Podcasts about stop woke act

We were thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to PEN America's Jeremy Young about what a second Trump administration holds in store for higher education. It was an informative—and sobering—conversation. Over the next four years, we should be prepared for a tsunami of ideologically-driven threats to academic freedom, campus free expression and the basic integrity of higher education. If you would rather read than listen, there is a transcript attached below. Show NotesPEN America's *Educational Censorship* page is a terrific resourceOn Christopher Rufo, see Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory,” New Yorker, June 18, 2021 and Michael Kruse, “DeSantis' Culture Warrior: ‘We Are Now Over the Walls,'” Politico, March 24, 2023. For Rufo's take on critical race theory, in his own words, see this YouTube video. Here is the full text of Executive Order 13950, which became the template for most of the anti-CRT (or “divisive concepts”) laws passed in red states. On the Stop WOKE Act, the marquee anti-CRT law signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, check out these two Banished episodes:The Sunshine State Descends into Darkness (Again)Will Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" Hold Up in Court?Jeffrey Sachs and Jeremy Young predict the future: “For Federal Censorship of Higher Ed, Here's What Could Happen in 2025” (PEN America, January 2, 2025)For more on the phenomenon of “jawboning,” see this page from FIRE and this page from the Knight First Amendment Institute On “anticipatory obedience,” see this excerpt from Timothy Snyder's 2017 book, On Tyranny On legislative challenges to campus DEI, see the Chronicle of Higher Education DEI Legislation Tracker. (We are quite skeptical of many conventional DEI efforts but state bans are a cure that is far worse than the disease )For a deeper dive on accreditation, see Eric Kelderman, “Trump's Vision for College Accreditation Could Shake Up the Sector” (Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 2024)On Title VI investigations by the Office of Civil Rights, see Zach Montague, “Campus Protest Investigations Hang Over Schools as New Academic Year Begins” (New York Times, October 5, 2024)Here is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Kenneth Stern, one of the definition's main authors, explains why he is concerned it is being used to promote campus censorshipOn the prospect of a much heftier endowment tax for the country's wealthiest institutions, see Phillip Levine, “How Trump Could Devastate Our Top Colleges' Finances” (Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2025). Levine addresses the normative question—should college endowments be taxed?—here. TranscriptJeff: So, we're looking forward to a second Trump administration.Jeremy: Are we looking forward to a second Trump administration?Amna: No…towards.Jeff: We are anticipating…I personally am dreading a second Trump administration.Amna: This is Banished and I'm Amna Khalid, along with my colleague Jeff Snyder. Jeff and I were delighted to have the chance to catch up with PEN America's Jeremy Young at the recent American Historical Association conference in New York City. He's one of the most informed and astute analysts of government driven censorship in higher education today. We started by asking him to tell us a little about PEN America.Jeremy: PEN America is a 102 year old organization that exists at the intersection of literature and human rights. It is one of 140 PEN centers around the world which are in a loose network of PEN Centers governed by PEN International. PEN America's mission is to celebrate literature and defend the freedoms that make it possible, of which two of the foremost are academic freedom and freedom of expression.Amna: And what's your specific role?Jeremy: I am the Director of State and Higher Education Policy at PEN America, which means that I oversee our Freedom to Learn program, which leads actions and responses to educational censorship legislation, largely from the state governments, but also from the federal government. Things like DEI bans, critical race theory restrictions, and various other types of restrictions on faculty governance and university autonomy.Amna: We're eager to hear your predictions on what the higher ed sector should be bracing for with the second Trump administration. But first, Jeremy, could you please remind us of the nature of the attacks against higher education during Trump 1.0?Jeremy: In the summer and fall of 2020, this really happened late in the first Trump administration, there was a national panic around critical race theory, and this was created by Chris Rufo and some others really as a response, a backlash, if you will, against the George Floyd protests, the Black Lives Matter movement, the popularity of the 1619 Project, and so on, this sort of moment of racial reckoning. And so Rufo and others (Rufo is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute) decided to use this term critical race theory, which of course is an academic term with a particular set of meanings but to, as he put it, decodify and recodify it, essentially weaponize it to mean things that weren't all that connected to the actual theory of critical race theory and were really just a sort of catchall for criticisms of DEI and other race-based pedagogies and ideas. And so Rufo was able to convince president Trump