. Some of 'em were tall, but based upon the eugenic theories, these should be the most unhealthy people with hypertension, diabetes, heart conditions, just heart attacks waiting around the corner. Their BMIs were just ridiculous. They got there, they started testing them, and they realized, yeah, they just eating crap. They eating prosciutto and ham and cheese and melon walking down the street. One guy says, I want to die with a meatball in my mouth. And they did that right? And they just, Kiki can and laughing and drinking a lot of wine. What they concluded in the study was that the people felt safe, they felt loved, they felt nurtured. They felt respected. The old people lived into their nineties and hundreds because they had people looking out for them. (55:42) The children felt free to walk around in their neighborhoods and they had other people looking after them. And the middle aged, the birthing folks realized we have a community that will look after our children to keep them safe. We used to have that in the south, even under the duress of the lynching tree and other things. And that's why the lifespan was as long as it was, even though we were eating chitlins and hog malls and whatever else, it wasn't until the duress of society comes in and starts telling you, you're too this. You're too that. You're not enough of this. This is what causes this. This is how you get to that. You're not enough. They're giving you too much of this. And that is what we are dealing with. Now, within three years of the study coming out, we came in, America came in and told them, you don't want to live up underneath your grandparents all your lives. Sell the house and put them in a home. Send the kids to daycare. They'll get behind in school. They started feeding information to them about being more American. As soon as they became more American, guess what? They Wilmer Leon (56:44): Started dying faster. Dr Shantella Sherman (56:46): Hypertension showed up. And so the eugenic mainframe right now with transhumanism is going back to this and basically saying, you need yoga and water and to rest and music therapy and chelation and all of this. And the truth of the matter is, let the robot do the heavy lifting and you just live. Let the machine carry the baby. Wilmer Leon (57:10): Let me give you what I think is somewhat of a parallel here. The first time I went to Iran, I'm sitting in the lobby of my hotel. When we weren't in meetings and lectures and whatnot, we would sit in the lobby of the hotel and drink coffee and interact. I saw all these women with surgical tape on their faces, Muslim women with surgical tape, and it was just odd. So after about the second or third day, I turned to my interpreter, I said, Ali, why am I seeing all of these women with all this surgical tape on their faces? And he tells me that Tehran is the nose job center of the Middle East. And that fairly wealthy Muslim women come to Tehran to get their eyes done and get their noses done. And I said, Ali, that's insane. These women are beautiful. And he says, yeah, but they're reading Western glamor magazines and they want to look like women from the west. (58:41) So I'm in this interview, I'm on this television show on press tv, and the host asks me my thoughts about, I was there the first time I was there for 10 days, and he asked me my thoughts and I says, well, let me tell you something. I says, you guys, you don't have to worry about General Schwartzkoff. You got to worry about Colonel Sanders. And he says, excuse me? I said, based on what I see your adopting of the Western aesthetic is for your women. When that three piece in a biscuit hits, you guys are done. Hypertension, obesity, diabetes. I said, once you get a taste of those additives in American food and that salt hits you, I said, America will take you over in a minute. Dr Shantella Sherman (59:45): It's a wrap. It's literally a wrap. I mean, when we have folks right now, if you go the next time interview are out in the streets, go into the nearest target of Walmart, go down the aisle, not for cosmetics, but for things like deodorant and lotion, they're now putting additives in that specifically for melanated skin. And the goal is to bleach your underarm. Pitts. The goal is to lighten your skin as you're putting on your lotion. So it's not listed as a skin bleacher, but the combination and compounds that you would actually lighten your skin with are now in soaps, deodorant, lotions, anything that you can think of. And it's for every part of your body. Understand what I'm saying? And so I'm thinking, who really needs this? Wilmer Leon (01:00:42): Is that where this whole, because I've noticed these new commercials with the total body deodorant. Is that where that's coming from? Dr Shantella Sherman (01:00:50): That's also a part of it. Yes. Come on, come had baby soda since you've had life. So come on. Say that again. Wilmer Leon (01:00:58): You've had Dr Shantella Sherman (01:00:58): What? Baking soda. Oh, Wilmer Leon (01:01:00): Right. Dr Shantella Sherman (01:01:00): Everybody said if you were worried about sweat, I mean, come on, sweat and odor. We know how to deal with this. Again, country folks, you've been Virginian and lower. You got it. So the fact that you're now creating through Suave and Dove and shame motion, every brand now has something that, and they call it melanated. They're letting you know this is for people who are brown, who don't want to be brown anymore. This is for folks who don't want to be to appear unfit. They're now girdles for your feet. They're now, you want a smaller size foot. We got some tape and stuff that we can wrap your feet in so that you get a smaller size shoe. It's bizarro, but fit over unfit. Wilmer Leon (01:01:51): The Acumen Group is we could talk, well, you and I, we go through this for hours. The Acumen Group, you're holding your first annual eugenics conference in the United Kingdom in October. Talk about that. Give us a little bit of that, please. Dr Shantella Sherman (01:02:07): Well, we're still pulling all the logistics together at this point when we're, but I'm grateful to God that we're celebrating our 10th anniversary as of this year. 2024 is also for us, the 100 year anniversary of a lot of the eugenic legislation that came about in 1924. And it's still occupying spaces in the parameters of our policymaking today. So we are partnering with a number of universities in, Wilmer Leon (01:02:35): Well, wait a minute, A minute, just So in 24, you had the Eugenic Sterilization Act, you had the Racial Integrity Act, and you had And Immigration Go ahead. Dr Shantella Sherman (01:02:45): And the Immigration Act. Wilmer Leon (01:02:47): Okay, Dr Shantella Sherman (01:02:47): So those three and two of the three came out of Virginia right up here where we are. So one just basically limited the number of immigrants that can come into the country. The second one said that anyone within a state that's considered to be socially inept and or mentally inept through those IQ tests and measurements can be sterilized for the better of the country. And then the third, the Race Purity, race Integrity Act basically said, once again, there are only two races. We aren't going to do Mongolo and Caucasoid and all of that. There are only two races, white and non-white. So even that praxis understanding that today when someone says black people are 20 times more likely to have X, Y, and Z, they aren't necessarily talking about black this way. They're talking about non-white. And so you really have to get to a point where you learn how to read these studies if you're going to repeat the information in them. (01:03:44) Alright, so the goal, the universities, the goal is to get all of these wonderful students from around the globe into one space, along with working scholars and the public to sit down and talk about the tentacles of eugenics and how it's become a sprinkler system. And it's still very much alive. It's still very healthy, it's robust, and it's right in front of us, but we don't necessarily recognize it. So we want to give a platform to scholars, to students, and to the public, the general public to come in, learn a little bit, share information, and go away with workable tools to combat this when and where we see it. Wilmer Leon (01:04:23): And for those who want to get more information, where do they go Dr Shantella Sherman (01:04:28): To the website? www.theacumengroup.org. You can visit us on all of the social medias, either as Dr. Chantel or as the Acumen Group. Wilmer Leon (01:04:40): An Acumen is A-C-U-M-N-E-N? Dr Shantella Sherman (01:04:45): Yes. Wilmer Leon (01:04:46): E-N-H-C-U-M. Hey, don't say I'm feeble-minded, please. I just can't spell. Don't do it. I went to Catholic school so I can do math. Dr Shantella Sherman (01:04:57): Don't do it. Wilmer Leon (01:04:59): Oh wow. Doctor Cantella Sherman, as always, you bring it. You brought it as you always do. Dr. Chantel Sherman, I have to thank you so much for joining me today. Dr Shantella Sherman (01:05:12): Thank you. Always a pleasure. Anytime Wilmer Leon (01:05:15): Folks. Thank you all. So much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe, review, share the show. You can follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Please go to that Patreon link and make a contribution so all the assistance that you can provide will be greatly, greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or you would like to suggest show topics, please make those suggestions as you communicate with us through the links below with your comments to the show. Remember folks, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you allall next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (01:06:22): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Revolutions are tumultuous episodes of history when the past and the present battle to fundamentally shape the future. How did the 'lawyers' revolution' and the American legal and political systems define and redefine the meanings and context of our laws? Dr. Williamjames Hoffer, Professor of History at Seton Hall University, tells the story of the Caning of Charles Sumner, the Plessy v. Ferguson case, and the 'lawyers' revolution' that refocus contemporaries on the political and legal aspirations and complexities of our nation. Check out the following books by Williamjames! The Clamor of Lawyers: The American Revolution and Crisis in the Legal Profession Plessy v. Ferguson: Race and Inequality in Jim Crow America The Caning of Charles Sumner: Honor, Idealism and the Origins of the Civil War To Enlarge the Machinery of Government: Congressional Debates and the Growth of the American State, 1858-1891Support the Show.Visit georgewashingtoninstitute.org for the one-stop shop of all things Friends & Fellow Citizens and George Washington Institute!JOIN as a Patreon supporter and receive a FREE Friends & Fellow Citizens mug at the $25 membership level!NEW MERCH STORE! Click HERE to get your podcast mug now!NOTE: All views expressed by the host are presented in his personal capacity and do not officially represent the views of any affiliated organizations. All views by guests are solely those of the interviewees and may or may not reflect the views of the host or Friends & Fellow Citizens.
574. We talk to Lynette Mejia about her defense of the Lafayette Library system. Louisiana born and raised, Lynette has become one of the faces of the anti-censorship movement in Lafayette, co-founding Lafayette Citizens Against Censorship and Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship. "The board," Mejia said, "has a very specific far-right Christian nationalist worldview and seems bent on imposing it on the library and changing its programming and collections to fit that world view." Now available: Liberty in Louisiana: A Comedy. The oldest play about Louisiana, author James Workman wrote it as a celebration of the Louisiana Purchase. Now it is back in print for the first time in 220 years. Order your copy today! This week in Louisiana history. May 18 1896. LA. case of Plessy v. Ferguson, "seperate but equal" This week in New Orleans history. On May 18, 1959, the song "Battle of New Orleans" by Johnny Horton became the number-one country single. This week in Louisiana. Mudbug Madness May 24-26, 2024 101 Crockett Street Shreveport, LA 71101 Phone: (318) 226-5641 Website. What began in 1984 as a two-day street festival in downtown Shreveport is now one of Louisiana's largest and most popular Cajun festivals, featuring country, pop, blues, and the very best in zydeco music. Three Days Two Stages Thirty Bands Food & Art/Craft Vendors Kids On The Bayou Children's Area Crawfish Eating Contests Plenty Of Boiled Crawfish & Cold Beverages A three-day festival held each Memorial Day weekend, Mudbug Madness is nationally recognized as one of the Southeast Tourism Society's Top 20 Events and the American Bus Association's Top 100 Events in the nation. Postcards from Louisiana. Drums in Congo Square on Easter Sunday, 2024. Listen on Apple Podcasts. Listen on audible. Listen on Spotify. Listen on TuneIn. Listen on iHeartRadio. The Louisiana Anthology Home Page. Like us on Facebook.
574. We talk to Lynette Mejia about her defense of the Lafayette Library system. Louisiana born and raised, Lynette has become one of the faces of the anti-censorship movement in Lafayette, co-founding Lafayette Citizens Against Censorship and Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship. "The board," Mejia said, "has a very specific far-right Christian nationalist worldview and seems bent on imposing it on the library and changing its programming and collections to fit that world view." Now available: Liberty in Louisiana: A Comedy. The oldest play about Louisiana, author James Workman wrote it as a celebration of the Louisiana Purchase. Now it is back in print for the first time in 220 years. Order your copy today! This week in Louisiana history. May 18 1896. LA. case of Plessy v. Ferguson, "seperate but equal" This week in New Orleans history. On May 18, 1959, the song "Battle of New Orleans" by Johnny Horton became the number-one country single. This week in Louisiana. Mudbug Madness May 24-26, 2024 101 Crockett Street Shreveport, LA 71101 Phone: (318) 226-5641 Website. What began in 1984 as a two-day street festival in downtown Shreveport is now one of Louisiana's largest and most popular Cajun festivals, featuring country, pop, blues, and the very best in zydeco music. Three Days Two Stages Thirty Bands Food & Art/Craft Vendors Kids On The Bayou Children's Area Crawfish Eating Contests Plenty Of Boiled Crawfish & Cold Beverages A three-day festival held each Memorial Day weekend, Mudbug Madness is nationally recognized as one of the Southeast Tourism Society's Top 20 Events and the American Bus Association's Top 100 Events in the nation. Postcards from Louisiana. Drums in Congo Square on Easter Sunday, 2024. Listen on Apple Podcasts. Listen on audible. Listen on Spotify. Listen on TuneIn. Listen on iHeartRadio. The Louisiana Anthology Home Page. Like us on Facebook.
Download the Volley.FM app for more short daily shows!
Seventy years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education centered on Linda Brown, a young Black student denied admission to her neighborhood elementary school in Topeka, Kansas, due to her race. The ruling overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which had permitted state-sponsored segregation in public education under the concept of "separate but equal." The decision is considered a significant milestone in the nation's civil rights history, as it paved the way for the courts to end racial segregation in public facilities and accommodations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Send us a Text Message. In this week's episode of Conversations with Kenyatta -Kenyatta D. Berry, host of PBS' Genealogy Roadshow and author of The Family Tree Toolkit - is joined by Steve Luxenberg, author and associate Editor of the Washington Post.Steve's story is fascinating - as an adult, he found that his mother had kept a family secret - that she had a sister who was committed to an asylum and then died. He never knew anything about his aunt and delved into finding out more about her in his book Annie's Ghosts: A Journey into a Family Secret.Steve is also known for his second book Separate, which is a narrative of how the United States embraced “separation” and its consequences, and examines the famous Plessy vs. Ferguson case. The music for this episode, as always, is "Good Vibe" by Ketsa. We are dedicated to exploring and discussing various aspects of genealogy, history, culture, and social issues. We aim to shed light on untold stories and perspectives that enrich our understanding of the world. **Please note that some links in our show notes may contain affiliate links, on which Kenyatta receives a small commission.
Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd FULL TRANSCRIPT: Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and their broader historic contexts. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that are impacting the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is the broader impact of the student protests in support of Palestine are having not only on their respective universities, but now across the country and across the globe. And for this to discuss this, my guest is a dear family friend, a student of political history. He as such, he's played a role in shaping history as we know it, and he worked with Bobby Seale and Huey Newton and others associated with the formation of the Black Panther Party for self-defense at College Merit College in Oakland, California. Later, he's worked as a political advisor and activist. He worked with a wide variety of black leaders in the Democratic Party throughout the state of California, as well as in Washington dc. He's the author of In Pursuit of America's Promise, memoirs of a Black Panther. He is Virtual Toussaint Murrell. Virtual, welcome to the show. Virtual Murrell (01:57): Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Leon. I'm happy to be here. Happy to be invited by you, my dear friend. Wilmer Leon (02:03): Thank you, sir. Thank you for joining us. What brings us really to this discussion, student protestors at Columbia University, they took over a building near the campus South Lawn, raising the prospect of further turmoil at the Ivy League institution. The university started suspending students who refuse to leave their pro-Palestinian encampment that is on campus grounds. This, while police recently clashed with students at the University of Texas at Austin and arrested dozens of students as they dismantled their encampment to protest Israel's war on Gaza, and these protests at Austin came as Columbia also began suspending students. These are just a few examples of the protests that are taking place at colleges and universities. The country, a top official from Morehouse College, said recently that the school is standing by its decision to have President Joe Biden serve as the 2024 commencement speaker. Despite backlash from students and faculty over biden's support for this war, virtual your thoughts, you and your understanding of student protests. You go back a few years, talk about some of the similarities and differences that you see playing themselves out on our TV and telephone screens today. Virtual Murrell (03:35): Upon reflection, Wilmer, I can say to you that student protest is important. Students are a valuable commodity. They speak with honesty, with a strong sense of morality, and they're bright and they are our future. We look at the students and say, why? Look what they're doing. They're preventing students from going to class. They are projecting antisemitism. I don't see that. I see students less confusing to the American people and the world than the politicians. The politicians, the elected leadership that we have here, they are the ones that seem confused. Little consistency on our policies of foreign policy in the Middle East has given rise to the students to make their moral claim. The similarity between the students today and the student activists and those who protested the war in Vietnam and Southeast Asia are similar in that regard. (05:04) We were protesting the war in Vietnam. That was an undeclared war. We were protesting the rights, the lack of rights for African-Americans in the United States defending democracy abroad in Vietnam for the fear of the red scare as they used to call it. But I'm amazed, I think I'm amazed at how soon we forget those of us who were activists in the sixties and the seventies, how soon we forget when we reach w Heights of academia, the political structure as we engage we to forget the moral voice of reasoning from our students, and they're pure. Are they making mistakes? Yes, of course. What is the mistake? I think the mistake, I'm not sure if it's the students making the mistakes or is this the delivery of the press, the media and how they describe the protest. Today, the media plays a major role in how we view any issue, foreign or domestic. No matter how it's presented, it is the role of the media to present it fair and just representation of the issue. I'm not so sure that's how it's been represented today. And so that's where I am. Wilmer Leon (06:49): Do you see, particularly as it's played itself out at Columbia University, do you see the government's response, and I'll use that term very broadly as an attack on academia, because we're seeing this play itself out on a number of campuses. Teachers, many faculty are siding with students. Those faculty members are being threatened. Even those that are trying to stay above the fray are being attacked. The presidents of these universities are being attacked. Do you see this protest as an excuse by many in administration to attack academia? Virtual Murrell (07:41): Yes, of course. The faculty present their case. They teach us. They give us what we need to know to prepare us for the next world, the next life in terms of after we leave college. But I'm more concerned, I'm less concerned about the academics because academic freedoms will survive and it must survive because without academic freedom, there's no free speech. I'm more concerned that the administration of the various colleges and universities are ill-prepared to respond and deal with student protests. They don't know what to do. I would've thought after the years and years of protest of the past that someone would've done an analysis or study and put together a program, how it could be resolved in a more amicable way. For an example, why didn't someone call Dr. Wilmer? Why didn't someone call you? Why didn't someone call me? Why didn't someone call Bobby Seale? So there are instruments and vehicles that they could use to seek advice, but they talk to each other. Wilmer Leon (09:10): They talk to each other and well, Virtual Murrell (09:13): One more thing. As a result of talking to each other, they reinvent a wheel that is rusty and doomed to fail, Wilmer Leon (09:24): As we have seen it fail in the past. One of the things that, one of the reasons why they haven't called the folks that you mentioned or others, they're not interested in that level or that particular area of analysis. And also what I see here is the Israeli lobby playing such an important, a powerful role in that they won't tolerate any level of dissent in regards to the Zionist genocidal policies that are playing itself out in that settler colonial state. They won't tolerate any level of dissent, which is I believe what we're seeing, which is why so many, for example, look at what transpired at UCLA, the valedictorian and Asian American woman, a Muslim who is pro-Palestinian. She's the valedictorian of her class, 3.98 GPA on a 4.0 scale. First, they don't allow her to deliver her address. Then they decide to cancel graduation, and the excuse that they use is, oh, we received so many threats to her life that for her safety, we're doing this. That's not what happened. What happened is the wealthy benefactors that are in line with the interests of Zionism, they are pulling their money and they're threatening from pulling their funding from the institution. That's why the institution changed and canceled graduation because they're more concerned about the funding than they are concerned about academic freedom. Virtual Murrell (11:23): My question is whether or not academic freedom can be bought, Wilmer Leon (11:29): I think it can be stifled. Virtual Murrell (11:32): And so if it can be stifled, who suffers from it? Wilmer Leon (11:37): We all do. The entire country does. If not the world, Virtual Murrell (11:41): I think it's a cowardly act. Wilmer Leon (11:43): You are correct Virtual Murrell (11:44): For mature adults in academia and in government to blame students and not accept their role as part and parcel of the problem that allow for students to protest this undeclared war that allow us without question unfailingly to support one side or the other for financial reasons. It is a problem, it's a moral issue. And all wars to some degree. There's a moral question. If they would've asked me how to resolve this problem, I could not have fixed it, but I could have recommended a better solution than what I'm observing today. And I don't understand why they don't call the students in on all sides and get them all the benefit of understanding. (12:55) It's not about you. It's not about any particular group. It's about the ability to protest, it's ability to raise the level of debate college if for no other reason should be about to discuss ideas and conflict. That's what I thought it was for as the process of learning, of being educated. I asked a person recently, a young person, nah, about 19 years old, what are you doing? Are you supporting the protests? They said, yes, but I'm not on the streets, but I am supporting it. Do you know how many students may feel that way across this country for fear of retribution? In some respects, others are saying, I don't want to disappoint my parents for paying for my education, so I will quietly protest. (13:58) If you recall, during the Vietnam conflict, it was the students that led us out of Vietnam, Kent State, Jackson State, the deaths on Kent State's campus and on this campus of Jackson State, which is an HBCU school, and no one ever mentions when all of these issues of protesting come down. It's Jackson State and Southern, I mean, I'm sorry, it's not Jackson State, it's Kent State and Southern University. But the two dominant ones of that period in 1970 was Kent State with the National Guard because they protested the invasion, America's invasion into Southeast Asia. You remember seeing visually the students running across the open field, the grass, the hilly grass on campus there with the National Guard chasing them and firing rifles. How can that happen in America, land of the free home of the brave, the Democratic society, an example for the world of how democracy is to work. I rest Wilmer Leon (15:16): Well, a couple of things. One, there's a lot of discussion in the halls of Congress. The speaker of the house was at Columbia and he was talking about Jewish students feeling threatened Jewish students being attacked. And to your point earlier you said you haven't seen it. You haven't seen it because no evidence to support it has been presented. This is, and I'm not saying that there aren't students walking across campus that someone may make a comment to them or something innocuous, but from what I have been able to discern, 85% of that stuff isn't really happening. It's being blown out of proportion. There's no evidence to support this position that Jewish students are being threatened. In fact, when you look at the organizations that are participating in the demonstration, Jewish Voices for Peace, not in our name. When you look at some of the folks that showed up at Columbia University like Naomi Klein, there are a lot of American Jews that are in support of this protest, not against the protest. So those in the media as you referenced, who are in some binary type of thinking, them versus us, it's not nearly that complex. I mean, Virtual Murrell (16:54): I think it's rather odd that the House of Representatives cannot come together to create policy for the American people, yet they can form a bipartisan relationship to deal with indefensible students. Students that don't have the only armor that they have to defend themselves is they were the armor of morality. It exposes this government and the Congress both sides of the aisle for their intractable positions. And in doing so, we stand behind some of us, the courageous efforts of the students to bring together an understanding of what's going on. We were lied to about Vietnam, and students believe they're being lied to about what's going on in Gaza. They believe that some even believe that the Gaza Strip is designed and set up for future development. Ocean front properties. Wilmer Leon (18:22): Well, thank you. Jails, Virtual Murrell (18:24): Commercial Kushner. So the question is who is to control it? Well, I won't get into that. That's not really my feel. I'm suggesting, and I should not have necessarily said that's what I've heard. But most of us speak on rumors. So I thought I would share one. Wilmer Leon (18:40): No, that's not a rumor. Jared Kushner was very, very clear. Donald son-in-law was very, very clear. I heard him say it that this is great beachfront property and we can't wait to develop this. That's not a rumor. Virtual Murrell (18:54): Can't develop it if you can't control it, Wilmer Leon (18:57): Control it. Well, and Virtual Murrell (18:58): Not only that, going all the way back to ancient times, medieval times war is about the expansion of territory. And at the bottom line of the expansion of territory is economic gain. That may never stop. But let's not lie to the American people. Wilmer Leon (19:19): Well, and you raise the question about the irony that they can't find a coalition, a bipartisan coalition to pass a budget. They can't find a bipartisan coalition for voting rights. They can't find a bipartisan commission for hardly anything, but they can come together on this. Well, APAC has come out and said they're spending a hundred million dollars on campaigns for the 2024 election, putting money in the coffers of those that will support their Zionist colony. And there's Zionist interest. So they're spending money on both sides of the aisle. Virtual Murrell (20:02): But let's examine that for a moment. It's been declared by the courts that to deny anyone to write checks, to put 'em where to place 'em where they want to is in violation of First Amendment free speech. However, APAC naacp, they all have the right to do so and they all should do so. The question is, where are the stop gaps? Where is the issue? See, I always often, I should say, reflect on the courage of morality. I go back to if we have the principles of the founders of this society, that alone should embolden in you. If that doesn't embolden you, who will defend America's form of democracy? The most ironic government in the world, right? I say ironic because it is all right. It goes back and forth. It shifts. I don't always know where we are. But rather than confuse your viewers, let me just add something to all of this, and that might help to put it in perspective today in 2014, who is America? (21:30) I'm sorry, in 2024, who is America? Who is America? What does America stands for in 2024? Are there the same government with the same principles? We stood on pre World War ii, post-War, war ii, Korea, who are we? Are we the same government, the same people that went through the civil rights period where we established the civil rights law, the Voting Rights Act? Who are we or are we in constant flux in trying to capture and define who we are as a nation? There's a battle brewing and it's been going on since the foundation or who we are. Alexis Ville questioned who we were. I'm questioning who we are. We all need to question who we are and whoever we are, we need to stand up for it. Whoever you believe and I believe that we are, then you need to stand on that principle of courage. Wilmer Leon (22:44): And I want to add to that, who are we in a changing world? Because where we were in 1940, where we were in 1960, we after post World War ii, we were the unitary imperial hegemon. We ran the world. Now we're moving from a unipolar to a multipolar world. China is ascending. Russia is ascending with the creation of the bricks, which is Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. And now the Saudis want to join bricks of Venezuelans, a whole lot of folks. So the global dynamic is shifting and the United States can no longer tell the world jump and the rest of the world asks how high. So in that shift in the global landscape, who are we? What are we about and what are we going to do? Because China is ascending economically, and our response to the ascension of China seems to be militarism, not economics. So that I think also has to be added to the question that you've posed. Virtual Murrell (24:13): The world in terms of power and economics evolves. And so America, Wilmer Leon (24:25): Every empire fails Virtual Murrell (24:27): America. Wilmer Leon (24:28): Every empire fails Virtual Murrell (24:30): Like Russia, like China, imperialist, Japan, Africa, the Sangha, Maori kingdoms and so on. They all fail. They all fail, but they don't fail externally. They fail internally. Confusion, frustration, egomaniacal leadership, tyrannical leadership, they fail. The course of America is on. Today is a threat. We're not threatened by the external forces. We're threatened by the internal forces of indecisiveness and being on the wrong side of just, or what is just when do we fall on the right side of just the right side of just must be demanded by the population, by the people? Cause we are the people. What does the constant say? Constitu say we the people, not we have the people and we the other half it says we the people. The more we recognize that as we the people, we are the government. That's why the students are extremely important to my framework, to my frame of thinking. I love the challenge that they're presenting to this government. And all the government can say is send in the police, arrest them, arrest the outside agitators. They want to blame everyone but themselves. But the government itself, Wilmer Leon (26:23): President Biden in part of his 2024 messaging, which is incredibly lacking, but that's a whole nother conversation. One of the things that he talks about in reference to Donald Trump is that democracy is under attack. That if you vote for Donald Trump, you're voting for the cheapening, the lessening, the attack on democracy. The first amendment of the Constitution reads as follows, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Virtual Murrell (27:17): That part is not the Constitution, that part is the moral document of the United States as the Declaration of Independence. The part the last. Right, Wilmer Leon (27:28): Right. Virtual Murrell (27:29): And what does that mean? Wilmer Leon (27:31): Well explain what you mean by that. So people don't think that I'm confusing constitute the First Amendment and the Declaration of Independence. Declar, explain what you Virtual Murrell (27:39): Mean by that. The Declaration of Independence says to the American people that you have the right to redress your grievance. And in the course of human events, let me just paraphrase. When things aren't going right, you have the right to rebel. You have the right to address your government about your issues. You have that right to peacefully assemble. You have that right Wilmer Leon (28:04): And to pick up arms if it gets to that point. Virtual Murrell (28:06): But remember one thing, the Constitution is always quoted, but really, if ever do we hear about the Declaration of Independence, Wilmer Leon (28:16): You're a dot. You're connecting a dot on connecting the dots. Because your point is that part of the First Amendment came out of the Declaration of Independence, correct? You are absolutely right. So as Joe Biden wants to continually refer to January 6th and the uprising on January 6th as a threat to democracy, and we must vote Democrat and vote for Joe Biden because he's going to protect our democracy. He is undermining the democracy by championing, agreeing with and facilitating the attack on these students. Virtual Murrell (29:02): Let's say this, as I said a moment ago, the students aren't the problem. Wilmer Leon (29:08): Correct? Virtual Murrell (29:09): It's the government. It's the government. It's not Joe Biden, it's not Donald Trump. It's all of those who stand in the way of the students to identify the problem. And if it's not resolved because somebody or some bodies want to be the leader of America, that's a different issue. Completely different issue. I saw a note earlier this young lady said it's about Trump invited and it was troubling and it was troubling when the comment was made. To me, if an African-American voter has to decide between Trump and Biden, then that person isn't black. Who the hell can identify who is and who isn't black? That's not black. That's troubling. Joe Biden thinks he can. It's troubling. But lemme say this, let me say this. I don't want to jump on Joe Biden without jumping on Trump. Okay, now let me say this. The value value of the President of the United States is not a free economy per se. It's not small or big business. It is defending the rights of the American people, the Constitution. Well, we are witnessing a political entity who decided, who decided that they were going to stand in the way and block then President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court. (31:14) The Supreme Court runs America, not the United States Congress. The Supreme Court runs America. We are witnessing it today, we're witnessing on abortion. We're witnessing on when they took out the section from the Justice Department to oversee voting rights act. We're witnessing. That's policy. You can call it law, but law is policy and policy is law. And so I will not and cannot forget that the most valuable thing the United States President can ever do is to nominate members of the United States Supreme Court and the federal judiciary as well. It is critical. Poverty is poverty. We're going to get out of it. One thing about African-Americans, we've hung our head high. We do not hang our head low. We've been to the lowest, now we're going to the high. We'll be fine. We'll be fine. We understand that in order to survive in this country and thrive, we must be able to get an education. (32:33) We must be able to fight to address our grievances with the court. And then we must have the right to vote. The right to vote also means you must have the right not to vote, but not to vote. Not because, oh, my person ain't going to win. Not for that reason, because for the ultimate, oh, then so much. Well, so-and-so won by one vote. Yes, that was important, but it's not as critical as understanding that you do have that power and that power needs to be harnessed and organized. Don't you remember Wilmer when in the sixties we didn't, in the South, they didn't have the right to vote. We got the right to vote and they begin to represent black Americans throughout the south. And that just exploded throughout America. Wilmer Leon (33:25): That happened after the Civil War in the south. That's why we had reconstruction. And that's why reconstruction was violently brought to an end. Virtual Murrell (33:35): Well, no reconstruction one was brought to an end. We are in reconstruction two today. Wilmer Leon (33:42): Oh, well yeah, I was talking about post civil War. Virtual Murrell (33:44): Yes, I get it, I get it. But you raised the correct point. And that is white primaries, Plessy versus Ferguson poll. Taxes, taxes, poll, tax. They're all coming back in a more sophisticated stealth form. Gerrymandering voting is one for an example. So we must spend time. I said this to some students recently, I figured out at least for myself, that the issues we deal with in America, African-Americans, our differences, our issues a little bit different from other ethnic groups. First of all, we're not people of color sharing the same experience. We're a black with a unique experience. That unique experience was the experience of inhumanity, of enslavement. No other group can claim that. And I don't want to claim it as a virtue. I'm claiming it as a historical fact. Now we understand what it's like to go through all these changes in the world, but we must stop being on the defensive end of it when something happens, we follow. (35:04) I'll give you a key example. Oh, the small business administration, the courts have ruled against minorities in the eight A program, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Well, okay, fine, they never really supported in the first place, but that isn't the problem. The problem is we react to it and say what we must do. So we're on the defensive, we're always punting. We're never carrying the ball across the goal. It is time. We advance the proposition of not being on the defensive but carrying the ball and moving forward. And rather than relate to that issue on small business, let's raise the banner, raise the bar and score if that makes any sense to you. Wilmer Leon (35:52): Oh, that makes perfect sense to me. I think an apt description of what you've just laid out or articulated is we spend too much time going along to get along and we don't spend enough time championing, articulating and ensuring that our interests are at the forefront and being addressed because there are interests. And we keep being told, not now, not now be patient. Yours will come by and by vote for the Democrats or vote for whoever. They'll take care of it. And we want, in fact, there is an interesting piece to this point. I'm glad you made that point about the point about Joe Biden saying in the 2020 campaign, if you vote for Donald Trump, then you ain't black. There is a piece, fewer black voters plan to vote in 2024. Post Ipsos poll finds 1300 black adults finds that a poll of more than 1300 black adults finds 62% of black Americans say they're absolutely certain to vote. (37:10) That's down from 74% in June of 2020. And then they go on and they quote some individuals that they interviewed. And this one young lady says that she's not going to vote for Biden because of the way the economy is going, how inflation is going. The issue on Palestine, Biden has not delivered on the criminal justice police and voting rights reforms that he campaigned on. And other people mentioned the Middle East conflict, I'll read that again. Biden has not delivered on the criminal justice police and voting rights reforms that he campaigned on. What they're saying is, you came to us for our vote. You promised us policy initiatives and you have failed to deliver on those policy initiatives. Now you come back to us, ask us for your vote again. And more people in the community are saying, we're not falling for the banana. And the tailpipe trick again, Virtual Murrell (38:14): Let me respond to that. The way a Philip Randolph responded to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president Roosevelt, they were having a discussion about the needs of African Americans and they, Phillip Random. I said, whatcha going do about it? Roosevelt responded and said, Wilmer Leon (38:40): Go, make me do it. Virtual Murrell (38:41): Make me do it. So we have to, the moral of the story is we have to make them do it. Wilmer Leon (38:49): Exactly Virtual Murrell (38:50): Now. And in saying that, I say this, so the front page stories or the talk show hosts are talking about black men not voting and why aren't they voting? You want us to vote, but what do we get for the vote? Oh, you get a Supreme Court justice. Oh, you don't get to tell the banks that control the mortgages that African-Americans are suffering because we don't have home ownership. In Los Angeles in 19 18, 30 6% of the American people owned their own homes. 36% had their own mortgage as far cry from today in 2024. So the question is, you want us with you and I would like to be with you, but make me be with you. Make me be with you. And how do you do that? Well, there's enough on your desk to show you what you haven't done. Now lemme switch over to Trump. Lemme switch over to Trump. This society is prepared to say to us, first of all, lemme say this, you shouldn't need any black votes to beat Trump. Wilmer Leon (40:16): We're only 13% of the population. Virtual Murrell (40:19): No, not for that reason. No, not for that reason, Leon. It's because there are some white people that say that they support Biden that obviously do not. Wilmer Leon (40:29): But that goes to my point. We're only 13%. So if you were able to rally your own, you wouldn't need Virtual Murrell (40:39): Us. But I'm going to a different issue. I Wilmer Leon (40:42): Understand Virtual Murrell (40:42): That I'm, I'm saying that there are, they're Wilmer Leon (40:46): Lying. Virtual Murrell (40:47): There are a great number of people that are being very stealth in their relationship with questioners questionnaires about how they feel about Trump. Because if I don't understand polls being almost even right now, it makes no sense. So you want to lean on African-Americans, but you don't want to lean on the white middle class. But the white middle class gained more than black supporters gained from any administration, Republican or Democrat. What Trump is saying is this, democracy is fine, but I'm going to redefine it. I'm going to redefine it for the people that support me. (41:37) So it's not for the soul of the Democratic party, it's not for the soul of democracy, it's for the soul of your politics. So in the soul and for the soul of your politics, I would encourage and urge the President to demonstrate what African-Americans get for being with. See white folks know what they get for being with Trump. We don't know what we get for being with Biden. For an example, Ginsburg, they want to praise Ginsburg for being this person on the Supreme Court. We know where she was, we know her background. But what we don't say to her is what we don't say. Why didn't she retire from the bench and give Obama a chance to put someone on the bench like Kenji Jackson or others like her? So are we novelists at this game or what am I in my sophomore year of college and I don't understand America, what is going on with us? So I'm raising questions I find by raising questions I may get answers. Wilmer Leon (42:53): You may get answers. Well, to your point, Trump and a lot of people don't pay attention to this language. I'm drawing a blank on the guy that was his key political advisor in 2020. Virtual Murrell (43:13): You talking about Trump or Wilmer Leon (43:14): Trump's Trump's key advice? I'm drawing a blank. Virtual Murrell (43:16): Steve Bannon, Steve Bannon, Wilmer Leon (43:17): Steve Bannon, Steve Bannon talked in terms of deconstructing the administrative state in a lot that has gone over the heads of a lot of people. He said, we are going to deconstruct the administrative state. He's talking about attacking the constitution and folks that has fallen on deaf ears. People seem to forget the fact that that was ever stated. But I want to get back to this piece that's in the Washington Post that we've just been talking about. Again, the title is Fewer Black Voters Plan a Vote in 2024 Post Ipsos Poll finds. Because that story in and of itself speaks about an incredible reality. But there's also another element to how that story is being used, because that story is part of a number of stories that are laying the groundwork to blame African-Americans. If Joe Biden loses, and again, we're here to connect the dots. This story in a vacuum is very telling. And it's true. Joe Biden is losing the African-American base of support. But it's not because we're indifferent. It's not because we're apolitical. It's not because we're disinterested. It's because you haven't given us anything to vote for. And my years in studying political science in virtual, you tell me if I'm right or wrong, people are more inclined to vote for something than they are to vote against something. Virtual Murrell (45:17): The question is whether or not you won an enthusiast. Wilmer Leon (45:20): Oh wait minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. One more point. Because they did the same thing when Hillary Clinton lost. When Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. They blamed us. Oh, black people in Michigan didn't turn out. Oh, black people in Pennsylvania didn't turn out. They tried and there were a lot of black people in Hillary's campaign that tried to blame the black. It wasn't that we didn't turn out. It was that Hillary Clinton didn't give us any reason Virtual Murrell (45:46): To. Well, I think also you must, when you say that, you also got to add that white women supported Trump. Wilmer Leon (45:54): That's true too. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. That's true too. In fact, because a lot of those suburban white women that had that traditionally were voting Republican, that during the Obama administration voted for Barack Obama, they reverted back to voting Republican. Virtual Murrell (46:20): Well see we went to the apex of politics when Obama was elected president. And so you had a number of Americans, let's say, who would say, how could this have happened? And not only did it happen once, it happened twice, Obama's the only person that receive that won the presidency back to back with 50 plus percent of the vote. If you recall, bill Clinton had less than 48% of the vote the first, the second time. And 43% of the vote the second, the first time. And then we lost reelection with Carter in 1980. And so from 1980, well actually from the election of 80 until Obama's election, no Democrat had ever been elected twice except Obama. Since when? Can you remember the last time a Democrat won was reelected? Wilmer Leon (47:25): No, Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson didn't. Virtual Murrell (47:29): No. With 50% of the vote is what I'm saying. No, because Kennedy was a two term president, but not with 50% of the vote. And all of a sudden Trump said, I see my opening and I'll just create a controversy. He wasn't born in the United States. He's an illegal president. And that carried him because there are enough white people who wanted to believe that. I can't believe it. How did Wilmer Leon (47:58): He become, Virtual Murrell (47:59): He's a Muslim president less than 150 years outside from the Emancipation Proclamation and this guy's president of the United States, look what they could do in another a hundred years. So I look at politics as a method of delivering benefits. If you're in Oakland, California where we have history and then we support a mayor and this person, a candidate, and this person becomes the mayor, and we say, well, I'm bringing my winner's ticket to the winner's window. What do I get? I'm cashing in. But there are people that are able to bring the, they're losing tickets to the winner's table and win. There's something wrong with that calculation. But white privilege has always had its advantage. And that's why it's white privilege. They have the advantage that we don't have and will happen that way until we challenge the precepts. Until we find another parent, Mitchell, another Ron Dells another bill Clay, Charlie Wrangle sto. Until we, Barbara Jordan, until we find this old guard, we're not going to be able to compete. Period. Wilmer Leon (49:28): It's important I think at this stage of the conversation to delineate or differentiate between direct versus indirect beneficiaries. Politics is the debate over the distribution of limited resources, the allocation and distribution of limited Virtual Murrell (49:50): Resources. That is an aspect of politics. Yes. Wilmer Leon (49:53): And so Barack Obama wins his first term. What is the first piece of legislation that he signs? This is debatable. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. That is a payoff to the women that supported him. He gives us the Dream Act. The Obama administration gives us the Dream Act that's a payoff to the Latino community that voted for him. First American president to come out and support same-sex marriage. What does that do? That's a payoff to the alphabet community, the L-G-B-T-Q community for supporting him. That's politics. That's what's supposed to happen. Your constituents who successfully put you in office, get paid back for supporting and putting you in office. What do we get? Oh, well there are black women that those are direct beneficiaries, but Virtual Murrell (51:06): It's never the president's fault because you don't get anything without a demand. Wilmer Leon (51:14): Oh wait minute, minute. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Because you're right. But those are direct beneficiaries of participating in the process. We're told we're supposed to be happy being indirect beneficiaries because there are black people in the L-G-B-T-Q community, there are black women that are going to benefit from the Lily led better Fair Pay Act. There are black people that are going to vote. I mean, so we are supposed to be happy as indirect beneficiaries when real politics, the real winners are direct beneficiaries. Virtual Murrell (51:55): You cannot fault when we have representations in the name of the Congressional Black caucus. You can't fault white folks that don't represent our interests. Wilmer Leon (52:08): No. Virtual Murrell (52:08): Who don't deliver. Look, in 1968, Nixon was president. The Congressional black caucus went to Nixon and they were able to negotiate benefits for the black community. And that happened on and on and on and on until recently until the last 20 years or so. And why is that? And there's a reason for it because in the old days, I say old days among the initial group of congressional black caucus of members, they grew out of black activism. They grew out of the black community. They were with the OEO program. The executive directors of OEO program like Parent Mitchell was executive director. They all, bill Clay came off the city council and alderman in St. Louis. And he was a part of the labor community or interest there. I mean, the point is they came out of activism that taught them through practice what politics was about and how you get what you want to get, what you need to have. (53:19) And so we have been let down in a sense, not by individual members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but we've been let down by those members as a group who are Democrats first and black second and we are fed or they are fed the thought, well if you're not with us on this, we could lose the majority. If you're not winner us on that, we will not regain the majority. So we are always the numbers that make a difference, but what we get for it, I'm waiting to see it materialize. And so I don't want to blame or put at fault the Democrats nor the Republicans. I want to put at fault those who negotiate for black people. In other words, if you have a labor union and virtual morale is your labor representative and I come back and we want a $10 an hour raise and we only get a $6 an hour raise, somebody's going to say we need another representative. We need a different business agent. Because this is not significantly different from what we had before. So we need now listen, the guy who initiated the legislation on the antisemitism was a black guy out in New York. Wilmer Leon (54:45): Yes, he's Virtual Murrell (54:46): Cause that was his constituency. Wilmer Leon (54:48): Yes sir. Was he Virtual Murrell (54:49): Wrong to do that? No, because politically he was working for his constituency. I get that. Well what about me? Wilmer Leon (54:59): What? Wait a minute, wait a minute. See, because he is wrong. Because you made the point. They're Democrats first and black second. What? I'm drawing a blank on a guy's name from New York, what he Virtual Murrell (55:15): Torre Torres Torres, Wilmer Leon (55:17): What he fails to appreciate is Palestinians are black. Virtual Murrell (55:22): No, he didn't fail. No, no, no. Absolutely not. Yes, yes, yes, yes. No. What he was relating to is how many checks he'd get from the Jewish community. But wait a minute, he didn't. Wilmer Leon (55:35): That's my point. He didn't care. Virtual Murrell (55:37): That's my point. He didn't care about anything else because the Jewish community controls Manhattan. Wilmer Leon (55:44): We're saying the same thing virtually. Okay, alright. We're just coming at it from different sides of the equation. But no, we're saying the same. There's no way in the world that any black man in any position of power or black woman in any position of power should be siding with Zionist. You are supporting genocide. Virtual Murrell (56:08): You're Wilmer Leon (56:09): Supporting genocide. Virtual Murrell (56:10): See, you're going back to an issue, and I'm trying to lay out a distinction. Wilmer Leon (56:18): Richie Torres, Virtual Murrell (56:19): He is a Democrat. He's not black. And he's not black in his politics. He's a Democrat in his politics. So if that's true, and if you can agree with that, then the conclusion is yes, he supports genocide. Wilmer Leon (56:37): That's what I said. Virtual Murrell (56:39): No, I'm saying, but that's the rational conclusion. Wilmer Leon (56:43): Okay. And Hakeem Jeffries is in the boat. Gregory Meeks is in the boat. Kamala Harris is in the, wait a minute, they all support attacking Haiti. They all support the re invasion of Haiti under the global fragility. But I Virtual Murrell (56:59): Have given you a premise. And the premise is that their priority is being a Democrat. Wilmer Leon (57:09): I agree with Virtual Murrell (57:10): You. Okay. Because that is their priority. Then you can't distinguish them from the overall policy that Democrats support. Wilmer Leon (57:19): I agree with you. Wait a minute. And that goes back to a point that you made earlier. That's immoral politics. Virtual Murrell (57:29): Yes it is. How do you come out? Wilmer Leon (57:34): See, I'm listening to you Virtual Murrell (57:35): Support Israel. Good, bad or indifferent, but you can't support Haiti. Thank you. Explain that one to me. Wilmer Leon (57:44): It's inexplicable. You can't explain it. You might as well ask me. And I agree with you a thousand percent. I just want to say it this way to make the point. You might as well ask me to explain how one plus one equals seven because I can't, and I've taken a lot of years of math to get a PhD. I can't tell you why one plus one equals seven. And that's exactly what these fools are doing. It is immoral. Virtual Murrell (58:18): Yes it is. Yes it is. And you and most of the people that I know were raised with a great sense of moral values, period. That's the way we were raised. Wilmer Leon (58:30): Right. You know this, my father used to say to me all the time, son, the one thing about right, it's always right. And the one thing about wrong, it's always wrong, Virtual Murrell (58:45): But the politicians Wilmer Leon (58:46): So do right. Virtual Murrell (58:47): But the politicians will have you to believe that power determines right. The power determines wrong and they often do that. But it has nothing to do with what's morally correct. Wilmer Leon (58:58): That is Amen my brother nothing. Amen. So let me ask you this in just a couple minutes we have left. Is this an opportunity with the black vote trending? And as we sit here now, we're still months away from the election so things can change. But as we sit here now and the black vote is trending away from Biden, and Biden can't win without us because right now, as we sit here today, his approval rating is according to real clear politics, 39.7%. His disapproval rating is 56.4. When you ask the public, is the country heading in the right direction or the wrong direction? 24.3% of those poll believe it is 65.3. I'm sorry, 65.3 believe that it's not. And in battleground states, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada, Trump is, Biden is losing to Trump in some of those states outside the margin of error. So with all of that being laid out, is this the opportunity for us to say to Democrats, we want our peace, we want it now, and you can't win without us Virtual Murrell (01:00:36): Response. My response would be this. Number one, a poll taken in May of 2024 in elections in November is way too early to make final determinations. Wilmer Leon (01:00:46): Well that's why I said Virtual Murrell (01:00:48): Me. Ask me. Wilmer Leon (01:00:49): That's why I prefaced my point. My question with that point, Virtual Murrell (01:00:53): Ask me in September. Wilmer Leon (01:00:56): No, no, no. As we sit here now, Virtual Murrell (01:00:57): Lemme finish what I'm saying. Lemme finish what I'm saying. Alright. I will be more able to read this selection after Labor day of this year. Now in terms of, is this the time for black people to plant their flag? No, it's not the time because we don't have a plan. Wilmer Leon (01:01:17): Understood. Virtual Murrell (01:01:19): It's like Ossie Davis used to say when they put together a congressional black caucus, it's not the man, Wilmer Leon (01:01:25): It's the plan. It's the plan. Virtual Murrell (01:01:27): And so to do anything without a plan, it's almost political suicide. So we do need a plan. And until that happens, when we go to the polls, people will be urged to support the incumbent because the incumbent comes closest to us upon our wishlist than does is opponent. That part I absolutely agree with, concur with the problem is we cannot continue to go on and on and on and accept a sedative and fall asleep for four years. We need a plan and someone is going to come along. The modern day, black Moses is going to put together and put together a plan for black America to advance and further than we have. We haven't made any advancement in the last, you can say that the election of Obama was an advancement. You can say that Kamala Harris' Vice President is an advance. Yes. You can say that. (01:02:33) Those are individual advancements. And when they leave, will there be another one? One day? Yeah, maybe one day. What we haven't done is to institutionalize our concerns and put together a short term agenda to make those dreams come real, become true. And you can't do it by having a list of 20 items. Just give me two or three items that we want to work on and let's make that happen. And when we make that happen, then I think we're moving closer to having what I think we need to have to make a difference. And that's leverage. Without leverage, we have no power. We have no influence without the lever. And understanding that leverage. Wilmer Leon (01:03:19): And to your point as we get out, to your point about Kamala, and to your point about Barack Obama, those are achievements to your point for the individuals, the question to the audience is how has your quality of life improved? How has your circumstance improved with an African-American president with an African-American Vice President, as the rate of homelessness increases in this country as unemployment increases contrary to the data that they want to use increases in this country. Virtual Murrell (01:03:59): I know you have to cut off, but let me ask you this. After Jackie Robinson, there was Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Larry Doy, so from Roberto Clementine and so forth and so on, after Obama, there's who? Wilmer Leon (01:04:12): And when you lay out Jackie, who, wait a minute, wait a minute. And with the point of Jackie Robinson, when you talk about Hank Aaron, and when you talk about Dolby and the rest of them, they decimated the Negro Leagues in order to get those Virtual Murrell (01:04:29): Individuals. But you're missing what I Wilmer Leon (01:04:31): Just, no, I'm not missing your point. Virtual. They adding another point. Virtual Murrell (01:04:35): I know, but the only reason I'm short circling the conversation cause I know you got to get off. Wilmer Leon (01:04:40): But no, there's nobody, to your point. Virtual Murrell (01:04:43): Yeah, that's right. There's nobody, there's, but after Jackie, we had some bodies, Wilmer Leon (01:04:50): Right? We had a whole bunch of bodies Virtual Murrell (01:04:52): Until they figured out there's too many black folks in the major leagues. Wilmer Leon (01:04:56): That's a conversation for another day. Yes, it's that's something that's near and dear to my heart. Virtual Murrell (01:05:01): Might as well, Wilmer Leon (01:05:02): Very dear to my, and a big shout out to the Metropolitan Junior Baseball League in Richmond, Virginia and the Negro Little League World Series. Virtual Murrell (01:05:10): I'm going to give a shout out to McClymonds High School that sent to America, bill Russell, Frank Veder, PE Peon, and Kurt Flood and so on Wilmer Leon (01:05:19): In Pursuit of America's Promise, memoirs of a Black Panther. Virtual Morre is the author, he's been my guest. Virtual. Where do people go to get the book, Virtual Murrell (01:05:29): Virtual morale@yahoo.com? Just go online and send it to Virtual morell@yahoo.com and you'll get your autograph signed. Copy of the book, Wilmer Leon (01:05:41): My brother. Thank you Virtual. Really appreciate it. Thank you so Virtual Murrell (01:05:44): Much. And thank you for all that you do to inform your listeners, your viewers of what's going on in America. Wilmer Leon (01:05:51): Well, as a brother from Sacramento, California that spent an awful lot of his formative years in Oakland, I stand on the shoulders of brothers like you. So thank you Virtual. I truly, truly appreciate it. Folks, thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wier Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. This is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wimer Leon. Have a great one. Peace and blessings. I'm out Announcer (01:06:36): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
This week on The Learning Curve co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and DFER’s Alisha Searcy interview POLITICO’s Peter Canellos, biographer of Justice John Marshall Harlan. Mr. Canellos delves into Harlan’s upbringing in a prominent slaveholding family, his Civil War service in the Union Army, and his rapid rise in Kentucky politics as a Republican. He highlights John Harlan's mixed-race half-brother Robert Harlan and key legal precedents like the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which influenced Harlan’s […]
This week on The Learning Curve co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and DFER's Alisha Searcy interview POLITICO's Peter Canellos, biographer of Justice John Marshall Harlan. Mr. Canellos delves into Harlan's upbringing in a prominent slaveholding family, his Civil War service in the Union Army, and his rapid rise in Kentucky politics as a Republican. He highlights John Harlan's mixed-race half-brother Robert Harlan and key legal precedents like the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which influenced Harlan's views on race and equality. Canellos explores Harlan's famously farsighted dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), emphasizing its significance in laying the groundwork for future civil rights legal victories, notably Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In closing, Mr. Canellos reads a passage from his book, The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero.
This week on The Learning Curve co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and DFER’s Alisha Searcy interview POLITICO’s Peter Canellos, biographer of Justice John Marshall Harlan. Mr. Canellos delves into Harlan’s upbringing in a prominent slaveholding family, his Civil War service in the Union Army, and his rapid rise in Kentucky politics as a Republican. He highlights John Harlan’s mixed-race half... Source
Fast food is part of American life. As much a part of our background as the sky and the clouds. But it wasn't always that way, and over the decades, the fast food landscape has changed in quite profound ways. Race is a key part of that picture. A landmark exploration of this has been published by today's guest, Dr. Naa Oyo Kwate. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Africana Studies and the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers University. Her book, recently published, is entitled White Burgers, Black Cash: Fast Food From Black Exclusion to Exploitation. The book has been received very positively by the field. And was recently named the best book in the field of urban affairs by the Urban Affairs Association. Interview Summary I was so happy to see your book because people have talked about the issue of race off and on in the field, but to see this kind of scholarly treatment of it like you provided has been really a welcome addition. Let me start with a general question. Let's begin with the fast food situation today and then rewind to where it began. Are there patterns to where fast food restaurants are located and who fast food is marketed to? Absolutely. There's quite a bit of research, and you just alluded to the work that's been done in the field. There's a lot of research that shows fast food is most dense in African American communities. Not every study has the same finding, but overall that's what the accumulated evidence shows. On the one hand you have the fact that Black communities are disproportionately saturated with these outlets. Then there's also the case that apart from the physical locations of the restaurants, fast food is strongly racialized as Black in terms of how it's portrayed to the public. It [Fast Food] relies on images of Blackness and Black cultural productions such as Black music for its marketing. These sometimes these veer into racial caricature as well. One of the things I talked about in the book briefly is the TV commercial character Annie who Popeye's introduced in 2009. They basically created this Black woman that Adweek at the time was calling "feisty," but it's really just this stereotypical idea of the sassy Black woman and she's in the kitchen frying up the chicken for Popeye's. And actually, some of the language that was used in those commercials really evokes the copy on late 19th century and Aunt Jemima pancake mix packaging. It's a really strong departure from fast food's early days, the way that fast food is now relying on Blackness as part of its core marketing constructs. I'm assuming that it follows from what you've been saying that the African American community has disproportionately been targeted with the marketing of these foods. Is that true of children within that community? Research shows that in terms of fast food marketing at the point of purchase. There's more - display advertising for example at restaurants that are in Black communities. And then there's also been research to show, not in terms of the outlets themselves, but in terms of TV programming that there tends to be more commercials for fast food and other unhealthy foods during shows that are targeting Black youth. How much of the patterning of the fast food restaurants is due to income or due to the amount of fast food consumption in these areas with many restaurants? Almost none of it really. It's not income and it's not the amount of fast food that people are consuming. In fact, one of the main studies that led me to start researching this book, because I was coming to it from public health where there was a lot of research around the disproportionality of fast food restaurants. We actually did a study in New York City, some colleagues and we published it in 2009, where we looked at how fast food was distributed across New York City's five boroughs. And restaurant density, we found, was due almost entirely to racial demographics. There's very little contribution from income. So, the percentage of Black residents was what was driving it. That was the biggest predictor of where fast food was located. It wasn't income, income made very little contribution and if you compared Black neighborhoods that were higher in income to those that were lower in income, they basically had about as much fast food exposure. Then if you compare them to white neighborhoods matched in income, Black neighborhoods still had more. So, it wasn't income, it was race. There are other areas that were high in fast food density like Midtown and downtown Manhattan where you have commercial and business districts, transportation hubs, tourist destinations. So, you expect fast food to be in these really dense and kind of busy commercial areas, but the only residential space that had comparable density were Black and brown neighborhoods. The assumption that many people have is that, okay, well if it's not income, then it's probably demand. So probably fast food is just dense in those neighborhoods because Black people eat so much fast food. But again, the data do not bear that out, not just in our study, but in others. And in fact, apart from the study we did specifically on fast food, we did another study where we looked at retail redlining for a number of different kinds of retail sectors. And again, demand is not what situates, you know, where stores are or are not. And then when I got to this project, just digging through the archives, you find that until the industry really went in on targeted advertising to increase the numbers of visits that Black people were making to fast food restaurants and the average check size that they were spending, Black consumers were mostly using fast food as a quick snack, it wasn't a primary place for meals. So it's really the case that the restaurants proceeded the demand and not the inverse. It is an absolutely fascinating picture. My guess is that what you've just said will probably come as a surprise to some people who are listening to this, not that fast food isn't dense in particular neighborhoods, but that it's particularly dense in neighborhoods by race just because people generally think that fast food is popular everywhere. So, let's talk about why this occurred and dive a little more deeply into what your book does and that's to provide a historical view on how and why this evolved. So, what did the early history look like and then what happened? So, the book traces what's basically a national story, but I focus particularly on certain cities like Chicago, New York and DC. But it's tracing how fast food changed racially and spatially from the early 1900's to the present. I break out that early history into what I call first and second-generation chains. So, they opened in urban and suburban areas respectively. The birth of the first generation fast food restaurants took place in what is termed the Nader of race relations in the US from the end of the Civil War to the 1930s. So, this is a time during which you see Plessy versus Ferguson, for example, ushering in legal segregation. Lynchings are at their worst. You have the destruction of Greenwood in Tulsa, Oklahoma. That's taking place and other notable incidents and forces that were undermining Black life at the time. It's during that context that the first generation restaurants are born. And so, these are burger chains like White Castle, that was the first actually big burger chain. People often assume it's McDonald's, but it's actually White Castle in 1921. And then there are knockoffs of White Castle, like White Tower and Little Tavern, which was an East coast brand. And then there were also other restaurants that were not burger chains, but more like hot shops was more of a sit-down restaurant. And then you had Horn and Hardart, the outlets where they had auto mats. So, you know, this was kind of high tech at the time, but you would go in and the food was behind little glass compartments and you would put in your requisite number of nickels and then take out your little plate of food. These were all the restaurants that I'm calling first generation restaurants. So, you had quite a bit of diversity in terms of what they were serving, but they were all in urban centers. They were not franchised. They were corporate owned outlets and most importantly everything about them was white, whether figuratively in terms of who dined and worked there or literally in the architecture and the design and the name like White Castle. That veneer of whiteness was doing two things. On the one hand, trying to offer the promise of pristine sanitary conditions because this is a time when food production was rife with concerns. And then also it's trying to promise a kind of unsullied social whiteness in the dining experience. So, first generation then leads to second generation fast food, which begins in the suburbs instead of the urban centers. Second generation fast food starts to grow in the early 1950s. These are the brand names that are most synonymous with fast food today: KFC, Burger King, McDonald's. So, for example, Ray Crock launches McDonald's as a franchise in the all white suburb of Des Plaines outside Chicago near O'Hare airport. And he set to fly over prospective sites looking for church steeples and schools, which to him were an indication of a middle class and stable community, but of course, racializing that as white. Because you could have Black neighborhoods with church steeples, but that was not where the restaurants were going. So, what ends up happening with second generation fast food is that it takes this theme of purity and shifts so that it's not just the purity of simple kind of fuel for the working man, but instead the purity of white domestic space. And where first-generation restaurants targeted working adults, the second went after families and children. Fast food then becomes more than just food - it's about fun. Those are the two key ways to think about the early history. One could obviously find many, many, many examples of different racial groups being excluded from the economic mainstream of the country. For example, areas of employment, and my guess is that being excluded from the marketing applied to consumer goods and lots of other things. But do you think there's something special about food in this context? Oh, that's a good question. It's interesting because fast food. It's food, but it's more than that the way that fast food initially excluded Black people. One of the things I talk about in the early part of the book is James Baldwin going to a restaurant and trying to order a burger and being rejected and facing discrimination. And the idea that it's not just that you can't get a burger, it's not the same thing as if you try to buy, I don't know, a ham sandwich or something. But like what burger means something more than that, right? It's bigger than a burger is Ella Baker said. Fast food is kind of like the closest thing we have to a national meal. It sort of occupies a special place in the heart of America and is symbolic of this quintessential all-American meal. And the notions of a good and simple life that we purportedly have in this country. So, it means more I think the way that fast food was positioned as something that was totally wrapped up in this exclusionary whiteness. Your book traces the long pathway that fast food traveled going from exclusion in the beginning and then later exploitation. Can you describe a couple of the key turning points? Well I would say that it wasn't like a light sort of got switched on that caused fast food to shift abruptly from utterly excluding Black people to then pursuing them full throttle the next day. It was quite a long and bumpy pathway and really American retailers in general have continually had to discover Black consumers and the fact that they exist over and over. And then sort of trying to think like, oh, how do we reach them? We don't understand them, like