to issue an executive order 13950 called Race and Sex Stereotyping that laid out a list of nine divisive concepts which bore some passing resemblance to critical race theory, but really were vague, and general, and banned all sorts of practices related to race, gender, and identity, and ideas related to race, gender, and identity that were unclear and difficult to interpret. Originally, this was a restriction aimed solely at trainings in government agencies…the executive order never went into effect. It was stayed by a court and repealed on the first day of the Biden administration. But that language of the divisive concepts then began to appear in state legislatures aimed now squarely at education. At first, at K-12 institutions primarily, and over time, higher education became more and more of the target.In 2023, we started to see a shift toward sort of broad spectrum attacks on higher education, moving away from some of the direct speech restrictions of the critical race theory bans, in part because of court cases that had gone adversely for those restrictions, and instead restricting broad swaths of university governance, including DEI offices, the ability of a university to manage diversity work on its own as a sort of shared governance function, tenure restrictions on faculty governance, restrictions on curriculum, which I think are going to be very prominent in 2025.Amna: You mentioned backlash to the 2020 racial reckoning as a key factor driving the anti-CRT movement. Can you say something more about where this opposition to CRT and now DEI is coming from?Jeremy: I think that there are several causes that are inseparable from one another. I think there are people who actually do want to restrict those particular ideas on campus, who want to advance a sort of triumphalist Western canon narrative of America as the victor, and they're just very opposed to any discussions that paint the United States in any way that is not hyper-patriotic and perfect. There's absolutely some racism, some sexism, some, some discrimination, discriminatory bias that's involved.I also think that there is a real desire to simply crush university power that I think comes out of the educational realignment that we have seen over the last 10 years. Kamala Harris won college educated Americans by 14 points, and four years ago, Joe Biden won them by four, and prior to the 2016 election, there was essentially no difference between the parties, really, at any time in American history on the axis of college education. There is now a sense I think among some conservative forces that instead of the long-time conservative project of reforming universities, having more viewpoint diversity, think of the Koch Centers in various institutions. Instead they're a place where liberals go to get educated, so we should just crush them, right? So I think that's part of it. It's just the goal of taking away universities' autonomy on everything is a key component.And the third component is political gain. And that is the one that has fluctuated the most over this period. Glenn Youngkin won a come from behind victory running on criticizing critical race theory in K-12 schools. And Steve Bannon said in 2021, I think about critical race theory and I see 50 new House seats in the midterm elections. Now, when that didn't happen, I think it began to become clear that these attacks are not as salient as they were thought to be. I think in 2023 and 2024, there was a real move away from that, especially with, also with the collapse of the DeSantis presidential campaign, which was built entirely around this idea of him being, fighting the war on woke. There was a sense that, maybe you still want to do these things, but now it's going to be quiet, it's going to be stealth mode, because there's no political gain to be gotten from having a big press release around this, around the Stop WOKE Act. But the other two motivations, the motivation of restricting certain ideas about race; and the motivation of smashing the power of higher education, those have remained constant.Jeff: Very succinct and helpful. Thank you. You and your colleague Jeffrey Sachs recently wrote an informative and sobering piece about Trump's plans for higher ed in 2025 and beyond. Maybe you could tell us a little about your key predictions. The first one you mention is jawboning. What is jawboning and why should we be worried about it?Jeremy: Jawboning, put simply, is when government officials, instead of passing a law requiring someone who isn't a government official to do something, they simply browbeat or bully or threaten them into doing it. In some ways you can look at the congressional hearings as a form of jawbonings or making threats against presidents at Columbia and Harvard and so on. But the classic example is actually what we're seeing at the state level where lawmakers are simply going to university presidents and say, saying, okay, we're not going to pass a DEI ban or a curriculum restriction. We're going to simply request that you make one on your own or we'll cut your funding. Or we'll pass one next year that's worse than anything you could imagine. It's a very intimate form of censorship, right? It takes restrictions out of the legislative process where they can be challenged at a hearing; out of the judicial process where they can be challenged on constitutional grounds; and every single one of these bills has at least some constitutional infirmities. And instead makes it just a threat, right? We're gonna cut your budget. What are you gonna do about that? It's a very difficult position for presidents to be in because they don't have a lot of leverage.Jeff: I think it was Yale historian Timothy Snyder who coined the term anticipatory obedience.  