they're this enigma kind of thing. Fast food was doing the same kind of thing. There was both what the industry was doing and then there were also pull factors that were causing fast food to be drawn into Black communities as well. There are a lot of turning points, but I would say if you start fairly early in the history, a key one was after second generation fast food got going. Where suburban fast food right, is trying to position itself as this white utopia. But almost immediately that notion was fraught and unstable because concerns quickly arose around teenagers. They were money makers but they were also rowdy. Their behavior, hot rodding and goofing off in the parking lot and so on, was off-putting to the adult diners. So, it became this difficult kind of needle to thread of like how are we going to track this consumer segment that's foundational to the enterprise but do so under conditions that would keep them in line and not mess up the other potential revenue that we have going. As the kind of nuisance of fast foods became more pitched, municipalities began introducing ordinances to control fast food or even ban it. And that made the suburbs harder to get into or to maintain a foothold in. Corporations then start looking more at the cities that they were avoiding in the first place and the Black communities there that they had excluded. So that happens fairly early and then some other key turning points occur throughout the 1960s. Here we have urban renewal, you have urban rebellions taking place and during the late 1960s when these rebellions and uprisings were taking place, this is the time period when you get the first Black franchisees. Into the 1970s you have oil crises, then you have the burger and chicken wars as the industry called them in the 1980s. And this was referring to corporations battling each other for market share. So, all throughout the history there were different turning points that either accelerated the proliferation of fast food or sort of change the way the industry was looking at Black consumers and so on. Now in some discussions I've heard of this issue off and on over the years from people who have looked at the issue of targeted marketing who have talked about how there was a period of time and you made this clear, when Blacks were excluded from the marketing and they just weren't part of the overall picture of these restaurants. Then there was a movement for Blacks to be included more in the mainstream of American culture so that it was almost seen as an advance when they became included in the marketing. Black individuals were shown in the marketing and part of the iconic part of these restaurants. So that was seen as somewhat of a victory. What do you think of that? It's true and not true. I mean when fast food decided to finally start actually representing Black people in its marketing, I think that is important. I do think that the fact that they were finally making ads and conceiving of campaigns that saw Black people as part of the actual consumer base at which they were, yes, that that is important. But it's also the case that corporations are never doing anything for altruism. It's because they wanted to shore up their bottom line. So, for example, Burrell Advertising is the biggest African American ad shop based in Chicago. They get the McDonald's account and so they're the first ones to have a fast food restaurant account. They begin their campaign in 1971 and at that time, their advertising actually positioned Black families as regular people doing everything everybody else does and going to the restaurant and enjoying time together as a family and so on. And I think those kinds of images were important that they were creating them, but again, at the same time it was only the context in which Burrell got that account. The reasons why McDonald's was reaching out to Black consumers was because, again, in the early 1970s white suburbs were becoming more saturated, and McDonald's needing to expand. Then you have the oil crisis in which people are not driving as much, and Black people because of racism are centered in urban centers and not in the suburbs. So that makes a logical place for them to go and so on. So, it's not without its vexed context that those new advertising images and opportunities were taking place. Okay, thanks. I know that's a complicated topic, so I appreciate you addressing that. You know, something you mentioned just a few moments ago was that when Blacks started to become owners of franchises, can you expand on that a little bit and say what was the significance? Yes. First of all, cities were changing at that time. White residents were moving to the suburbs, multiple public and private policies were keeping the suburbs white and white residents were moving to white suburbs. So, Central City was changing, right? The neighborhoods that had been white before were now changing to become predominantly Black. And so, the fast food outlets that were located in those neighborhoods found their client base changing around them. And many of those operators, and indeed their corporate superiors, were uninterested in and uninformed about a Black consumer base at best and outwardly hostile at worst. You end up with as neighborhood racial transitions are taking place, white operators are now in communities they never meant to serve. Som as urban uprisings rack one city after another, Black franchisees are brought on kind of as a public face in these changing urban areas. The primary goal was to really have Black franchisees manage the racial risks that corporate was finding untenable. They realized that it wouldn't do to have white managers or franchise owners in these neighborhoods. So, they bring in Black franchisees to start making that transition. And then after fast food becomes more interested in trying to deliberately capture more Black spending, Black franchisees become even more important in that regard. For their part, the Black franchisees were seeking out fast food outlets as a financial instrument, right? This was a way to contest and break down unfair and pervasive exclusion from the country's resources. So, it was never about how much fast food we can possibly eat, right? Again, with the demand issue. So, Black franchisees are basically trying to get their part of the pie and then the federal government is heavily involved at this point because they start creating these different minority enterprise initiatives to grow Black small business. And so, it wasn't only the Black franchisees, but also Black franchisors who were starting their own chains. So, for example, former NFL Player Brady Keys started All Pro Chicken, as just one example. So, this idea of expanding fast food franchising to Black entrepreneurs who had been shut out on its face, seems like a laudable initiative. But again, it's like this is not just altruism and also the way that franchises were positioned in this kind of like you can get into business and do so in a way that's low risk because you know you don't have to start from scratch. You're buying into a thriving concern with name recognition and corporate support and all that. And all of that sounds good except you realize that in fact the franchisees are the ones who have to bear all the risk, not corporate. That's what the government was doing in terms of trying to put in all this money into franchising is really. It's like that's the response to the real life and death failures, for example, around policing, which was always at the heart of these uprisings. You have these real life and death concerns and then the government's responding with giving people access to fried chicken and burger outlets, which nobody was asking for really. Not only was the method problematic, but the execution as well. Just because Black people had more access to the franchises doesn't mean that the rest of the racism that was present, suddenly disappeared, right? The theoretical safety of a franchise didn't bear out in practice. Because of course they still couldn't get access to credit from lending institutions to launch their restaurants because they still didn't get support they needed from corporate, which in fact there are still lawsuits to this day by Black franchisees because the communities in which they're operating were still contending with deep inequality. All of that meant that that whole project was not likely to work very well. And you know, it's no surprise that it didn't. You mentioned chicken several times. In fact, there's a chapter in your book entitled Criminal Chickens. Can you tell us more? Yes, Criminal chicken is towards the end of the book. So, the book is organized in three parts. Part one is white utopias, part two is racial turnover, and part three is Black catastrophe. In each of those you see how Blackness is problematic, but in different ways. So Criminal Chicken is really dealing with the fact that by the 1990s, fast food had become pervasive in Black space and was thoroughly racialized as Black. And so, since fast food has saturated these neighborhoods, of course Black residents began to consume it more. With that, a program reigns down from the dominant society over Black people's alleged failure to control themselves and an assumed deviant predilection for unhealthy dietary behaviors, whether fast food, but also the same kind of discourse circulated around soul food. And the tenor of the discourse really raises W.E.B. DuBois's age-old question, which is how does it feel to be a problem? That was really the tenor of the conversation around fast food at that time. The chapters about the ways in which Black people's consumption was frequently characterized as deviant and interrogating the paradoxes around the symbolic meanings of fast food. Because like what we talked about earlier, Black people are basically being criticized for eating something that's supposedly at the heart of Americana. It's a kind of a no-win situation. On the one hand, certainly overseas, fast food continues to enjoy this kind of iconic status of America and American Burger and so on. Even within the country's borders it still retains some of that allure as something emblematic of American culture. But it's also now more fraught because, you know, we're in a moment where local and organic foods and so on are held in high esteem and fast food is the antithesis of that and it's industrial and mass produced and homogenized and has all these nutritional liabilities. So, basically, it's looking at the changing ideas around fast food and race and how that intersected with Black consumption. That's so interesting. I'd like to wrap up with a question, but I'd like to lead into that by reading two quotes from your book that I think are especially interesting. Here's the first. It is painfully logical that Black communities would first be excluded from a neighborhood resource when it was desirable and then become a repository once it was shunned. And then the second quote is this. The story of fast foods relationship to Black folks is a story about America itself. So, here's the question, are there ways that you can think of that fast food and food systems could be reconceptualized to help address issues of justice and equity? I would say that addressing justice inequity in food systems of which fast food is a part, is really about dealing with the other systems that govern our daily lives. Meaning, it's not an issue of trying to fix fast food, right? So, that is a discreet industry it behaves more equitably with communities because what it has done over the history that I trace in the book is it's not so unique in its practices and it also can't have taken the trajectory it did without intersecting with other institutional concerns. So, for example, housing is instructive because you know, of course you can't exploitatively target Black consumers unless residential segregation exists to concentrate them in space. And to do that, obviously you need a lot of different institutional policies and practices at play to produce that. And in a similar way, housing went from exclusion in the form of rank discrimination, resource hoarding, redlining, the denial of mortgages, all of that, to exploitation in the form of subprime lending. And Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor talks about predatory inclusion and I type that in the book because I think it's also a useful way to think about fast food as well. So, if you're thinking about equity in food systems, then you have to think about why is it that resources including food, but also beyond food, in this country are distributed the way that they are. And I think you can't get at the issues of justice that play out for fast food or injustice without addressing the key issues that reverberate through it. And so that's false scarcities that are created by capitalism, the racism that undergirds urban policies around land use, around segregation, deeply ingrained ideas in the American psyche about race and but also about other things. So, for me really, reconceptualizing fast food is really reconceptualizing how we live in America. Bio Naa Oyo A. Kwate is Associate Professor, jointly appointed in the Department of Africana Studies and the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers. A psychologist by training, she has wide ranging interests in racial inequality and African American health. Her research has centered primarily on the ways in which urban built environments reflect racial inequalities in the United States, and how racism directly and indirectly affects African American health. Kwate's research has been funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and by fellowships from the Smithsonian Institution, among others. Prior to her first major book, White Burgers, Black Cash: Fast Food from Black Exclusion to Exploitation, she published the short work Burgers in Blackface: Anti-Black Restaurants Then and Now, which examines restaurants that deploy unapologetically racist logos, themes, and architecture; and edited The Street: A Photographic Field Guide to American Inequality, a visual taxonomy of inequality using Camden, NJ as a case study. Kwate has been a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at the Newberry Library, and has received fellowships from the Smithsonian Institution, the European Institutes for Advanced Studies, and elsewhere. She is currently writing a book investigating the impact of corner liquor stores in Black communities from 1950 to date.
Lochner v New York, a 1905 Supreme Court case about working hours and contracts, is considered anti-canon. Right up there with Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu. The question is, how did it get there? Why do people think it's so bad? And what does this decision, and the era that followed, say about politics and the Supreme Court?Our guides to this case and what came after are Rebecca Brown, Rader Family Trustee Chair in Law at USC Gould School of Law and Matthew Lindsay, Associate Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law. CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!
Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd TRANSCRIPT: Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:14): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which these events take place. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that are impacting the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before is what are the problems facing African-American aviators and other aviators of color in the commercial aviation space? To assist me with this discussion, let's turn to my guest. He's a man with well over 12,000 hours in the cockpit. In the commercial cockpit. He is Captain Clovis Jones, retired. Captain Jones, welcome to the show. Capt Clovis Jones (01:23): Thank you so much for having me. Wilmer Leon (01:25): If you would please introduce yourself. You have such a broad, such a vast resume. I don't want to give short shrift to any of your accomplishments, so please take a moment and introduce yourself, sir. Capt Clovis Jones (01:39): Okay. Clovis Jones Jr. Born in Dawson, Georgia. I wanted to be a pilot since I was four years old. I actually turned down a scholarship to Morehouse College in premed to go to the Army High School to Flight School program. However, my recruiter put something different on my contract. One reason is that he didn't get credit for recruiting officers and secondly, and that part of the world as a black person, that was not something that people who looked like him wanted people like me who looked like me to do so. I wound up in the infantry for three years, got out and asked for my scholarship back and went to Morehouse for a semester and was called by the Army's Aviation Department to see if I was still interested in flight school and I said yes. So I reenlisted into the army and did go to flight school, completing flight school. (02:35) I was a turnaround flight instructor for both the Huey Helicopter and for the Huey Gunships. Deployed to Vietnam as an instructor pilot, the safety officer and assistant officer officer. My second two in Vietnam. 10 days prior to that end, I was commissioned in the Army Field Artillery branch as a second Lieutenant Aviator returning to the states, I went to the basic course field artillery, then to the Army Aviations school at Fort Rucker, Alabama and became an academic instructor leaving the army. After about 10 years of active duty, I got my first line job with Hugs helicopters when they were working on the Army's new attack helicopter, the Apache and I was there from its flight test department, the Hughes helicopters from the building of the helicopter to its initial test flight through its delivered to the Army. Then my second flying job was with Xerox Flying Executives, third flying job with the Western Airlines, which is now part of Delta Airlines. Then to California, which is now part of American, and I found a home at FedEx and retired from FedEx as an MD 11 captain. I have been involved in flight organizations, both black and white and current president of the United States Army Black Aviation Association, and former president of the Organization of Black Airline Pilots, which is now the organization of black aerospace professionals. And my most recent flying job was with as a captain with JSX, a regional airline. Wilmer Leon (04:16): You are rated to fly both, as you just mentioned, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. How unique is that for an aviator, particularly an African-American aviator? Capt Clovis Jones (04:30): Well, I don't know how unique it is, but there are a few of us who are dual rated and even fewer who were black. During Vietnam era, there were only about 600 black army aviators. So there's a book 600 more or less. And so to be dual rated, that's rare Wilmer Leon (04:54): To be dual rated. That is rare. Before we go any further, I'd be remiss if I did not mention the passing of Captain David E. Harris, the first African-American pilot for a major US passenger carrier. He died March 8th at the age of 89, and he once said, there's no way I should be the first. It should have happened long before 1964. I know you were friends with Captain Harris. If you could speak about him and his accomplishments. Capt Clovis Jones (05:37): Well, Dave Harris, just a principal gentleman, he was just outstanding and always he was a mentor, he was a good friend based on his experiences, he basically told us what to look out for and that was a time where the airlines use sickle cell trait testing to keep us from being hired. Yes, either you have sickle cell and one blood test says it all, but they would continue to test you to see if you had the trait. And that was one way that they would not bring us on board. Another was testing, so Dave Harris with American Airlines, he challenged that. So with the psychological testing, which had no barrier on you becoming a pilot. So he challenged that as well as the repeated blood testing to see if somehow if we didn't have the sickle cell trait with the first blood test, they would keep testing you hoping that you would show the trait and they could deny you hiring. So that was one of the milestones, and he was one of the presidents of the organization of black airline pilots. But just a principal gentleman Wilmer Leon (07:00): Mentioning the psychological testing, one would think someone with your background, Vietnam aviator, that all of the trials and tribulations that you went through overseas that the fact that you survived, that should be enough psychological testing to warrant you to be a commercial. I mean, if you can fly there, you can probably deal with passengers going between Dallas and wherever it is you're going to go. But that sounds as though that was another exclusionary process, not an inclusionary process. Capt Clovis Jones (07:40): Yeah, that's correct. That is correct. And when Marlon Green won his Supreme Court decision, Supreme that broke the barriers of us being kept out of the industry. He was hired but not trained, so he didn't get a chance to fly. So it was a delay even in that process. So there are a lot of delaying tactics that were used and there are those that are still out there. Wilmer Leon (08:07): Talk a little bit about Marlon Green. He was an Air Force aviator hired by Continental in I think 1957, but they rescinded his offer and then it took about six years for it to go through the Supreme Court, and the ruling was in his favor and sent a very wide message to the US airline industry about hiring. And I think he started flying for Continental in 65. Is that right? Capt Clovis Jones (08:39): Roughly around that time. I'm not sure exactly on the exact year or date, but you look at his background, he was well qualified to be hired, but then when they found out he was black, they rescinded it. So that's when he engaged in the lawsuit that wound up making his way to the Supreme Court. But this industry was supposed to be all white. Curtis Collins, a congressman from Illinois. She knew some of us filed it, and we talked about the challenges, trials and tribulations. So a congressional study was initiated and the University of Pittsburgh did that study, and it showed that the airline commercial airline industry wants to be all white, not a janitor, not a baggage handler or anything. Wilmer Leon (09:33): Even down to that level, Capt Clovis Jones (09:35): Down to that level. The other piece is that the Airline Policy Association Alpha had a clause in its bylaws that if you were black, you could not be a member. So even if an airline did hire you, you were not allowed on the property. So it was no point in them hiring you. Wilmer Leon (09:54): That sounds like the American Bar Association sounds like the American Dental Association. There were so many professional organizations. I know for example, my grandfather was a dentist. He graduated from Howard in 1911 and was the first African-American licensed dentist in New Orleans, but he could not join the American Dental Association, so he had to go to their conventions and wait tables so that he could be in the room while the latest advances in dentistry were being discussed. So it sounds like the airline industry was right along the same lines as so many of the other professional organizations in this country in terms of their restrictive, restrictive covenants and whatnot. Capt Clovis Jones (10:48): Well, that was just a reflection of America, what it was all about. We were to serve others and we were not to advance and we would to have restrictions on what we could do, what professions to go into. Nevertheless, with that in place, there was no profession that we were not proficient in. And as a point of history from Pineville, Louisiana, there was a gentleman by the name of Charles Frederick Page who had a flying machine. It was a lighter than air, kind of like a balloon, but it had directional control as well as a propeller, so it could move and change directions rather than just go up like a hot air balloon and let the wind take it where it would. 1903, you had a patent. The patent was finally granted in 1906. Well, here was a black man who was born during enslavement, taught himself how to read and write, invented this flying machine, filed for a patent and eventually was granted a patent. So we've been in and around the industry for a long, long time. Wilmer Leon (12:03): Over the past three years or so, we've been hearing a lot about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and according to McKinsey and Company in the workplace, these are three closely linked values held by many organizations that are working to be supportive of different groups of individuals, including race, which is an artificial construct, but they list it, so I'll say it, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and whatnot. With that being said, according to NBC, news Tech, billionaire and Tesla, CEO and SpaceX, founder Elon Musk has drawn a lot of recent criticism After he criticized efforts by United Airlines and Boeing to hire non-white pilots and factory workers, he claimed in a series of posts on X, that efforts to diversify workforces at these companies have made air travel less safe. Of course, he offered no evidence to support that claim because there is no evidence to support it, and he winds up getting into this exchange with people talking about it'll take an airplane crashing and killing hundreds of people for them to change this crazy policy. Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritize DEI hiring over your safety? And he then went on to say, this is actually happening. That post got 14 million views with just a few hours. I know you've got some ideas on the issue of DEI as well as some of Elon Musk's comments, and of course, we all know Elon Musk being a South African. He was obviously well-trained and well-versed. But your thoughts Capt Clovis Jones (14:08): Well, on the subject of DEI or as Elon Musk assembles, those D-I-E-V-I-E want to doc, first of all, when I hear the word diversity, basically it's a non-starter, and I don't like the term when it applies to black people, because black people have been in every industry. We have been from the White House to the outhouse, build a White House, build a capital, had engineers doing the building of the White House who were black, even though enslavement was the status of black folk in the country for the most part. Wilmer Leon (14:58): And to that point, design the city of Washington DC That's Capt Clovis Jones (15:01): Right, that's right. Wilmer Leon (15:02): Since you mentioned the capital in the White House design, the city of Washington DC after having designed the city of Paris. Capt Clovis Jones (15:08): Yes. Well, here you have us serving from the highest levels down to the lowest level and excelling. By the way, the first book on hospitality was written by a black man, and it is in the archives of the University of Massachusetts. Here's a successful man who basically set the standards for how you serve people in terms of accommodations as well as restaurant service. So we've been at the top of the games in every industry. We wouldn't have the space program that we have. We wouldn't have the internet that we have today. We wouldn't have self lubricating engines if it wasn't for black people wouldn't have turbocharges if it wasn't for black people. (15:54) So when I'm hearing this diversity piece, to me that's just the way the headcount, because now we can say we are diverse. We want to include everybody, and yes, they are, including everybody, because between all different groups and categories that HR departments have now, they can reach out and say, we have the most diverse work group because we have Pacific Islanders, we have Latinos, we have Africans, we have whatever other category you want to name. But then when it comes to the crux of fairness of black folks, there's an exclusion because you can hire all these others and fulfill your diversity claim, yet avoid hiring black people. So that's one of the reasons to me, if you are fair in your hiring and you have the standards set and you know what it is that you want, you're going to have a range of people from all colors, all genders if it's fair. So if it's not fair, then you have these made up constructs to basically for exclusion purposes. Now, that's my personal view. Wilmer Leon (17:07): Well, and to that point also, when you start looking at the categories and the qualifications or the demarcations within the categories, you start drilling down into, okay, you have 15 African-Americans. What positions do they hold? Is your CEO African-American is your CFO, African-American is your COO, African-American within your management structure and management chain within your elite classification of managers? Then all of a sudden we start to fight a different day. Capt Clovis Jones (17:44): Yes. One of the young fathers that I knew, he was asking me, I was flying for this company, he says, Clovis, why don't I have you as the chief pilot? I said, Hey, I don't have the complexion for the connection. So that ends that. Wilmer Leon (18:02): Did you fly President Mandela? Capt Clovis Jones (18:05): No, that was Captain Ray Doha. Wilmer Leon (18:08): Ray do. Oh, okay. Ray did that. Okay. Okay. Okay. (18:13) So give us a little bit about your background getting into the industry and overcoming the barriers that you had to overcome and how prevalent are those problems today? Because when I look at the data today, 90% of the pilots are still white male, 3.4% are African-American, 2.2% are Asian, and half of a percent are Hispanic or Latino. So those numbers tell me that we're still having a problem. In fact, I got a little bit ahead of myself because the question I was going to ask you to get into this conversation is we've spent a lot of time in the fifties and since the fifties singing we shall overcome. We can now board a plane and see African-American captains and first officers. Have we overcome? Capt Clovis Jones (19:21): By no means things have changed. There are things that are different. There are some things that are better, but the underlying system has just changed. So we still have this system where the overarching piece is that we're encapsulated to only hold certain positions, and that of course depends upon the company and the culture of the company, but we don't have, for example, desegregation. You had that and then you have the opening of opportunities for the airline at for minorities and women were considered a minority. So there were more white women, higher than black pilots, and that's still the case today. (20:05) So overcoming obstacles, my first day on the flight line to be trained as an army aviator, I had an instructor from the Northeast from either Vermont or New Hampshire, I don't recall exactly which. But en route to the helicopter for our first flight, he said to me, you look like a pretty good athlete. Do you know who Jackie Robinson is? I said, yes. Jackie's cousin lives down the street from me, says, well, I think you should get out of the army and go play baseball because black people don't make good pilots. And here's a person who is telling me that I shouldn't be a pilot and he's going to train me, but blacks don't make good pilots, so I should leave the program. So I knew what was in front of me. So I went to the flight commander and asked for a change of instructors, and the upshot of that conversation was, well, both of you are new. (21:03) He's a new instructor. You are his first student. You are a new warrant officer candidate, and this is your first flight, so it's going to look bad for both of you. And he wanted to know why. And I explained to him without saying, the guy's a racist. And he says he mulled over it for a second or two and says, this is what I'll do. I'll ensure that you have every opportunity that any of the other one officer candidates have in this program. And I said, okay, that's good. However, when I come back and ask for a change of instructors, I want a change of instructors, no questions asked. And that is what happened. This gentleman was, you can read the syllabus, you can understand what is to be done and you can mimic it, but there are certain standards or there are certain ways that the army wants you to fly. (21:59) And if you aren't trained to do that during your check rides, you get downgraded. He was teaching me wrong. So I had a progress ride. A young instructor who was about the same age as I was, was about 21 years old, and he'd been flying. He had his license when he was 16 to 17 years old. His came from a wealthy family and his family got him trained in the helicopter instructor and all that. He asked me to do a taxi, oh, this is not how we do it, asked me to do a takeoff. Oh, I got the aircraft. This is not how we do it. So he demonstrated every maneuver that he asked me to do because I was doing it as I had been trained to do it. When he showed me the way that I needed to do it in order to meet the standards that were expected of me, I did them as he demonstrated. (22:50) And at the end of the flight he says, I've got to talk to the flight commander. That's something not right here. You started this flight off unsatisfactory now, but you end it. You're above average. But I can't give you an above average because where you started, I just got to talk to the flight commander, and I just smiled. And so I said to myself, I already have. So my next day of flying, the Deputy flight Commander, Dick Strauss, need to give him props. And also the flight commander, Sam Countryman, Dick Strauss, we got into the helicopter, flew out to the stage field, we landed. He says, take it around the past three times and park it on a certain spot. And that's what I did. I soloed that day with this gentleman just flying with me from the main hella Ford at Fort Walters, Texas out to the stage field that we were operating from that day. (23:42) And at the end of my primary flight training, Dick Strauss showed me some things that you could do with a helicopter that were not in the syllabus. He said, it may come in handy one day, and it did for me because in a COBRA helicopter, which is know is heavy, I was an instructor giving an in-country orientation to a new pilot. And on very short final, we lost our 90 degree gearbox and tail rotor. And without a tail rotor, you do not have directional control in the helicopter. So we went from a nose up attitude to a nose down attitude spinning right, and it wanted to roll inverted left. And all of that last day of flying that Dick Straus showed me what the helicopter could do. Instinctively I did it. I stopped the turn by closing the throttle right rear cyclic to level the aircraft, pull the collective up, and we spawned about 1800 degrees like in about two seconds. But I was able to land the helicopter with just minimal damage. And I was told that's the first time that you'd had such a catastrophic failure that either the helicopter was not destroyed or the palace would not either killed or injured. (24:51) So everybody encounter is not against you, but you do have the remnants of the shadows of the echoes of you still have the echoes of slavery. You still have the echoes of containment of us being in certain categories, and there are people who really want to keep us there and some people who want to put us back there. So that is prevalent in our industry as well. Wilmer Leon (25:17): You're 21 years old, you're in the service, which is a hierarchical organization, and your instructor tells you that you need to leave the service and go play baseball. Capt Clovis Jones (25:30): Yes. Wilmer Leon (25:31): Where did you find the intestinal fortitude to manage that circumstance? By A, not punching him in the face, B, not saying anything derogatory to him and then punching him in the face. You see, I got to think about punching people in the favor, but no. So where did you get that ability to manage that circumstance to your favor, not your detriment? Capt Clovis Jones (26:09): Well, I learned firsthand about white racism and at four years old, and we had black insurance agents and white insurance agents come to the house to collect whenever that cycle was. And this one agent, he had a white car. My father had a black car, and so it happens that my father's car was parked in front of the house that day. He pulls up and he calls me over, and I was hesitant about going, but then I did go. He says, come over. I'm not going to hurt you. I'm not going to do anything to you. He says, put your hand on my car. And I hesitantly raised my hand. So he put my hand on his car. He said, how does that feel? I said, it feels okay. He said, now, go touch your father's car. So I put my hand on my father's car, and because it was about 11 o'clock in the day, sunshiny day in the summer, it was hot. (27:02) I jerked my hand off the car. He said, that's what I wanted to show you. White is better than black. And from that point on, I didn't like that gentleman anymore. So I realized there are people who will be encouraging to you and people who will try to convince you that you should take some lesser position or that you are inferior to them. So with that background, it's like then I knew about the Tuskegee Avenue at that point. Plus one of my mentors, Carl Bohannan, who was the first black presidential pilot when I was in an infantryman, he was flying the flying cranes in Vietnam in the first cab division. So I had examples of excellent black aviators that I knew about. So with that, I'm thinking, this guy's totally out of his head, and I know he's not going to train me properly. And so that's why I went to the flight commander and asked for a change of instructors, and it worked out in the end, but I had to put up with this nonsense and even accused me of leaving, of causing a circumstance where the engine could fail because he said, I didn't put the Carter pin back in the oil cap, and the vibrations could have caused the cap to unscrew, and because we of flying, the wind would pull the oil out of the reservoir hints causing the engine to seize, and we would have to do a forced landing. (28:34) I know that I didn't do that, and that was the day that I asked for change of instructors Wilmer Leon (28:39): Because Capt Clovis Jones (28:39): This guy, if he's going to lie and say that I did something that I know I didn't do because I was meticulous about everything, but you just have to understand who you're dealing with. Wilmer Leon (28:50): That was my second question on this issue, which was the subjective nature of your instructor's evaluations. So knowing that in circumstances like you're articulating, there's the checklist that he would go through, but then there were also the subjective factors that would enable him to fail you if he so chose to because he didn't like the fact that you tied your shoes because you're right-handed versus tying your shoes because you're left-handed or whatever it might be. Speak to that, please. Capt Clovis Jones (29:32): Well, that was the case. In fact, one of my dearest friends who's now made transition, Robert B. Clark Jr. He and I started in the same class. We didn't graduate in the same class because Bob was terminated from flight training because his instructor said that he could not fly. However, Bob knew how to fly helicopters before he came to flight school. He had the syllabus, he knew everything, and he appealed it all the way to the Department of Army. And the base commander was asked to get involved. So he asked Bob, can you fly this helicopter? He says, yes. Well, let's go out to the airfield and let's go fly to the stage field to where your flight group is flying. He did. I mean, he was off for three months, got in the helicopter, flew out there, landed, and they went and talked to the flight commander. And also that instructor, that instructor was fired on the spot. Of course, the flight commander was trying to protect him because it was civilian pilots training us, and they were with Southern Airways based out of Birmingham, Alabama. So again, that cultural piece, Wilmer Leon (30:40): Was that Birmingham or Bombingham? Well, both. What year are we talking about? Capt Clovis Jones (30:47): We're talking about 1967. Wilmer Leon (30:49): Okay, we're talking Bombingham. Yes. Capt Clovis Jones (30:52): Yes. 1967. Wilmer Leon (30:54): Okay. Capt Clovis Jones (30:54): So you have people who don't want to see you there in the first place. And there was this rule, there's only going to be one black graduate per class, just one. I don't care how many start, there's only going to be one. But after complaints by Bob, by me and others about what the situation was, in fact, that was a program. You had these data sheets that you would answer your questions on when the final exam for any of the courses we were taking, and they could program things based on the way we were using social security numbers. Then even if we knew that we scored a hundred based on going down after the test was over and looking at what you had marked versus what the answers were, black pilots could only get in the eighties if you got everything right, you were in the low to mid eighties, you never got higher than 86 on any exam because if you were just average going through your flight training and you were excellent with your academics, you could wind up being in the running for honor graduate for that particular class. (32:10) So they program that the black pilots could not score 100 on all of the written exams. So that was another trick, and it was proven that that was the case. So there are all kinds of obstacles out there, but you just have to be well versed enough to understand and identify and just not take things. I saw during the civil rights era of where corporations would come and they'd say to people who had, do you have a college? Oh, you're different. They try to tell 'em, oh, you're a different kind of black person, and they give them jobs. So jobs that black people never had an opportunity to have, make the kind of money. And then you have some of these people who got that because people were demonstrating an industries and some people got killed. They said, well, I have to pick my fight. Well, no, the fight picked you now. Do you have the fortitude to stand up and fight the fight, or are you just going to IQS and say nothing and go along with maltreatment? Wilmer Leon (33:10): What you just discussed in terms of taking the exams and the particular scoring parameters that were set. One of the things that both of my parents would say to me repeatedly, but my mother was incredibly emphatic, you have to be three times as good, four times as smart, and worked seven times as hard because you're black in America. And with that, you'll only get half as far. Because when it came to education and grades, my folks didn't play, and that was their thing. You have no idea how hard you are going to have to work to be successful because you are black in America. And what you just articulated is the living example. And the other thing, when I went to law school, what I found out my first year was if I was in a class, actually it was my second year, I was in a contract negotiating class and kicked everybody's butt in the negotiating rounds that we would go through, only got a B. And what I found out was the a's were reserved for the third year, students who needed that A, there were only going to be a certain number of a's awarded, and they were reserved for the third year students who needed that grade to increase their GPA. Capt Clovis Jones (34:48): Yeah. The thing is, this system was not designed by us. It's not a fair system, but we have to learn how to navigate it. And unfortunately, some of what I call the under 40 crowd, young people who are 40 and under, maybe I could increase the year by another five years or so, they came up thinking that things are fair, and it's all about your qualifications and your abilities, but there is a whole nother system that governs whether you get an opportunity, whether you succeed or whether you fail. The thing is you need to be aware enough to navigate those challenges. And some of my young people, Wilmer Leon (35:30): Well, you just said, be aware enough. And what I have found is a number of my contemporaries, they don't want to have these discussions with their kids. They don't want to. When I taught at Howard, I would say to my students, you got to be three times as smart and workforce. Many of them, they never heard that before. Dr. Leon, what are you talking about? Well, that's life in America. Oh, no, no, no, not anymore. Oh, Dr. Leon, you don't understand. Capt Clovis Jones (36:07): Well, that's the brainwashing. That's the brainwashing that's taking place. Yeah, it's example. I used to wear a P 51 pen and I'd paint the cockpit black, and that was several of those black pilots who did that, and that was just honoring the Tuskegee ever because they were the first to people in mass to show that we could do this. But you had pioneers like Eugene, Jacque Bullock, who was a World War I fighter pilot, had to go to Germany, not Germany, to France, France, France. But he caught a ride to France on a German boat, learned to speak German in route, and he wound up during World War II of being in the French Underground because he had a nightclub in Paris. And the German officers wanted to come and enjoy the entertainment and the music and the atmosphere. So he got a lot of intelligence that he passed on to the French Underground, and he and Charles de Gall were good friends, and he was given Wilmer Leon (37:12): Awards, the Legion of Merit. Capt Clovis Jones (37:14): Say again, Wilmer Leon (37:15): The French Legion of Merit. Capt Clovis Jones (37:22): Well, I'd have to do the research, but Charles Gall came to the US and he wound up coming back to us, and he was an elevator man for the NBC where the NBC studios were in New York, and he was interviewed, but his background is phenomenal, and I happen to know his grandson and other members of his family, a cousin, (37:49) But he couldn't fly in America. But in France he did Bessie Coleman. And you have Chief Anderson, who was the civilian chief pilot for the Tuskegee Airman, who by the way, trained Captain Dhar. He taught himself how to fly. He wanted to fly. His father borrowed money from the white person that he worked for, bought a plane for his son. No one would teach chief how to fly, but he'd go to the airport every day and he'd listen to the white policies. They came back and talk about what they did was successful and the stupid stuff they did. And Chief would get it in his airplane every day, crank it up and taxi. And one day he taxied it fast enough that he lifted it off the ground. He said, now I got to figure how to land this thing. Eventually he did get some instruction from the Wright brothers, and I've had the opportunity to fly one flight with Chief. So I guess I'm one degree or two degrees away from the Wright brothers and my flight journey. But you have all those obstacles in a way. (38:57) You have other pioneers, Janet Bragg, Cornelius Coffee, you have Willow Brown, and there are any number of others that have pioneered the way for us. Chauncey Spencer, Edwin Wright, Dwight, the sculptor. He was chosen to be the first black astronaut, but again, he was a pilot, but then that didn't the astronaut program because they didn't want any blacks in the program. And he had difficulties there. But he wound up being followed his passion in business and with art, and he is one of the most prolific sculptors in the country and doing art eye kind of art for us to recognize our heroes and sheroes. Wilmer Leon (40:01): You had as a Morehouse man, you had a relationship with Dr. King. Capt Clovis Jones (40:08): Yes, yes, I did. Wilmer Leon (40:09): If you could elaborate on that a little bit, please. Capt Clovis Jones (40:12): Yes. During the Albany movement, I would go down and listen to Dr. King's speech almost every night that I could. So I would catch a ride with teachers who lived in Albany, but worked in Dawson, walked to the church, and because we were young, they would put us young people right on the front row below the pulpit. And my minister of my church and Dr. King were Morehouse classmates. They graduated at the same time. So he said, well, when you see Martin again, you tell him I said, hello. I did. So that started a relationship with Dr. King and I, and after my tour in Vietnam, my foxo buddy invited me to Chicago to work on a political campaign, which I did, and that was this organization called the New Breed Committee. And they had a bunch of black organizations that were meeting with Dr. King on this one particular night when they were planning to march through downtown Chicago. (41:17) So I go to Hyde Park, and who do I sit next to? Dr. King. So we reignited our friendship, and he was saying during the meeting, we need some young people to lead our march through downtown Chicago. And I said, well, hey, I'll do it. And some of my Vietnam buddies, and we led that march through downtown Chicago. And then when I did leave Chicago and went to Morehouse for the second time, he would come, well, for the first time actually, because that was 1966, he says he would come to the college, Hey, come by the office and talk to me. And I just thought he was being nice. And that's one regret that I have that I did not take him up on just going to his church office and sitting down and having a conversation with him. But I did become good friends with his press secretary, junior Griffith. So he and I would have wonderful conversations, but I'd see Dr. King often come into Morehouse and every time come by the office and talk to me, come by the office and talk to me. And that's something that I didn't do because it's like he's just being nice. But now I wished I had Wilmer Leon (42:29): You do your tour in Vietnam, you go to Chicago, Dr. King asks you to lead a protest in Chicago. How did you reconcile what you fought for in Vietnam versus what you were subjected to when you got back home? Capt Clovis Jones (42:56): Well, during those days, it was tough with Vietnam veterans coming back didn't call us baby killers and spat on us. It was no reconciliation. Thing is is that Vietnam was dangerous. Being black in America was dangerous. So it was no different than walking through downtown Chicago for a purpose for black people in America than going to Vietnam, supposedly fighting for democracy when all they wanted to do was have their own independence. Because Ho Chi Minh came to America and he was trying to speak to the President of the United States, and that never did happen for whatever the reasons are. I mean, there are a number of stories as to why it never happened. And Ho Chi Minh lived in Harlem. He worked in a restaurant, but he lived in Harlem, so he understood the plight to black people in the country. That was one patrol we on. You have North Vietnamese out in the middle of nowhere, and they see that the unit is mostly black, wave at each other and keep going. Why are we going to fight each other out here? For what? So it was dangerous. It was dangerous in Vietnam. It was dangerous here in America because then as well as now you get in the wrong situation, in the wrong part of town, you can wind up dead. Wilmer Leon (44:21): You can wind up dead in the right part of town. Capt Clovis Jones (44:23): Well, look, you can wind up dead in your own house with no consequences. Nobody held accountable, nobody indicted. And Dr. King's last book, where Did We Go From Here, Wilmer Leon (44:38): Chaos or Community? Capt Clovis Jones (44:40): He said that shooting was the new lynching, and that is what we're living through right now. Wilmer Leon (44:49): I asked you that Vietnam question because I had an uncle, senior Master Sergeant George W. Porter, who was a Tuskegee Airman, an original and flew World War II and Vietnam, and I'm originally from Sacramento, California, and Uncle George lived around the corner. And so the Sacramento Kings honored him at a basketball game, and he could barely walk. By this time, he was about 89, maybe 90, he could barely walk. But when they played the national anthem, he stood up so fast and so erect. And so when it was all over, I said, oh, help me understand something. He said, what's that son? I said, how is it that with all that you went through? And he used to tell me all these stories about all the stuff that he was subjected to. I said, how is it after all that you went through, you still have the reverence that you have for this flag? And he looked at me like I had three heads, and he said, boy, that's my flag. I fought for that flag. I risked my life for that flag just because they want to claim it doesn't make it theirs. Do you understand me? Yeah, unc, I got it. And so that's why I asked you that question. Capt Clovis Jones (46:30): Well, just on the question of flags, black people live under a lot of different flags, but almost anywhere you go in the world, we're treat it the same. So just to me, a flag is just a marker. It is not something to be reverenced. Yeah. America treated me poorly in some instances, but America gave me opportunities as well. So just need to understand. This is where, to me, the principle that's going to liberate us all is where is the