He said it was a dynamic that's often seen under conditions of rising authoritarianism. So you've got individuals and groups that start to make concessions they think will appease the powers that be. Is there a connection here to jawboning?Jeremy: Yes, so we talk about over compliance and pre-compliance. We're not going to comply with the letter of the law, we're going to comply with the spirit of the law. There is a law in Alabama that passed in 2024 that restricts some elements of DEI, but does not actually ban outright the DEI offices. And every university in Alabama has treated it as though it is an outright ban. And that's significant, in particular, because of the nature of these laws. You know, you go look at a set of statutes in a state legislature or the federal government, what you'll notice is that most laws are very precise. Think about traffic laws. What are you allowed to do on the road? It's very specific. You can drive this many miles an hour this particular way. There's no room for interpretation. There's no room for judgment because the goal is to make you comply with the law. These laws are intentionally vague. They ban broad swaths of ideas which are never defined in the laws.What does it mean to say, for instance, one of the divisive concepts, to say that you're not allowed to say that the United States is fundamentally racist. What does that mean? It doesn't say in the law what that means. It's left up to your interpretation, which means whoever is going to enforce that law gets to decide whether you violate it. That is actually a constitutional violation. It's against the 14th Amendment. And while the courts have found all sorts of infirmities with these laws, that's the one they've found the most consistency. Not freedom of speech, not racial discrimination but vagueness. So over-complying with a vague law is, it's difficult to avoid because these laws lend themselves to over-compliance because they're so vague. But it's also vitally important to avoid doing that.The other thing that we see is pre-compliance, which is just imagining that the legislature is going to pass a law but then whether or not they do it. We intervened with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of the seven accrediting bodies because they were basically enacting what a restriction in Project 2025 that would have forbidden them to have a DEI standard for universities they accredit. And just doing it preemptively.It's not clear whether the education department is able to pass that restriction without legislation. And it's not clear whether legislation or the regulation would survive a court challenge. And they're just saying we'll just take it out. That's pre-compliance. You don't want to do that. And what we argued successfully, is that, again, even if you don't think an accreditor should have a DEI standard, we don't take a position on that. The worst time to get rid of your DEI standard is one month before a new administration that's promised to ban it tells you to. That's the moment when you put up your back and say, no, we're not going to comply with this.Jeff: Jeremy, tell us a little bit more about the new Trump administration's plans to disrupt the conventional work of accreditors.Jeremy: So higher education institutions are accredited by one of seven accrediting bodies, six of which have historically served certain regions, but now under new federal regulations the university can work with any of the seven accreditors. But they still tend to be concentrated in regions.Accreditation is really the only thing that separates a real substantive university from a diploma mill; and the way that accreditation is enforced, is that the Department of Education will only provide federal student financial aid, which 55 percent of all students receive, to schools that it recognizes as legitimate accreditors, which currently is those seven institutional accreditors. They are private or nonprofit organizations. They're run by academics. They have their pluses and minuses, but they are pretty much the guarantor of institutional quality in higher education. And if you look at Project 2025, everything that they say they want to do to higher education is focused on accreditation. They have identified these accreditors as the soft underbelly of higher education. And the simplest thing that they want to do and that they probably will at least try to do is to ban accreditors from having DEI standards, of which six of the seven currently do.But they really want to go further. What they really want to do is to undermine the system of accreditation itself by allowing any jurisdiction, any state, to either charter its own accreditor or serve as its own accreditor. So Ron DeSantis could become the accreditor for all universities in Florida. And now instead of those universities having DEI offices, he can say you cannot be accredited in the state of Florida unless you've banned DEI and basically instituted a classical curriculum, a Hillsdale style classical curriculum. It's a little more complicated than project 2025 makes it sound. Our analysis is that while they may attempt to do it through regulatory action, the process of negotiated rulemaking in the Department of Education is sufficiently complex that it would probably stop them from doing it and so that probably means that they need legislation to change the Higher Education Act, which would be subject to a filibuster.So this is something that we will be watching to see if they try to do it administratively. It may not be possible. And we'll also be watching if they try to slip it into one of those reconciliation bills that are being proposed that would be able to go through without a filibuster.Jeff: So that's how the accreditation system might be weaponized. You and Sacks also identify Title VI enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights as a key area of concern. Maybe we can break this down into its component parts. What is the Office of Civil Rights and what's Title VI?Jeremy: Sure. So the Office of Civil Rights is an office within the Department of Education that ensures that educational institutions meet the requirements of the various civil rights laws. It covers Title VI funding, which is funding that is tied to financial aid for universities, and it makes sure that institutions that are receiving federal financial aid are following these civil rights protections. It is an office does good work and we have a good relationship with the office.We have some concerns about the way that the Biden administration has been investigating and enforcing agreements with universities around antisemitism. We expect things to get far worse in the new administration. We expect that any university that has any sort of protest or any faculty member who expresses pro-Palestinian views is going to be investigated and sanctioned by the Office of Civil Rights. We expect they're going to launch lawsuits. They're going to really go after universities. So it is an office that is going to be used in some really aggressive ways to restrict speech on campus.Jeff: In terms of restricting speech, you and Sachs are especially worried about the trend on the part of colleges and universities, not to mention states and the federal government, to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Why is this so concerning to you both?Jeremy: So the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is a very interesting document. It starts with a description that is quite thoughtful and then it gives a list of examples of things that could be forms of antisemitism or could accompany antisemitism, and that list includes things like singling out the state of Israel for special criticism that other states are not singled out for that do engage in the same actions or just you know criticizing Zionism, things like that. Which in the context of what that definition was designed for yes, sometimes when you see those statements, it's worth perking your ears up and asking, is this accompanying antisemitism or not?What the laws are doing, and this comes from a model bill that the Goldwater Institute wrote in 2016, and it's now being suffused into all these federal and state policies, is to take those examples of possible antisemitism and change it from possible to definite antisemitism. So anytime you criticize the state of Israel, it's antisemitism. And then writing that into law, saying that universities have to treat this as any instance of this broad definition of antisemitism as hate speech or as a form of harassment. The author of that definition, Kenneth Stern has repeatedly said that it is not designed to be used in that way. In fact, he said it's unconstitutional to use it in that way. And yet that's what we're seeing. So that's the concern. It's not that you shouldn't have a definition of anti Semitism, although I will say our statutes tend not to define particular types of hate speech because it's too subjective, right? This is the reason that we have definitions like severe, pervasive, and targeted for harassment. You're looking at a pattern of behavior because each individual case is protected by free expression.Jeff: I understand that the Office of Civil Rights is currently conducting dozens of Title VI investigations stemming from campus protests over the war in Gaza. There are widespread allegations of antisemitism, many of which are accompanied by competing charges of Islamophobia. How do you think we should make sense of this?Jeremy: These are complex situations. Lots of universities are getting them wrong. Some universities are being overly censorious, some not enforcing harassment protections. And it's right and proper for OCR to investigate these things. The problem is that they are not always coming up with the right findings. That they're not always protecting free expression, balancing free expression adequately with the need to protect students from harassment. We're seeing universities implement draconian time, place and manner restrictions on speech. So just the fact that OCR and the Congress are making all these threatening noises about restricting speech leads a lot of universities to do the censor's work for them.Amna: Jeremy mentioned one other thing the new Trump administration has made ramblings about, which is ramping up the endowment tax on the country's wealthiest institutions. Please see an informative Chronicle of Higher Education article by Philip Levine, linked in the show notes.What all these attacks or interventions, depending on your