fairness? Where's the fairness in this whole process? Because you have communities that have been deliberately destroyed by local, federal, and state governments because black people were successful. Jacksonville, Florida, for an example, highway five, right through the black community, destroyed it. Other places, Wilmer Leon (47:28): Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland, urban Renewal, and the interstate highway system has decimated African-American communities. Capt Clovis Jones (47:41): Yes. And you have off ramps to get into the community, but you don't have on-ramps for people to leave the community to get back on the freeways. Wilmer Leon (47:52): The freeway in New Orleans that goes past, I don't remember the name of it, but it goes past the Superdome. Yeah. That's another example of how that has decimated the communities. Capt Clovis Jones (48:07): Yes, yes. And that's by design. And people talk about the government. Well, the thing is the government, you have to demand treatment from government, from anyone who have laws. And of course, you have to understand laws are things that are written on paper, but the real law is whatever that judge says, and you can appeal it if you want to, but you might fight for who knows how long and how many different appeals to different courts. But the laws, whatever that judge says, look at Plessy versus Ferguson. Separate, but equal is the law of the land. Then you have the 54 Brown versus Board of Education, no, separate. It is not equal. Okay. Same document, different judges. So when that happened, in my mind it's like, wait a minute. That's something not right about this whole picture because why you have the same document. Where is the fairness in all of that? What is really right? And now you have school desegregation, but you have most of the teachers a female, and they are not black. And you have this whole school system of charter schools being created by white women who didn't want their children to go to school with black children. So you still have people say, oh, we have overcome. Oh, it is better now. Yes, it's different, but in a lot of ways it's the same. Wilmer Leon (49:40): So what do you see as being the, if we look at the, again, I gave the data a little earlier, about 3% of commercial pilots are African-American. The system that they're flying under down does not seem to be that much different from the system that you flew under when you were in the commercial space. Capt Clovis Jones (50:10): Well, that's true. You have airlines having their own programs, which we tried to get them to do decades ago. They didn't do it until they have the critical pilot shortage. But it was oap that had the first US based flight training program from no Time to getting you into the commercial space. That was a venture between oap, the organization of Black Airline Palestine and Western University. With the support of Kellogg and the transportation department. You had foreign pilots being trained from no time to becoming first officers for British Airways, Emirates and United Arab Emirates, and Air Lingus and Ireland. I'm saying, well, wait a minute. Why don't we create a program where black people who want to become pilots, who have degrees go through the interview process, go through the testing process, and if they qualify and this meets the criteria for what the airlines want, then let's train them and let's move them into commercial airline space. Well, that program lasted until money was diverted from training black pilots to buying airplanes. And now the airlines are replicating what was done by BAP and University Western Michigan University. Wilmer Leon (51:46): Is there a sense of comradery today amongst black pilots that there was when you were coming through the system, or do many of them feel a sense of accomplishment and a sense of success and participation in the system to where that sense of comradery isn't deemed necessary? Hopefully that made sense. Capt Clovis Jones (52:16): Well, kind of both are true at the same time. Two opposites can be true at the same time. The younger group, if they kind of know each other, then there's that comradery, Hey, we're going to support each other. We're going to party together. Hey, we're going to have each other's backs when during the ups and the downs and all of that. But among those of us who came along early, we would talk about whoever was being put upon by the system or by that airline or by something we knew about it, and we would support, because if something was happening at one airline to a black pilot, we look for it to happen at our airlines. So how did we outmaneuver that? How did we navigate those systems? How did we learn from those challenges so that we wouldn't even be confronted with those issues? (53:12) But now, the young people who know each other, they tend to have that camaraderie. But with us, Hey, if you were a brother, and when sisters black women became pilots, we embraced and supported them because we knew how tough it was going to be for all of us young people. They think, oh, well, hey, it is fair. And the story I wanted to tell about the pen I used to wear with the P 51 and with the cockpit painted black. Oh, there was a white pilot and a black pilot, and they were both academy graduates, air Force Academy graduates. And the white pilot said, oh, Tuskegee Airmen. I said, oh, yeah, yeah. I said, they're some of my heroes. And the black pilot says, what? (54:05) And then the white pilot told him, oh, the Tuskegee Airmen did this, this, this, and this. He said, oh, well, I guess I need to brush up on my history. I said, yes, you do. I mean, you a Force Academy grad, and you don't know who the Tuskegee airmen are. That gives you some idea of the deficit in our history that is not being taught among our own people. And some people think that because they have a job and some money in the bank or millions in the bank, that they are immune. None of us are immune from how this system operates when it operates against us. And we need to own our own. We need to train our own. We're at a point now where there's no way that we should be dependent on somebody else to teach or train our own. Because as I experienced doing with my first stint with my first flight instructor, you can be taught wrong. (55:09) The subject can be covered with the items that need to be covered, but you can be taught wrong. And sometimes, for example, just one degree off on a heading for 60 miles, you are one mile off course. So small deviations can cause you to be way off course if you continue on that path. So we really need to know our own history. We need the truth to be taught so that our young people understand, number one, who they are to this social system that we live under and who we are to each other, that we'd better have each other's back and hold each other accountable. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Just because you're black, you don't get a chance. And all this I don't snitch. Well, the thing is, is that what you need to do is hold somebody accountable for bad behavior and destructive behavior in our own community. And we need to understand that our communities are precious and that we need to maintain the land that we have, the homes that we have in our communities, because others will come in and you won't recognize it five, 10 years from now. Wilmer Leon (56:22): I'm chuckling, I'm debating. I'm going to go ahead and bring this up. Just to your point. When the Willis situation developed in Atlanta, I did a show criticizing her for the horrific mistake that she made resulting in the process that she had to go through, and the weapon I took mostly from black women because all I was saying was that behavior is indefensible, especially at that level. She's playing at the level of the game where she's going after the former face of the empire. Capt Clovis Jones (57:13): Yes. Wilmer Leon (57:17): And I made the comment, you have now brought this on yourself. You couldn't keep your panties on, and homeboy can't keep his fly up, man, they came at me, but I hate black women. I have a colonized mind. Oh, who am I to? Oh, because one of the points I made was the community should not be tolerating this type of behavior. We don't want to go and tell our daughters or go and tell our sons that they're supposed to engage like this in the workplace. Oh, man. It was brutal. It was Capt Clovis Jones (57:55): Brutal. And you can attest to this. There's a course that you have in ethics in law school. So hey, where's that? I like the philosophy of Maynard Jackson, first black man of Atlanta. He says, his philosophy was if you are close enough to see the line that you're not supposed to cross, you're too close. And young people need to understand that, hey, you can take risks, but don't take risks on things that are going to come back and hurt you. We used to be told there's always somebody watching you and they were talking about God, the creators. There's always somebody watching you. Well, now there's always somebody watching you because you have these devices that your cameras can be turned on, microphones turned on track wherever you are. Wilmer Leon (58:53): And what was one of the things that they got her on? Cell phone records? Capt Clovis Jones (58:57): Yes. Wilmer Leon (58:58): Yes. Cell phone records. Yes. Well, you said that you only visited him so many. Oh, but his phone seemed to wind up in your driveway 55 times. Now, when I worked in corporate America, at one point, I taught sales ethics to the sales team, and my line to them was the appearance of impropriety in many instances could be worse than the impropriety itself. So just ask yourself, how does it look? And if it looks bad, it's going to be bad. Capt Clovis Jones (59:45): Simple enough. Wilmer Leon (59:46): Hey, simple enough. You and I did a show last week, and as a result of that show, you got a phone call from a young man who was very, very encouraged by what you had to say, a lot of which we have covered in this conversation. And he said to you that you, through your story, let him know he had a lot of work to do in his community. Could you elaborate on that, please? Capt Clovis Jones (01:00:20): Yes. Well, it's a group of us who are in narrative and learning about our history, understanding the principles, Africana studies that no matter where in the world you are, you're an African and your black person, and there's a whole system that's designed not to have you rise above a certain level. How do we recapture? When do we start our history? We started in 1619. We've cut ourselves out of millennia of culture, religion, spirituality, science, inscribed on the pyramid walls. Our people have depicted surgical instruments that are used to this day. So the Greeks did not invent medicine. Hippocratic was not the one who basically founded medicine, not the father of medicine. It was African folk folks that look like you and I. So with that, where's our mindset and what are we waiting on? So it encouraged him to do the work in the community. (01:01:35) So one of the things that I've learned through the years is that for a group of people to make progress or to make any change, good or bad, you have the square root of that number of people say 300,000. Well, you need 600 people, like-minded folks moving in the same direction, maybe not always agreeing, but you're like-minded in making things better, and you're doing the work on the ground to make it happen with whatever your talents are. That shifts the entire population. And so he talked about, Hey, we need to find a way to make this happen so that we can do our work on our own, teach our children. And he's on the ground doing just that. So he said, Hey, I figured it out. I know what we need to do. This is what we need, and these parts of town, now we have the template. Now we got to do the work to make it happen. (01:02:38) And one of the elders said, Hey, we already have the teams in place. It's just a matter of educating the teams to get them to think outside of the borders that they live in and expand their minds and understand that, hey, we were educating folks long before we came to America. We had culture. We had all kinds of things. Now, again, I have to say that everything about Africa is not glor flyable, but there are some things that are so you pick the best because when you do your best, you're going to get better and you're going to advance things rather than destroy things. Wilmer Leon (01:03:22): Captain Clovis Jones, Jr. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for your work. Thank you for joining me today. Capt Clovis Jones (01:03:33): You're more than welcome. It is my pleasure. And thank you for having me. Wilmer Leon (01:03:37): Well, I'm going to have you back, folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wier Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a good one. Peace. Some lessons. I'm out Announcer (01:04:26): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
This Day in Legal History: Thurgood Marshall DiesOn January 24, 1993, the United States lost one of its most influential legal figures, retired Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His death in Bethesda, Maryland, marked the end of an era in American jurisprudence. Born on July 2, 1908, in Baltimore, Maryland, Marshall's journey to becoming the first African American Supreme Court Justice was paved with groundbreaking legal battles and an unwavering commitment to civil rights.Before his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, Marshall had already made a significant impact as a lawyer. He served as the chief counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), where he strategized and won a series of critical court cases that chipped away at the legal foundations of racial segregation. His most famous case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, ended with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision declaring state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional, effectively overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson.During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Marshall became known for his passionate advocacy for individual rights and his opposition to the death penalty. His legal opinions, both majority and dissenting, reflected his deep-seated belief in equality and justice for all. He often stressed the importance of viewing the Constitution as a dynamic, living document, capable of adapting to changing societal needs and values.Marshall's impact extends beyond his legal victories; he paved the way for greater diversity in the legal profession and on the bench. His life and career remain a testament to the power of the law as a tool for social change and continue to inspire generations of lawyers, activists, and citizens.His death was not just the loss of a great legal mind but also the end of an era that saw significant strides in civil rights and social justice. As we remember Justice Thurgood Marshall on this day, his legacy serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for equality and the enduring power of dedicated individuals to bring about change in society.Brown, Yale, and Columbia universities, along with Emory and Duke, have agreed to pay a total of $62 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of favoring wealthy applicants, bringing the total settlements in the case to $118 million. This lawsuit, filed against several U.S. universities, alleges they conspired to restrict financial aid and violated a pledge to not consider students' financial status in admissions, effectively giving an advantage to wealthy students. The universities, including those that have settled, deny any wrongdoing. The settlements vary, with Yale and Emory paying $18.5 million each, Brown $19.5 million, and Columbia and Duke $24 million each. The lawsuit, still involving 10 other universities like Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, is pending approval from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly, who previously declined to dismiss the case in 2022.Brown, Yale, Columbia among latest to settle financial-aid lawsuit | ReutersGoogle has settled a patent infringement lawsuit with Singular Computing, averting a trial that was set to begin with closing arguments. The lawsuit, filed in 2019, sought $1.67 billion in damages, accusing Google of misusing Singular's computer-processing innovations in its artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Singular, founded by Joseph Bates, alleged that Google incorporated its technology into processing units used in various Google services like Google Search, Gmail, and Google Translate.The dispute centered around Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), introduced in 2016 to enhance AI capabilities in tasks like speech recognition and ad recommendation. Singular claimed that the second and third versions of these units, released in 2017 and 2018, infringed on its patents. According to the lawsuit, Bates shared his inventions with Google between 2010 and 2014, suggesting that Google's TPUs copied his technology.Internal emails revealed during the trial indicated Google's interest in Bates' ideas, with the company's now-chief scientist, Jeff Dean, acknowledging their potential utility. However, Google maintained that its employees who designed the TPUs had never met Bates and developed the technology independently, arguing that its tech was fundamentally different from what was described in Singular's patents.Details of the settlement have not been disclosed, and representatives from both Google and Singular have confirmed the settlement without providing further information. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda expressed satisfaction with the resolution, emphasizing that Google did not violate Singular's patent rights.Google settles AI-related chip patent lawsuit that sought $1.67 bln | ReutersGoogle Settles AI Chip-Design Suit That Had Sought BillionsSpellbook, a Canada-based legal software company specializing in contract management, has secured $20 million in Series A funding, led by Montreal's Inovia Capital. Other investors include The Legaltech Fund, Bling Capital, and Thomson Reuters Ventures. The company's product, built on OpenAI's GPT-4, assists corporate and commercial lawyers with contract drafting and review by suggesting language and negotiation points.The legal AI sector is experiencing a surge in investment as startups introduce tools designed to integrate generative AI into legal processes. However, the market remains highly competitive with no clear leader yet emerging. Spellbook's CEO, Scott Stevenson, highlighted the company's focus on serving small to midsize law firms and solo practitioners, though it has also attracted larger firms and in-house legal teams.Spellbook's clientele includes diverse organizations such as Addleshaw Goddard, KMSC Law, Carbon Chemistry, and ATEM Capital. The company, initially named Rally at its inception in 2019, rebranded to Spellbook after a $10.9 million seed round in June 2023 and shifted focus from automating routine legal tasks to AI-driven contract management.The legal technology sector is witnessing increased investor interest, particularly since the advent of generative AI technologies. Other firms in the sector, such as Norm AI and Robin AI, have also recently raised substantial funding, indicating a growing trend in the investment and development of legal AI tools.Legal AI startup Spellbook raises $20 mln as sector draws more investments | ReutersThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has introduced new rules for deals involving special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), aiming to enhance investor protections and align these transactions more closely with traditional initial public offerings (IPOs). This regulatory change comes as SPACs, which surged in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic as an alternative public listing method, have recently lost favor. The new rules revoke certain legal protections previously afforded to SPAC sponsors, making them more susceptible to lawsuits over exaggerated statements. These regulations also demand increased disclosures, particularly concerning forward-looking projections in the later stages of SPAC deals.By way of very brief background, a SPAC is an alternative to the traditional IPO process for a company seeking to go public. A SPAC is essentially a shell company that raises funds through an IPO with the sole intent of acquiring or merging with an existing private company, thereby taking that company public. Unlike traditional IPOs, where a company goes public based on its own assets and operations, a SPAC has no commercial operations and is created solely for the purpose of acquiring a private company. This process allows the target company to become publicly traded more quickly and with potentially less regulatory scrutiny than the traditional IPO route. Additionally, SPACs offer more certainty regarding valuation and financing compared to traditional IPOs.SEC Chair Gary Gensler emphasized the need for robust investor protections, regardless of the method used for going public. The SEC's heightened scrutiny and macroeconomic factors like rising interest rates have already cooled the once-booming SPAC market. Major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and Bank of America reduced their involvement in SPACs following the SEC's initial proposal of these changes.The SEC's new requirements include detailed disclosures from SPAC sponsors about potential conflicts of interest, compensation, and dilution. Companies targeted by SPACs must now register with the SEC and fulfill additional disclosure obligations before merging. Furthermore, these target companies are now jointly liable for the information shared with investors and must provide independently audited financial statements. The SEC's Republican Commissioner Mark Uyeda criticized the rules as overly burdensome, suggesting they might effectively end the SPAC market. The new regulations will take effect in over four months, with additional financial reporting and accounting requirements for SPAC transactions also being implemented.SEC Imposes New Rules on Blank-Check Deals as SPACs Fizzle (2) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Strict Scrutiny Applied to laws that affect fundamental rights or target suspect classifications (such as race or national origin), strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard. Under this review, a law is constitutional only if it serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest with the least restrictive means. Cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ended racial segregation in public schools, exemplify the application of strict scrutiny. Intermediate Scrutiny Used mainly for laws that classify based on gender or legitimacy, intermediate scrutiny requires the law to further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. This standard, less rigorous than strict scrutiny, was developed in cases like Craig v. Boren (1976), which dealt with gender discrimination in alcohol laws. Rational Basis Review The most lenient standard, rational basis review, is applied to all other classifications. A law will pass this review if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This standard gives a great deal of deference to legislative choices. A notable case is Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949), where the court upheld a city regulation under rational basis review. Racial Discrimination and Affirmative Action The fight against racial discrimination has been at the forefront of constitutional law, reflecting America's ongoing struggle with its racial history. Historical Context Initially, the Supreme Court upheld racial segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896), endorsing the "separate but equal" doctrine. However, this began to change with cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. Affirmative Action In recent decades, affirmative action policies aimed at rectifying historical racial injustices have been a focal point. Key cases include Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where the Court held that race could be one of several factors in Gender Discrimination and Gender Equality Gender discrimination and the fight for gender equality have evolved significantly in constitutional law. Evolution of Gender Equality Cases like United States v. Virginia (1996), which opened the Virginia Military Institute to women, reflect the increasing recognition of gender equality. The Court has expanded the understanding of discrimination to include not just overtly discriminatory laws but also those that have a disparate impact on a particular gender. Age Discrimination Age discrimination in employment is a significant issue. While the Equal Protection Clause itself does not explicitly protect against age discrimination, statutes like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) have been enacted to protect older workers. Constitutional challenges in this area typically receive rational basis review. Disability Discrimination The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 represents a landmark in fighting discrimination against individuals with disabilities. While the ADA is a statutory protection, the Supreme Court has addressed disability rights under the Constitution, especially in contexts like access to public services and accommodations. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity One of the most significant developments in recent years has been the recognition of rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In cases like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right under the Constitution. This decision and others, like Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which extended workplace protections to LGBTQ individuals, mark a pivotal shift towards broader recognition of sexual orientation and gender identity rights. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
The Landmark Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896 is the subject of this episode of Law With Mr. Lafayette. This is the case that established the social and legal fallacy of “separate but equal.“ Intern, it laid the legal foundation for not only Jim Crow laws, but other Racially inspired, segregationist legislation. In this episode, René Lafayette, a social studies and law teacher at Leominster High School in Leominster Massachusetts, gives an overview of Plessy v. Ferguson, and its impact on the American legal system.