point of view, have in common, is that they seek to undermine the autonomy of colleges and universities. Here's Jeremy.Jeremy: University autonomy is not a principle that is very widely understood in the United States. It's much more common in Europe where there's an autonomy index and all sorts of things as a way of protecting academic freedom. But it's a vital component of academic freedom. We think about academic freedom in the U.S. primarily as being the freedom of an individual faculty member to speak their mind or to engage in their research or teaching. But, in reality, that freedom can only be protected so long as the people overseeing it, the university administration, are free from the ideological control of the government. The key here is ideological control. We aren't saying that the government doesn't have a budgetary responsibility to oversee the university, or that there isn't a role for the government in community relations, or student success, or access and completion, or any of these things. But when it comes to ideas, what ideas can be present on a campus, whether it's in the classroom, whether it's in a DEI office, anywhere on campus, that is not the government's business, and it cannot be the government's business, or ultimately everyone on campus is simply going to be currying favor with whatever political party is in charge.Amna: Jeremy, this has been wonderful and you've been so kind to give us so much time. Thank you.Jeff: Thank you. It's an absolute pleasure.Amna: That was our conversation with Jeremy Young of PEN America on what Trump 2.0 portends for higher education. As of yesterday, Trump's second term has officially begun. Keep your eyes peeled and ears tuned for what's to come next. If you liked what you heard today, be sure to help us spread the word about Banished, and don't forget to comment and rate this show.Once again, this is Banished, and I'm Amna Khalid, along with Jeff Snyder. Until next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Exploring Academic Censorship and Its Impact on Free Speech in Universities This episode of Changing Higher Ed® podcast features Dr. Jeremy Young of PEN America, discussing the organization's efforts to combat censorship in higher education. PEN America's "Freedom to Learn" program actively opposes state legislative attempts to restrict academic freedom and free speech on college campuses. The interview highlights concerning trends like "educational gag orders," "jawboning," and DEI bans in various states, emphasizing the threat these actions pose to intellectual discourse and institutional autonomy. Young advocates for universities to prioritize protecting free expression, even amidst political pressure, suggesting strategic approaches for presidents and boards to navigate these challenges. The discussion also covers PEN America's annual report, "America's Censored Classrooms 2024," which tracks these legislative trends. Podcast Overview PEN America's Mission and Background PEN America is a 100-year-old organization focused on defending the freedoms of writers, including academic freedom and freedom of expression. Originally stood for Poets, Essayists, and Novelists but now just "PEN" to be more inclusive of all writers. PEN International has over 140 PEN centers worldwide. PEN America's activities include awards, literary festivals, global writer protection, advocacy against book bans, free speech advocacy, and higher ed advocacy (Freedom to Learn program). PEN America is described as "center-left," maintaining relationships with organizations across the political spectrum. The Threat to Academic Freedom and Free Speech There's a growing movement to constrict the space of ideas available to students on college campuses. The argument often made is that universities lean left, and the solution is to limit existing voices, not to add more conservative perspectives. This trend manifests in attempts to ban courses, curricula, and harass administrators. The "solution to speech is more speech," and increased voices are beneficial. Book Banning and the Underlying Agenda Book banning often involves claims of obscenity but is ultimately an attempt to constrain ideas, not to protect children from inappropriate material. Analysis of banned books reveals they disproportionately feature minoritized identities, including LGBTQ, race, and sexual violence. Those who want to ban these books view them as encouraging those types of identities. PEN believes people need to see themselves reflected in books and that banning them is an attempt to cut off viewpoints for students. "America's Censored Classrooms 2024" Report An annual report tracking legislation that censors colleges and universities. Tracks "educational gag orders" that censor topics/ideas and restrictions on university autonomy (DEI offices, curriculum, accreditation standards, tenure, governance). Focuses on trends in proposed and passed legislation and predictions for the future. Jawboning as a Form of Censorship Jawboning refers to lawmakers threatening or bullying university presidents into actions they want without passing laws. This includes pressuring universities to close DEI offices or eliminate certain programs. It is a stealthy approach as there are no democratic elements, no hearings for public comment, and no laws in place to challenge. It creates a difficult situation for presidents who have limited leverage and no recourse. Congressional