Show Notes and Transcript Retired CIA officer Sam Faddis is a regular security expert on War Room and he joins Hearts of Oak to look at the terror threat within the US. His Substack goes in depth on the many hazards that we face externally and we pick up on some of his recent articles. We start by looking at open borders and why the establishment won't cut off illegal immigration. The US have endured an onslaught of unknown individuals, when a country is not able to know who is within its borders then it has no idea what perils it faces internally. It is a dangerous situation that America finds itself in. Sam shows us why and how the FBI has spent its time focusing on groups like Moms for Liberty which seems like political targeting and is quite simply illegal. Then we move onto looking at how the situation in Israel could affect the US before finishing on how China has imbedded itself into the establishment and throughout the system. Sam Faddis is a Retired CIA Operations Officer. Served in Near East and South Asia. Author, commentator. Senior Editor AND Magazine. Public Speaker. Host of Ground Truth. Connect with Sam... X https://x.com/RealSamFaddis?s=20 GETTR https://gettr.com/user/samfaddis SUBSTACK https://substack.com/profile/28080362-sam-faddis https://andmagazine.substack.com/ https://andmagazine.substack.com/s/ground-truth Interview recorded 28.11.23 Audio Podcast version available on Podbean and all major podcast directories... https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ Transcript available on our Substack...https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) It's wonderful to have you with us. Thank you so much for your time today. (Sam Faddis) Thank you for having me, appreciate it. Not all, I've enjoyed your many times on War Room and maybe we'll touch on that before we get on to everything else. But obviously people can find you @RealSamFaddis on Twitter, @ANDMagazine also. And I think Substack certainly, what I enjoy is andmagazine.substack.com. Everything is in the description. And I think that's where you put a lot of your longer pieces. So if people enjoy the Twitter, they can jump on and look at the Substack. And of course, Sam, you're a retired CIA officer, served in Near East and South Asia, author, commentator, and of course, senior editor of AND Magazine. And certainly for me, as maybe for many others, what often happens, people coming on Steve Bannon's War Room, it opens a window. Maybe we can just touch on that. It's always fun to ask people how they ended up being on War Room and they will jump on, I think, a lot of the threats, the terror threats currently inside the US. So, what about yourself? How did you end up being on War Room? Yeah, I don't... I think my contact with Steve goes back to when he and Jack Maxey were still working together. And we got particularly deeply involved regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story, because when they got a hold of a copy of the hard drive, one of the first things they wanted to do was make sure that they weren't being played, that this was in fact, something real, they weren't going to run with it. And, you know, they were more than happy to run with it if it was real and authentic, which it is, but they wanted to do their homework first. So they called me in as an old, CIA operator to take a look at this thing and say, Hey, do you think this thing's real? Or is there anything to this accusation that it's Russian disinformation? And after about, I mean, I spent the whole night down, I showed up in DC one night and spent the whole night down in a townhouse in Capitol Hill with those guys going through it. But I can tell you that it took me about five minutes to be able to tell them. It is impossible for somebody to have faked this thing. That's completely ludicrous. If you came to me when I was operating and said, do this to somebody else, I would have said. No can do, man. I mean, can I make up a fake laptop? Yeah. Will it stand more than about five minutes scrutiny from an adversary who knows what they're doing? No, it will not. It will be obvious for a million reasons. And we've obviously delved into that with Miranda Devine, laptop from hell, Garrett Ziegler on a number of times and and as a huge and you wonder why the media don't wake up to that fact. But that and many, many others. But of course your background, CIA background, that intelligence side, and on your Substack lots of really interesting articles and I think for me it's the concern about the terror threat within the U.S. We talk a lot about what's happening externally. But really the big concern I have looking across the water and we have in the UK, having open borders is the terror threat within here in the UK, as you're concerned over there in the States. And maybe look at the border, because one of your recent Substack posts was the trade in asylum seekers, why the establishment won't cut off illegal immigration. And the issue of open border means the opposite of a purpose of government, isn't it? A government should be closing the borders, protecting its citizens, and this administration seems to want the opposite. So, what are your thoughts as you look on that open border policy? Well, as you well know, given your trade, you know, language can either be used to illuminate or obfuscate. We spend a lot of time listening to this administration use language to obfuscate, to dance around, to pretend, let's just be clear. This administration's policy is open borders. That's the Biden administration's policy is we don't have a border. So nobody in Congress changed the law. Nobody legislated that. The American people didn't decide that. These guys just basically decided, without ever admitting so, that they will not enforce the existing law. If you show up at the border, you're processed, you're handed a notice to appear for a hearing, which may be five to 10 years in the future, and you're cut loose. Actually, you're probably transported onto your onward destination like Chicago or New York. Once you have that hearing notice in hand, by the way, if anybody stops you, you just tell them you're waiting for your hearing. It in fact functions as a permit. In fact, the illegals refer to it as a permit. So that's our policy and we don't, there's no magic database to check these people. We have no idea who they are. We have no idea if the documents they're carrying, if any, are real. So anybody and everybody can walk into the United States. So why? Well, I mean, ideologically, a lot of these people frankly don't believe we have a right to control our borders. But there's also just a lot of money here, right? I mean, there's a huge garment industry as an example in Southern, California around Los Angeles, actually a large number of clothes a large amount of clothing that's made in the United States. It's all made by illegals. I mean if you walked into a shop and there's 300 people in the room and you found one of them who actually had legal documentation to be in the United States. You'd probably die of shock. Everybody knows that. You go to Alabama chicken processing plants for folks to stand on their feet for 10 or 12 hours a day and they gut and pluck chickens not exactly pleasant work. I've done a little bit of it once upon a time. Okay Who does that? Again, if there's 600 people in the plant and you found one that actually has permission to be in the United States and be working. You'd be stunned. So what we have I could go on obviously, I mean you get the point, there's a lot of folks here who are pretending like somehow they're welcoming the poor of the planet and doing something philanthropic. That's not what's happening. They're making a boatload of money. In the article that you referenced, we talked about how, for instance, in New York State, they actually run a state website where employers can go on the website and advertise jobs and that's specifically marketed to illegals. Now, they don't use that terminology, illegals, but that's what it is. It is a state-run website to match up employers with folks who will, again, when it's all said and done, they will work off the books for less than minimum wage. And none of these guys are gonna complain about workplace safety. I mean, if you think about it, it's kind of sick. Here's the Democratic Party pushes this, supposedly the party of the working man. This is a war on American working men and women. It's none of these pesky unions, man. We're gonna deal with folks that are about one step above slaves. Yeah and I get that and that was a conversation I had in the Brexit debate in the UK talking to voters and you talk to small businesses and they wanted cheap labour, they want a free movement of people and I get the economic argument on that but then you move over on to the security issue and just because you let someone in for, they can cheap labour, if you're not checking who that person is, then you have no idea who is in the country. And it surprises me why, you're on a scale well above what the UK is on, but it surprises me why the media and politicians don't really call this out for what it is, which is a massive security risk for the US. Without question. I mean, first of all, people talk in terms of checking names against databases. Okay, so first of all, let's just assume that happens. What database? I mean, a database consists is only as good as the data that goes into it. What's the premise there? We have a magic database with the names of all the members of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas in it. There is no such database. The guy's name is the name of John Smith, something generic. Born in some village nobody ever heard of in Pakistan, okay? You know what you're gonna find? You're gonna find there's no data in your laptop. Does that mean that he's good? It doesn't mean anything. That's, by the way, assuming he's actually telling you his real name. Hezbollah is an example. Hezbollah has a longstanding relationship with Venezuela. They are very serious boys. I've worked against them all over the planet. They plan years and years in advance, they're very meticulous. They don't show up one day and say, let's blow something up. They flip a switch on and off that they've been working for five years. Pre-positioned explosives, case targets, all this. They have a relationship with Venezuela. Venezuela gives them full sets of false identity documents, passport, driver's license, etc., backstopped by the Venezuelan government. Meaning if you ask the Venezuelans, is this guy Jose one of yours? They'll say yes because they gave him the docks as part of their deal. Number one group of people coming out of Central and South America into the United States right now Venezuelans. That is not me saying obviously that every Venezuelan walking into the United States is a terrorist, I'm just saying when you have a flood of people like that and you know you have this capability. It's the simplest thing in the world to insert into that stream guys who are operatives and we have no capacity for detecting them and we have caught them on U.S. soil before. Where they have been here for years and years and years working targets, New York City, Washington DC, Chicago. So yeah, there's a clock ticking out there someplace. Isn't there? It's just you know I mean, when stuff starts to blow up, is there really anybody with a straight face is going to turn around and say, wow, that was unforeseeable, I'm shocked. We're just waiting for it now. Well, I mean, your time working abroad with the CIA and you're dealing with, countries and individuals and situations which you wouldn't expect to find at home, and I've talked to other people working in the field at different ops. And I think the assumption was, and I assume the assumption is that the intelligence services abroad for the US that, you know, there is trust in what happens back home. There is trust in the borders, in the systems, and you're doing what you do abroad because you know you've got the backing of the US, but also, you know, there's protection there in the US and that's not even touching on the military. Is just touching on the institutions and the border. And if that's no longer there, then kind of you wonder, what is the point of intelligence abroad whenever there's no kind of backstop there back in the US? Yeah, there is no point. I mean, again, this is what I think people need to understand, and they don't, and maybe on some level, they don't want to, right? Because the enormity, first of all, it's staggering and hard to get your head around. But also, you kind of just don't want to face this reality because it's very unpleasant. We don't have a border in the United States functionally. I mean, we have guys that process illegals and then put them on buses and send them to Chicago. We've turned border patrol into welcome wagon, but we don't, we don't, our defences are down. I mean, you're living in a house in a bad neighbourhood and the doors are unlocked and the windows are open and nobody's paying attention. So is it hard to predict what will happen? It will not right now, look at what's happening in the middle East. I mean, you could send intelligence message after intelligence message out of the Middle East from a CIA station, saying everybody and his brother is planning on blowing stuff up all across the United States. Nobody's gonna react to it, nobody's gonna do anything about it. They have politically decided to ignore it. And God willing, somehow miraculously, this will not happen, but I don't see how we will avoid it. People are going to die. We are going to get hit again. And people should keep in mind that when 9-11 happened. Al-Qaeda, just as an example, they never conceived of that as the end of anything, nor did they conceive of that as the worst they could do. So they have never, and many of the other groups, never given up their ambitions for biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological attacks. So as horrible as 9-11 was, what you could see would potentially be much, much worse than that. What do you think as someone who is working abroad on the field, seeing obviously what's happened with not only Afghanistan, but then you mentioned the threat of Iran not being neutralised and that being left to fester and grow and continue to be a threat. And I guess, and it's not, it is one way pointing the finger at the Democrats because of what has happened, but maybe other administrations haven't maybe dealt with that threat either. Does that make any sense or is that on the ball? No, it makes no sense at all. And again, yeah, I'm not going to try to lay all of the issues here squarely and purely at the foot of the Biden administration. Not that they don't. Not that they are working overtime to mess things up. But yeah, we've made mistakes in regard to Iran as an example for a really long time. I mean, look, I've worked with a lot of Iranians, Iranian patriots over the years who are fighting for freedom in their country. I got nothing but respect for the Iranian people, Persian culture, Persian history. But the boys that are in charge in Tehran the IRGC and the ayatollahs are psychos. I mean they they they have an expressly apocalyptic view of history. They believe these are the end times literally in the way, somebody who's a true believer in the literal word of the Bible might believe these are the end times. That's a reality. That's not, that's not a metaphor. These are the end times. The Mahdi, who they regard as an Islamic superman prophet, is about to come back. And there's going to be a giant, fiery end to the world, and they emerge as the winners, and you're all either with them or you're gone. So that's the way they look at the world. Now, these guys have been on a course to acquire nuclear weapons for decades now. Their nuclear program exists for one purpose, for nuclear weapons. Everything else is garbage, just dispense with the nonsense. We keep reading things like, you know, the latest I read was an assessment that's now seven months old that said we think the Iranians are 12 days from having a nuke. Okay, so I'm not a math genius, but I'm pretty sure that if it's been seven months and you told me they were 12 days away. That by this point you should assume they have a nuclear weapon and anybody who thinks that our intelligence collection is so good, that we will know for sure in advance. That they're about to acquire it is living in dreamland. Not true but nobody will know that. Even the Israelis who have a really robust, they basically, you live in a world right now where you could wake up tomorrow and realize not just that they just got the bomb, but they have had the bomb for some period of time. So, I mean, a nuclear Iran that can actually vaporize Tel Aviv, that's the end of peace in the Middle East. You just set that whole region on fire. The Israelis will not live with that. What are we doing? We're shipping billions of dollars to the Ayatollahs. That's what we've been doing under this administration. We've been ransoming hostages. Look at the situation in Afghanistan. I mean, Biden wants everybody to forget about it because politically it's a disaster. All right, let's get down to the real implications. It's a terrorist super state. It's a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is at least as strong as they've ever been, and now they have a much more powerful, secure foundation. The Taliban is waging war to topple the government in Islamabad next door. Maybe you don't care about the Pakistanis. They happen to have about 200 functional nuclear weapons, plus the means to deliver them. So if Islamabad falls, that means all of a sudden Al-Qaeda and Taliban are one of the top nuclear powers on the planet. That's kind of a big deal. Somebody ought to be paying attention to that. We can't let that happen, yet we are doing nothing to stop it. I mean tell, because one of the other articles was standby for another intelligence failure. I think it's the most recent one. Joe does not in his terror threat here at home escalates. And on that you touch on what's happening in Israel and you touch on Iran. I mean, how does that affect? Because America has never been weaker militarily and from a completely civilian point of view seems to never have been at a weaker place in regards to intelligence. Where does that leave America with what is currently happening in the Middle East? Well, it leaves us functionally blind, and I think there are probably two sides to that coin. One is the part where you give warning to the policy makers, to the politicians, and it doesn't happen to fit with their agenda, so they ignore you. We did a lot of this in the run-up to 9-11, which is not to say we had specific information on that plot, but it wasn't exactly a secret to anybody working the target that they're serious and they're coming for us. By the way, they already blew up two of our embassies, tried to take down the World Trade Center once before, and almost sank the USS Cole in Yemen. So for real, guys, they're coming. That didn't fit with Bill Clinton's peace dividend agenda. And we're now at the end of times, and it's every kinder, gentler planet. And the Bush administration didn't seem particularly focused on it before 9-11. So I did a lot of that. I was involved with a lot of that, and as was my wife, who's also a retired agency officer, as were any number of our friends. It's not just me. A whole bunch of guys over a whole bunch of years saying, we better go take care of this Bin Laden guy before something really catastrophic happens and it's ignored. And the second part is just a decrease in collection capability. And we absolutely do not have the collection capability we need. Anybody, Afghanistan is under the control of the Taliban and they got billions of dollars worth of our gear and the international community, including the United States keeps sending them money, calling it humanitarian funding. Anybody who thinks they're using that to buy baby formula is on drugs. So, and you've got every group in the world, including Al-Qaeda back there with, training camps and a completely safe platform from which to plan, train, and launch attack. What if, I don't under anybody who thinks we have any collection capability on the ground in Afghanistan at this point that's worth anything. Again is in dreamland. I mean you can take pictures of it from space and you can listen to, you can surf the internet and intercept email messages. You know, it took us ten years to find Bin Laden because he didn't use the internet and he didn't use a cell phone He recognized the capacity. He ran an entire worldwide outfit for 10 years after we took Afghanistan. Took us 10 years to find him. Why? Because he understood our technical capability, and he knew we didn't have the sources we needed to find him. So we don't have robust, we have essentially no capability in Afghanistan. We have no idea what they're plotting, what they're planning, how many attacks are being hatched over there. And when I've talked to friends, background intelligence, it's all about assets and having people on the ground and that information. Is it simply with the move, the technological move? Is it that the focus is we can now do everything with technology and the hard work on the ground is simply ignored? Is that maybe the focus of politicians? The focus of politicians is also, unfortunately, the focus of too many people inside the intelligence community, right? I mean, one of the things the United States, just to stick with us as an example, that we do pretty well is allocate money, buy stuff, build buildings, fill them with people looking at flat screen computer monitors, doing PowerPoint presentations, generate a lot of this stuff, build a machine that flies around in space and sucks up signals. Okay, now espionage is not at all like that. Espionage is weird, arcane, old art, really realistically probably hasn't changed for thousands of years, meaningfully, because it's all about human nature. So as long as people are people, it's going to be the same thing. You need this very eclectic group of individuals, often drawn from a whole bunch of very disparate backgrounds, kind of people who in another lifetime would be stealing the crown jewels, who aren't very comfortable colouring within the lines all the time, but they have enough self-control to not go totally off the reservation, if you will. In other words, they'll do it for a good cause. And then you got to train them really well, and then you got to season them really well. Like you got, I mean, when I showed up at my first field station, it was more or less an attitude like, yeah, you go make like 500 asset meetings, and then we might let you talk in the morning meeting when we all get together. Because right now, you know so little, you don't even know what you don't know. And then you got to trust instincts. It's got to be a very flat, nimble organization. If I'm talking to a source in Turkey, and I got an opportunity to do something inside Iran, we need to exploit that opportunity really fast. I don't mean like I should have carte blanche to just do whatever the hell I want, but I just, we got to move. We got a window of opportunity. We got, let's go. I can't send that message back to headquarters and wait six months while they go through 27 levels of review and committees of people who've never been overseas discuss whether or not this is a good idea, right? The really good organizations in history. Have had that capacity, I mean, one, I've done a lot of study over the years of the American OSS in the Second World War, but also SOE, the Special Operations Executive, the British equivalent that was, predates OSS and obviously was the template for OSS. Read the history of that, man, it's a, you know, a bunch of guys like Patrick Leigh Fairmoor that walked across Europe sleeping in barns before the war and, spoke classical Greek and, just this weird combination of things who the next thing you know, they're on Crete and they're dreaming up operations to kidnap Nazi generals. And they actually pull it off like two guys and a handful of Greeks do this. Good lord, if you sent that proposal to Langley these days. You know, you would have no chance on earth of that thing ever being approved. They would come back with nine million reasons why that won't work, and you'd get tired of trying to explain it to them. You'd just be, okay, whatever, too much trouble, leave it alone. Now, I want to ask you about to the domestic side. It seems, again, as someone looking from the outside in, it seems the role of the FBI is now no longer about catching real threats within the US and is more focused on, I mean, whenever Moms for Liberty was declared an extremist organization and those who want to stand up for common sense and basically values of life and liberty and freedom, those are now the ones in the crosshairs. I mean, how has that change happened? Is that just because it's easier to focus on those type of people because they don't push back, they're not a threat. Has there been an active decision to see those people standing up for American values as a threat as opposed to others, maybe the Islamist type? Tell us how that change has happened and what that means for the fabric of the U.S. Well, first of all, it's catastrophic for the United States, right? I mean, intelligence agencies. Intelligence agencies shouldn't be within 10 miles of American domestic politics. It's illegal, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral, and they should never be, even when they've got to deal with domestic things like the FBI, they should never, never should be partisan. Again, that's illegal and unconstitutional and so forth. I think you have you have like two problems that are affecting both the FBI the CIA and a bunch of other agencies one is bureaucratization which kind of bureaucratic hardening of the arteries the organizations go soft. You stop having guys at the top who made their bones running operations, whether we're talking about the Bureau or CIA now, you got guys who have played political games. And then we have politicization in the sense of American domestic politics. We have outfits that should not have come anywhere near this, that at least at the senior levels have become very politicized. I mean, the Moms with Liberty thing is a great example. I have a, where I live in the state of Pennsylvania, I have a lot of contact with Moms of Liberty because of other things that we do, my wife and I. You know, you're talking about an organization, the centre of gravity is a 55 to 60 year old grandmother. And Moms for Liberty's primary focus is things like, why is this book filled with sexually explicit drawings in an elementary school library accessible to my eight-year-old? I'm not trying to ban the book, burn the book, demonize the person who wrote it. It's just age-inappropriate. It shouldn't be available to kids. It's not exactly incendiary. It's certainly not domestic violent extremism. So, it's insane that the Bureau would label these guys as an organization like that, as being a danger to anything. Not a danger. They're people involved in a political process expressing actually what are really common sense things. So, hugely dangerous. You know, and I think the problem is primarily at the senior levels, but I'm honest enough to say, and I've had this discussion with many old colleagues, you know, I'm still waiting for the day when somebody comes to an FBI SWAT team leader and says, I want you to go at five o'clock in the morning with 25 guys, all gunned up and arrest this 75-year-old guy for praying silently outside an abortion clinic. I think it would be nice to see the day where the guy would say, that's a really interesting idea, man, but I'm not doing that. I'm not the Gestapo, I'm not your secret police. It's not happening, my guys aren't going, you want my badge? Take my badge, but I'm not doing that. When they went to arrest Roger Stone, okay? On what, if you believe there was a crime, would have been at most a white collar crime. So what's the procedure in the United States, you contact the guy's lawyer and you ask him to come down to the courthouse? He shows up you charge him and then typically he's released and he walks out the door, happens all day every day all over America. That's the m.o. Nobody sends a gunboat and an armoured car and a squad of guys, with machine guns to arrest a man who's what 80 years old and by the way stands about 5'3 and, at that towers over his wife who has heart trouble and you're gonna go show up at his doorstep at 4.35 o'clock in the morning I mean come, on that's you are utilizing the law enforcement power of the United States government to intimidate political opponents. Straight up. Not okay. And I guess that infiltration, that change of thinking, that doesn't change just with administration. Something is deeper than that and there is no necessary quick fix for it. Well, I mean, let me let me focus on the CIA, but we could be talking about several organizations in addition to the FBI. Is it fixable? Yeah, I think it's fixable. I mean, first you have, but you need somebody who understands the outfit, because if you send somebody from the outside to CIA, they will be led around by the nose and played by the guys inside, and they will have no idea what's going on. But the key factor is really you have to have a president of the United States who says, go there, break as much China as you have to, fire as many people as you have to, get it back on track and get it back to work. Now, I've said this many times. I believe if you did that, and you went to CIA as an example, and tossed out folks who have clearly crossed the line on political considerations as an example, and just said, we're going back to work, We're going back to business, we're doing the people's business. I think you'd actually honestly have people standing in the halls cheering. I think the rank and file would be, thank God. Like, you don't go to CIA for the pay check. I mean, you don't starve, but you don't get rich. And you make a tremendous number of sacrifices, and you do a lot of interesting stuff, but you also live some places that are hard. And you certainly put your family through a lot of hell along the way. So really people come there for a reason and because they, as hokey as it may sound, they believe in the mission and they can see when they're not being allowed to do the job. They can see when a guy's getting promoted that has never done anything, but he laughs at the boss's jokes. They're not stupid. And tell me, some of the threat we talked about earlier, the Middle East, you've got that Islamic threat, you've got a completely different way of life and a different viewpoint on how things should end. But another article you wrote recently in the Substack, was looking at China and that threat, Biden meets Xi for talking's sake. And we've certainly had massive concerns here in the UK of that Chinese influence in our education system and much wider. You've probably had similar in education in the political system. That's another threat which is there internally and no one seems to want to deal with it. We've just had David Cameron coming back in the UK as the Foreign Secretary, one of the most pro-China political leaders in a generation. You probably have the same. So tell us about that. That article of Xi coming over and Biden being his lapdog, basically, being summoned to San Francisco. What's your concern of the Chinese influence and where that can take America? Yeah, well, let me state up front, you know, I was a case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, which is what any normal person would refer to as a spy or a spook. CIA doesn't. Those terms are used differently at CIA. Anyway, what was my job? Well, my job is to do a whole bunch of stuff, but the guts of what you get paid to do as an ops officer, as a case officer, is recruit sources inside target organizations. So in other words, my job to do to the enemy what they're trying to do to us. It is my job to get the Chinese intelligence officer to work for us, the Russian SVR guy to work for us, to get a guy inside Al Qaeda to work for us. So when I say that, not like a hooray for me speech, but as a, when I'm talking about people being recruited and how this works, it's not because I read a book about it one time, it's because this is what I did for a very, very long time, with I think some significant effect. What the Chinese do on an industrial scale is they engage in what's called elite capture, their term. That means they come in and they recruit, they gain control of, they buy, whatever verbiage resonates with you. Influential people in target countries. So that's politicians, could be military officers, corporate leaders, whoever they think has power in that country and can further their interest, they buy them and they gain control over them. They don't do them a favour and then hope later they'll do them a favour. That's what diplomats do. They gain control over them. They stick their, they, you know, they push the buttons in your head, whatever it takes, man. They stroke your ego, feed you money, produce attractive young female agents. Whatever floats your boat, whatever is the key that unlocks you, that's what they do. That's how spies work. Okay, we know that. There's no controversy about this, not a conspiracy theory. It's done worldwide on industrial scale. Not surprisingly, target number one for the Chinese Communist Party Intel guys would be the United States of America. They do this all over the United States. God knows how many guys in Congress they have turned. God knows how many corporate leaders. Look at Joe Biden, right? I mean, again, let's stop beating around the bush and playing games. This is a guy who's taken, I think Miranda Devine's best estimate is at least $31 million flowed to the Biden's from China, from individuals who are directly connected to Chinese intelligence. So let's just take the ambiguity out. Chinese spies funnelled at least $31 million to the Biden's. They didn't give it to Hunter for his good looks, or because of his cocaine user. I mean, there's only one product that Biden's had to sell and that was Joe. The Chinese communists are a lot of things, they're not idiots and they just don't throw money away. So we know all that money flowed to him and we know it came from folks directly connected Chinese Communist Party and Chinese Intel. There's only one question left to ask, what did they get and are they getting in return? You might hand a chunk of change to Hunter one time because he claimed he could do something and then it turned out he couldn't produce and you think okay, nothing ventured nothing gained. We lost the bucks move on, you would not continue to hand millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars to these guys unless something was coming back the other way. So when you put Xi and Joe in a room together and people seriously talk as if Joe is representing the interests of the United States of America. I'm just shaking my head. I'm like, really? Because he's sitting in a room with a guy that, as far as I can tell, bought him years ago. He owns the man. And if you really internalize that, the implications for American national security and the entire free world are terrifying, because it doesn't matter how many carrier battle groups you have, or nuclear weapons. Look, I'm kind of a history nerd. Once upon a time, the British East India Company took over India. They fought a battle at Plessy, I believe, and they defeated a vastly superior Indian army. Now, taking nothing away from the British army, who did a superb job. Number one reason they won the battle, because they bought off the commander of the Indian army, who sat on the side-lines with something like 80%, of the Indian forces and watched while his master and the rest of them were destroyed. Like they just, simple solution, we'll buy this guy off and they'll sit on their hands and watch. So I mean, if the Chinese move on Taiwan tomorrow and you're counting on Joe Biden to be the guy that gives the order to the 7th Fleet to save the day. Good luck, man. What's your, just so we finish off, what is your big concern with the life you've led, with your experience, seen so much and how foreign agencies work, foreign governments work, that ongoing battle, to fight for, I guess, the freedom in the US. What are your kind of big concerns when you look at the US and what has happened? Because obviously a lot of what's happened has been enabled politically, but it's also been enabled in the media, in many, economically, that's been a way in for China. But what to you is probably your major concern of where America currently is? See, here's the way I would sum it up. I think since 1945, the American people have taken for granted the fact that the United States is the preeminent political, military, and economic power on the planet. That's just sort of bedrock, and it's almost like a law of nature now. So things are good sometimes and less good other times, and occasionally we get dragged into a war, and then after a while, we get tired of the war and we go home. Well, we don't think we actually lost our status as the number one power. And even when we leave Afghanistan, we don't think we don't really think of it as we got beat. We think of it as maybe we shouldn't have been there and we got tired of it and we went home. Nobody's dictating articles of surrender on a battleship like we did to the Japanese in 1945. And we sort of assume that, again, that that's, you know, U.S. Military's the most powerful, our economy's the biggest, yada yada. There are no, of course, laws of physics that says that is true. And we've touched on some of the reasons, but we could go on probably all day talking about there's a lot of really catastrophic stuff happening around the planet. Between the Chinese, the possibility the Iranians are going to get nuclear weapons, Pakistan falls and all of a sudden the Taliban has 200 nuclear weapons. Terror attacks inside the United States. I hate this word because it gets overused, but you're actually beginning to talk about things that are existential when it comes to the United States. You're actually, I've said this to numerous people, you could realize that the Chinese could move on Taiwan and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier could go to the bottom of the Pacific and you realize you don't have one west of San Diego. And all of a sudden right there the status quo that has existed since 1945 where the Pacific is an American Lake ceased to exist guys but the Chinese aren't in San Francisco yet, but, you are no longer everybody in the entire all of East Asia now lives with a new reality, Nope, the South Koreans the Japanese. What are they going to do just fend for themselves? That kind of stuff is already starting to happen all over the planet, and we're either facilitating it or just blissfully ignorant to it, but we're not doing anything to stop it. What happens if the Iranians wake up? What happens if the Iranians detonate a nuclear weapon in the desert and say, we have 12 more? And guess what? But we already moved half of them to places like Lebanon, under the control of Hezbollah, to locations you don't know about and where you can't stop us from launching them. So you Israelis knock yourselves out bombing sites in Iran. We didn't tell you this until we had already taken steps. Now you live in a world where the Iranians can wink the state of Israel out of existence, literally, because Israel's a tiny place, right? Two or three nuclear weapons and Israel doesn't exist anymore. It is that danger. It's that like we're teetering on the edge of a cliff and yet we're not, don't seem to actually be doing anything about it. Well Sam I appreciate you coming on. I think it is so important for the public to understand the perilous situation which we do face and I've thoroughly enjoyed your many times on War Room. So thank you so much for giving us your time today in sharing some of those insights. Thank you. Appreciate it.
In the episode of "Consider the Constitution," host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lacky interviews constitutional law expert Prof. F. Michael Higginbotham. They discuss the role of the Supreme Court in American life, past and present. Higginbotham explains the court's function in interpreting laws and determining their consistency with the Constitution. They also discuss key Supreme Court cases, including Marbury vs. Madison, which established judicial review, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation. Higginbotham highlights the importance of the Brown vs. Board of Education case in ending segregation in education.
President, CEO, and general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Waggoner, joins us for a discussion on freedom of speech and religious liberty. ADF has played various roles in 74 U.S. Supreme Court victories and since 2011, has won cases before the Court 15 times. According to its website, “ADF is the world's largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.” ADF has litigated many high profile and controversial free speech cases, including the recent Supreme Court case involving a web designer who didn't want to be compelled to design websites for same-sex weddings. Before that, ADF litigated the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which involved a cake designer who similarly didn't want to provide his services for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. After the initial conversation was recorded, The Washington Post and The New Yorker released articles critical of ADF. Nico and Kristen recorded an additional, brief conversation to address these articles. That is included at the end of the podcast. Timestamps: 0:43 - Introduction 6:16 - Kristen's path to ADF 12:54 - ADF's international team 14:20 - Pavi Rasanen controversy 19:24 - What does it mean to be a ministry?/blasphemy laws 22:56 - ADF's Supreme Court cases 26:58 - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis 28:56 - Public accommodation laws/Masterpiece Cakeshop 40:40 - Pre-enforcement challenges 42:50 - Facial challenges 47:32 - Test cases or fake cases? 49:44 - Yale incident 57:50 - Other campus shoutdowns 1:00:08 - L.M. v. Town of Middleborough 1:14:27 - Kristen addresses WaPo article 1:15:38 - Kristen addresses New Yorker article Related Articles/Podcasts: “Inside the tactics that won Christian vendors the right to reject gay weddings,” Jon Swaine and Beth Reinhard (The Washington Post) “Are ADF's Cases ‘Made Up'?” Lathan Watts (ADF, response to The Washington Post) “The next targets for the group that overturned Roe,” David D. Kirkpatrick (The New Yorker) FIRE's response to Kristen Waggoner Yale incident FIRE's response to Anne Coulter Cornell incident FIRE's response to Ilya Shapiro Georgetown incident FIRE's response to Ian Haworth UAlbany incident “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” (“More Perfect” podcast with Julia Longoria) Cases Discussed: Dubash v. City of Houston (Animal rights activists lawsuit, 2023) Paivi Rasanen (Finnish lawmaker charged with incitement against gay people) 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2022) Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017) Uzuebgunam v. Preczewski (2021) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Wooley v. Maynard (1997) Plessy v. Ferguson (1986) L.M. v. Town of Middleborough (2023) www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
In this episode I discuss the much hated case of Plessy v Ferguson as I go through and explain how badly confused and misled people have been about the holy constitution and what it really says and means. If you like The Quash you can get a lot more and really learn how the system works. Just go over to patreon.com/theQuash and become a member. There are 100's of shows explaining the insanity you're in. Once you understand it you can never be fooled again. The Quash comes out on Sundays and AH episodes have more harsh language. You can follow me on Twitter I'm Legalman@UScrimeReview. You can read my stuff on thetruthaboutthelaw.com.
In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community. In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community. In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community. In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
In the United States, the stoicism and importance of the “working class” is part of the national myth. The term is often used to conjure the contributions and challenges of the white working class – and this obscures the ways in which Black workers built institutions like the railroads and universities – but also how they transformed unions, changed public policy, and established community. In Black Folk: The Roots of the Black Working Class (LIveright, 2023), Dr. Blair LM Kelley restores the Black working class to the center of the American story by interrogating the lives of laundresses, Pullman porters, domestic maids, and postal workers. The book is both a personal journey and a history of Black labor in the United States from enslavement to the present day with a focus on a critical era: after Southern Emancipation to the early 20th century, when the first generations of Black working people carved out a world for themselves. Dr. Kelley captures the character of the lives of Black workers not only as laborers, activists, or members of a class but as individuals whose daily experiences mattered – to themselves, to their communities, and to “the nation at large, even as it denied their importance.” As she weaves together rich oral histories, memoirs, photographs, and secondary sources, she shows how Black workers of all genders were “intertwined with the future of Black freedom, Black citizenship, and the establishment of civil rights for Black Americans.” She demonstrates how her own family's experiences mirrors this wider history of the Black working class – sometimes in ways that she herself did not realize before writing the book. Even as the book confronts violence, poor working conditions, and a government that often legislated to protect the interests of white workers and consumers, Black Folk celebrates the ways in which Black people “built and rebuilt vital spaces of resistance, grounded in the secrets that they knew about themselves, about their community, their dignity, and their survival.” Black Folk looks back but also forward. In examining the labor and challenges of individuals, Dr. Kelley sheds light on reparations and suggests that Amazon package processing centers, supermarkets, and nursing homes can be spaces of resistance and labor activism in the 21st century. Dr. Blair LM Kelley is the Joel R. Williamson Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and incoming director of the Center for the Study of the American South, the first Black woman to serve in that role in the center's thirty-year history. She is also the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson from the University of North Carolina Press. Dr. Kelley mentions Dr. Tera W. Hunter's To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women's Lives and Labors After the Civil War, Duke University's Behind the Veil oral history project, and Philip R. Rubio's There's Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
The Non-Prophets, Episode 22.29.2 featuring Cynthia McDonald, Aaron Jensen and Teo el AteoHow The End Of Affirmative Action Reroutes The Talent PipelineForbes, By Corinne Lestch, July 9, 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnelestch/2023/07/09/how-the-end-of-affirmative-action-reroutes-the-talent-pipeline/?sh=518ad1495886 Clarence Thomas Wins Long Game Against Affirmative Action Bloomberg Law, By Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, June 29, 2023,https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4073736-thomas-in-rare-occurrence-reads-affirmative-action-opinion-from-bench/ Supreme Court Decision https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf “In the decades since, I have repeatedly stated that Grutter was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Today, and despite a lengthy interregnum, the Constitution prevails,” - Justice Clarence Thomas.Recently the Supreme Court decided that affirmative action is no longer constitutional because it ruled that it violates the 14th Amendment which states that there should be no laws that restrict people based on color or their race.What had made the 14th amendment relevant was it's attempt to even the playing field among all constituents in the United States when it came to them being able to get employment and for them to be able to go to school but that is not what happened.Even though black people were citizens and paying taxes they did not have access to the same facilities as their white counterparts. Plessy vs Ferguson (a decision made in the 1800's) allowed schools to be funded separately.In most black neighborhoods, especially in the south, there were substandard school buildings, and children in the sixth and seventh grade that were provided books from second and third grade. Plessy was used to uphold Jim Crow and specifically segregation laws saying that separate but equal was okay.The modern Civil Rights Movement really started to take a new form after the death of Emmett Till. Black rights activists like Dr. King, Malcolm X, Philip Randolph, Ralph Abernathy, and James Baldwin were all a part of this movement.The Movement wasn't necessarily pushing for integration they were just pushing for equal facilities. One of the reasons being is when they started to integrate the schools black students faced violence from white mobs, white students, and parents who were vehemently trying to keep black students out.Ultimately, Thurgood Marshall argued before the US Supreme Court in the Brown vs the Board of Education case. The court overturned Plessy vs Ferguson by ruling against the Board of Education and Marshall later became the first black Justice on the court.This helped pave the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which allowed Affirmative action. Which required organizations to select people with more diverse backgrounds. It was not limited to black people, it helped any person that was considered a minority. The data has shown that white women have been one of the groups that happened to benefit greatly from affirmative action.Affirmative action has caused schools to make more of an attempt to recruit students who actually had the grades and merit but may not have gotten into a particular school like a Harvard because of their minority status. When the Court's decision was released, Justice Thomas took the unusual step of actually reading from his own concurring opinion. Something not typically done, but this has been a goal of his for decades. For a Justice who is known for saying nothing for years, it is not unlike him to take a victory lap.It's interesting to specifically question how Justices like Clarence Thomas really would want to go back to a colorblind Constitution when in actuality the Constitution was never colorblind.
In this week's episode, The New York Times gets literal with FIT to prints definition, a federal court ruling brings back sincerely held Plessy v Ferguson, and David Icke will explain the importance of getting off his lawn. --- To make a per episode donation at Patreon.com, click here: http://www.patreon.com/ScathingAtheist To buy our book, click here: https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Crisis-Religion-Ruined-Pandemic/dp/B08L2HSVS8/ If you see a news story you think we might be interested in, you can send it here: scathingnews@gmail.com To check out our sister show, The Skepticrat, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/the-skepticrat To check out our sister show's hot friend, God Awful Movies, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/god-awful-movies To check out our half-sister show, Citation Needed, click here: http://citationpod.com/ To check out our sister show's sister show, D and D minus, click here: https://danddminus.libsyn.com/ To hear more from our intrepid audio engineer Morgan Clarke, click here: https://www.morganclarkemusic.com/ --- Guest Links: Check out 2am Brainz here: https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/WANw4RD7vwb --- Headlines: NYTimes sucks Uri Geller's dick: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/business/uri-geller-magic-deep-fakes.html Ron DeSantis defends his bizarre anti-LGBTQ+ ad that made him a universal laughingstock: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/07/ron-desantis-defends-his-bizarre-anti-lgbtq-ad-that-made-him-a-universal-laughingstock/ Court rules making Amish people use a septic tank violates their religious freedom: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-court-amish-environment-septic-tanks-6c091f043d8825ecbad0657e7daa0b56 Methodists lose 1/5th of all their churches in LGBTQ acceptance-driven schism: https://apnews.com/article/united-methodist-churches-exit-lgbtq-clergy-marriage-fc83fd20ad003c6ecaac5ae60ddd5afd Michigan prisons ordered to allow faith group that believes in race separation: https://apnews.com/article/christian-identity-faith-whites-michigan-prisons-15c2cc42ebde63e0d514f25ea86ca574 Michigan school may close health center over “satanic” mural: https://friendlyatheist.substack.com/p/michigan-school-district-will-get
*****Watch on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v2xdg7m-bret-and-heather-180th-darkhorse-podcast-livestream.html*****In this 180th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of the world through an evolutionary lens.We begin by discussing Bret's 2021 conversation with RFK Jr., which DarkHorse released this week—why the delay, and what revelations are therein? Then we discuss adjuvants in killed virus vaccines, and whether the intentional awakening of the immune system with adjuvants may contribute to allergies. And we discuss affirmative action, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision this week, which found in a 6 – 3 decision that using race as a factor in college admissions is unlawful. Reviewing some of the relevant legal history—the ratification of the 14th Amendment (1868), Plessy v Ferguson (1896), Brown v Board of Education (1954), University of California v Bakke (1978), and Grutter v Bollinger (2003)—we then discuss the opinions put forth by both the majority and dissent in this case.*****Our sponsors:Biom: NOBS is a different, superior kind of toothpaste. Try it, you'll never go back. Go to www.betterbiom.com/darkhorse to get 15% off your first month supply, until July 17, 2023.American Hartford Gold: Get up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order. Call 866-828-1117 or text “DARKHORSE” to 998899.Seed: Start a new healthy habit today with Seed probiotics. Visit https://seed.com/darkhorse, and use code darkhorse, to get 25% off your first month of Seed's DS-01® Daily Synbiotic.*****Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://a.co/d/dunx3atCheck out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.orgHeather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comFind more from us on Bret's website (https://bretweinstein.net) or Heather's website (http://heatherheying.com).Become a member of the DarkHorse LiveStreams, and get access to an additional Q&A livestream every month. Join at Heather's Patreon.Like this content? Subscribe to the channel, like this video, follow us on twitter (@BretWeinstein, @HeatherEHeying), and consider helping us out by contributing to either of our Patreons or Bret's Paypal.Looking for clips from #DarkHorseLivestreams? Check out our other channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAWCKUrmvK5F_ynBY_CMlIATheme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.*****Q&A Link: https://rumble.com/v2xdh70-your-questions-answered-bret-and-heather-180th-darkhorse-podcast-livestream.htmlMentioned in this episode:Supreme Court Decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard / UNC, decided June 29, 2023: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-decision-on-race-based-admissions/0a725aaabb459074/full.pdfUC Regents v Bakke: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regents_of_the_university_of_california_v_bakke_(1978)Grutter v Bollinger: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/grutter_v_bollinger_(2003)Support the show
June 7, 1892. Homer Plessy is arrested for sitting in the “whites-only” compartment of a train, leading up to the landmark Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson which heralded an era of racist legislation in America.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
523. We talk to Diana M. Greenlee and Jenny Ellerbe about their book, Poverty: Revealing the Forgotten City. "The settlement of Poverty Point, occupied from about 1700 to 1100 BC and once the largest city in North America, stretches across 345 acres in northeastern Louisiana. The structural remains of this ancient site-its earthen mounds, semicircular ridges, and vacant plaza-intrigue visitors as a place of artistic inspiration as well as an archaeological puzzle. Poverty Point: Revealing the Forgotten City delves his enduring piece of Louisiana's cultural heritage through personal introspection and scientific exploration. With stunning black and white photography by Jenny Ellerbe and engrossing text by archaeologist Diana M. Greenlee, this imaginative and informative book explores in full Poverty Point's Late Archaic culture and its monumental achievements. This week in Louisiana history. May 18, 1896. LA. case of Plessy v. Ferguson, "seperate but equal." This week in New Orleans history. New Orleans' 4,000-seat Saenger Theatre opened on February 4, 1927 after three years of construction at a cost of $2.5 million. It was the flagship of Julian and Abe Saenger's theatre empire and is one of a few still in existance. Being New Orleans, a parade of thousands formed on Canal Street on opening night where the most expensive tickets could be had for 65 cents. For the cost of admission was a silent movie, stage play, and music by the Saenger Grand Orchestra. With an interior designed by architect Emile Weil it was an "atmospheric theatre" — 150 lights in the ceiling are arranged in the shape of constellations in the night sky surrounding an Italian Baroque courtyard. Special effects machines projected images of moving clouds, sunrises, and sunsets. This week in Louisiana. Visit Louisiana's Old State Capitol Website 100 North Blvd. Baton Rouge LA 70801 Admission: Free Hours 10:00 am - 4:00 pm Tuesday - Friday 9:00 am -3:00 pm Saturday Louisiana's Old State Capitol is a standing testament to the resiliency of our state and its people. Learn how this National Historic Landmark has withstood war, fire, abandonment and even a few fist fights. From the historic House Chamber where Louisiana succeeded from the Union in 1861 to the impeachment proceedings of Gov. Huey P. Long in the Senate Chamber, this old Statehouse has seen it all. Discover the importance of voting and what it means to be a good citizen throughout our various interactive exhibits, learn more about our colorful past governors and don't forget to look up to marvel at the breathtaking stained glass dome! Postcards from Louisiana. Listen on Google Play. Listen on Google Podcasts. Listen on Spotify. Listen on Stitcher. Listen on TuneIn. The Louisiana Anthology Home Page. Like us on Facebook.
In the wake of recent decisions, we revisit the great-granddaddy of Supreme Court injustices - Plessy vs. Ferguson. Dr. Peter Irons returns to break down this historic moral breakdown. GUEST Dr. Peter Irons WHITE MEN'S LAW: The Roots of Systemic Racism HOUSE BAND Jay Clanin roadrunnerproductions.net Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tonight on the Last Word: Rep. Jim Clyburn says his daughters convinced him to ask then-candidate Joe Biden to commit to putting a Black woman on the Supreme Court. Also, The New York Times reports Cassidy Hutchinson told the Jan. 6 Cmte. she faced pressure from Trump allies. And Justice Jackson is sworn into office on the bible owned by Justice Harlan, the sole dissenting justice in Plessy v. Ferguson. Rep. Jim Clyburn, Dr. Jennifer Clyburn Reed, Paul Butler, Jill Wine-Banks and Isabel Wilkerson join Lawrence O'Donnell.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