hearings on antisemitism have become another form of jawboning intended to intimidate university presidents and make political points. The goal often isn't to address the issue at hand but to exploit them for political gain. Florida as a Case Study in Censorship Florida is cited as "Armageddon for higher education." The state passed the "Stop Woke Act," which is a direct restriction of faculty speech. SB 266 banned DEI and placed significant restrictions on curriculum, causing numerous course eliminations. The University of North Florida removed its interfaith center due to thinking it was a DEI program. The governor replaced the board of New College of Florida with conservative figures who dramatically altered the curriculum and mission. PEN America has opened a permanent office in Florida to respond to these threats. DEI Bans in Higher Education and Their Impacts DEI bans result in the closing of cultural centers, women's centers, and multicultural centers. Staff are often reassigned or laid off in states that pass bans. Iowa has passed the most draconian ban, including a ban on developing any programming "with reference to race." It restricts universities from opining on 16 topics related to race, gender, and identity or any related topics. Universities can't even discuss bias, including the term. Extremist Attacks on Accreditors Project 2025 has a plan to weaponize accreditation, forcing accreditors to remove any reference to DEI. The government is threatening to censor ideas by forcing this change in standards. WASC considered preemptively removing DEI language but backed off after pushback. PEN America is not concerned with DEI standards themselves but with government censorship of those standards. The Impact of Censorship Laws It takes years to reverse censorship laws, even if they are ultimately deemed unconstitutional. Once laws are put into place, universities have to comply until they are challenged. This can lead to the loss of programs, funding, and staff for years. The "Stop Woke Act" was ruled on in four and a half months, which was exceptionally fast. Institutional Neutrality and University Leadership Presidents are scared, and there are laws banning them from commenting on anything. Institutional neutrality is a good principle, but the judgment of what concerns the university's mission must be made internally. The government is inserting its judgment over the judgment of the people who are running the institution. Academic freedom is not possible if the leaders are under the direct ideological thumb of the government. University Presidents' Responses and Strategies: Managing Laws and Defending Ideological Independence Many presidents are doing the wrong thing, unilaterally disarming by preemptively closing DEI programs. It is a strategy that is ineffective when they are dealing with a national campaign, not local lawmakers. Presidents should be prudent about public statements but strategically defend the university's ideological independence. They should embrace cooperation with lawmakers on non-ideological issues (budgets, safety, etc.), but not on controlling ideas. Presidents need to use their limited leverage to protect the independence of the university. Faculty's Role in Protecting Free Speech Universities sometimes fail to share their strategies with faculty and restrict the faculty from expressing viewpoints that could help the institution. Faculty can be more outspoken than institutions, and using the "I'm not speaking for the university" disclaimer can be helpful. Universities should not comment on current events unless they directly affect the institution. Universities should not silence alternative viewpoints. Leaders should avoid inserting themselves in debates where there is no role for them. Free Expression and Institutional Mission Universities must welcome all viewpoints to allow for robust debate. This allows the university to state whether a view aligns with the values of the institution. They must defend the right for all to speak, but they must be able to freely express their own views on the matter. There is no constitutional exception for hate speech, only incitement to violence. Champions of Higher Education PEN America has created the Champions of Higher Education, which is a group of over 300 former college presidents who speak out against these laws and attacks. It is important to protect all kinds of speech on campus, as well as to maintain a safe campus environment. Four Takeaways for University Presidents and Boards "Don't do the censors work for them." "Don't comply in advance." "Promote the values of free expression, no matter what is happening in the country." Train all members of the university community in how free expression works. Final Thoughts Dr. Young's insights highlight the serious and growing threats to academic freedom in the U.S. The interview reveals the complex strategies used by those attempting to censor higher education, the challenges faced by university leaders, and the importance of actively defending free expression. PEN America's work is presented as a crucial effort to protect the fundamental principles of higher education as a place for diverse viewpoints and robust debate. Read the transcript on our website: https://changinghighered.com/censorship-in-higher-education-a-pen-america-perspective/ #HigherEducation #Censorship #Project2025   About Our Guest Jeremy C. Young is the Freedom to Learn Program Director at PEN America, where he leads efforts to fight government censorship in higher education institutions. He directs PEN America's work on educational gag orders, the Champions of Higher Education initiative, and an expanding network of coalitions to mobilize support for professors and teachers. A former history professor, Young holds a Ph.D. in U.S. history from Indiana University and is the author of The Age of Charisma: Leaders, Followers, and Emotions in American Society, 1870-1940 (Cambridge University Press, 2017).   About the Host Dr. Drumm McNaughton is the founder, CEO, and Principal Consultant at The Change Leader, Inc. A highly sought-after higher education consultant with 20+ years of experience, Dr. McNaughton works with leadership, management, and boards of both U.S. and international institutions. His expertise spans key areas, including accreditation, governance, strategic planning, presidential onboarding, mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances. Dr. McNaughton's approach combines a holistic methodology with a deep understanding of the contemporary and evolving challenges facing higher education institutions worldwide to ensure his clients succeed in their mission.  

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. 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 this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Madison's Notes, we're joined by Professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder for a thought-provoking discussion on the state of free speech in today's polarized climate. We explore the role of the university as a space for critical inquiry, the challenges to academic freedom, and the growing tensions between open discourse and political pressures. Professors Khalid and Snyder share their perspectives on the biggest threats to free speech today, offering insight into how institutions of higher learning can navigate these complex issues while remaining true to their educational mission. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of free expression, education, and the broader societal forces shaping our public discourse. Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the department of History at Carleton College. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Khalid is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. She completed a Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences and earned both an MPhil in Development Studies and a DPhil in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, Khalid has a strong interest in issues relating to free expression. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Jeff Snyder is an Associate Professor in the department of Educational Studies at Carleton College. He is a historian of education, whose work examines questions about race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. Snyder is the author of the book, Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. He holds a BA from Carleton, an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a PhD in the History of Education from New York University. Before pursuing graduate studies, Snyder taught English to Speakers of Other Languages in the Czech Republic, France, China, India, Nepal and the United States. Khalid and Snyder speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities across the country. They write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. During the 2022/23 academic year, Khalid and Snyder were fellows with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. Their research focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative “culture wars” movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews they conducted with Florida faculty members, Khalid and Snyder submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Who controls what is taught in American universities — professors or politicians?” Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this timely question and more in his new book, “You Can't Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.” He joins the podcast to discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a “weaponization” of intellectual diversity. Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittington's teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law. Read the transcript. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:00 The genesis of Yale's Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech 04:42 The inspiration behind “You Can't Teach That!” 06:18 The First Amendment and academic freedom 09:29 Extramural speech and the public sphere 17:56 Intramural speech and its complexities 23:13 Florida's Stop WOKE Act 26:34 Distinctive features of K-12 education 31:13 University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax 39:02 University of Kansas professor Phillip Lowcock 43:42 Muhlenberg College professor Maura Finkelstein 47:01 University of Wisconsin La-Crosse professor Joe Gow 54:47 Northwestern professor Arthur Butz 57:52 Inconsistent applications of university policies 01:02:23 Weaponization of “intellectual diversity” 01:05:53 Outro Show notes: “Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech” Keith Whittington (2019) “You Can't Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classrooms” Keith Whittington (2023) AAUP Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1915) AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940) “Kinsey” (2004) Stop WOKE Act, HB 7. (Fla. 2022) Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) Indiana intellectual diversity law, S.E.A. 354 (Ind. 2022) “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” (1969)

War on wokeness: the year the right rallied around a made-up menacethe Guardian, By Michael Harriot, on December 21, 2022https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/20/anti-woke-race-america-historyThe discussion opens with a focus on the "war on woke," examining whether it's a real issue or just a political creation. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' rhetoric against the so-called "woke mob" is dissected, revealing how this term has been twisted into a tool for political gain, especially on the right. The anti-woke movement is viewed as a deliberate attempt to stoke fear, promote white grievance, and maintain social hierarchies, distracting from the real issues of systemic racism and inequality. The discussion points out how the right often co-opts the term "woke," turning it into a negative caricature of social awareness.Cynthia dives deeper, illustrating how anti-woke legislation like DeSantis' "Stop Woke Act" seeks to whitewash history, curb critical conversations about race, and protect the status quo. She draws parallels to historical backlash, showing how every civil rights advancement has been met with resistance—just as the election of the first Black president was followed by a rise in right-wing backlash. Cynthia criticizes the manipulation of language, pointing out that what was once a movement for awareness and empathy has been weaponized into a boogeyman used to scare people into supporting conservative causes.Further into the conversation, a clear distinction is made between legitimate criticism and personal insults. The group notes how political violence is often misrepresented by both sides of the debate. The labeling of leaders like Trump as fascists, for example, is seen as a factual observation based on behavior rather than an insult. The need for more nuanced discussions on television and in the public sphere is stressed, as simplifying or "both-siding" these issues leads to confusion.Cynthia and Cindy explore the complex dynamics of political labeling and the use of terms like fascism, socialism, and communism, suggesting that many people misuse or misunderstand them. They stress that it's crucial to challenge harmful ideas, not just to insult individuals. This type of critical thinking, they argue, is essential for societal progress. Cynthia concludes by emphasizing the importance of intellectual honesty and the need for honest debates free of strawman arguments or misleading narratives.The conversation wraps up by reflecting on how the U.S. is viewed on the world stage, suggesting that current events are tarnishing its reputation. There is a shared frustration over the close political races and the growing divide between reality and rhetoric in public discourse.The Non-Prophets, Episode 23.42.3 featuring Kelley Laughlin, Jonathan Roudabush, Cindy Plaza and Cynthia McDonaldBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.

How does political intervention shape the landscape of higher education? Today, our guest is Keith Whittington, Ph.D, David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School and director of the Center for Academic Freedom. In this episode, host John Tomasi and Keith Whittington discuss the increasingly contentious legislative interventions in higher education, beginning with Florida's "Stop Woke Act." Whittington compares today's interventions to past efforts, discussing implications for academic freedom, First Amendment rights, and university regulation.Whittington shares his experiences and the work of the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), emphasizing the importance of defending speech rights in academia. The episode also examines legislative trends, government control in public vs. private education, and challenges arising from modern technology and increased visibility of academic speech. Join us for some insights into the critical intersection of politics, law, and academia, emphasizing the necessity for open discourse and viewpoint diversity on university campuses. In This Episode:Whittington's new book, "You Can't Teach That"The mission and efforts of the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA)An overview of Florida's "Stop Woke Act" and its implicationsHistorical legislative interventions in educationThe role of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the evolution of academic freedomFirst Amendment challenges related to classroom speech at public and private institutionsThe impact of political and ideological trends on higher education About Keith:Keith E. Whittington, Ph.D, is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittington's teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law. He is the author of You Can't Teach That! The Battle Over University Classrooms (2024), Repugnant Laws: Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present (2019), and Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech (2018), as well as Constitutional Interpretation (1999), Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy (2007), and other works on constitutional theory and law and politics.Whittington serves as Founding Chair of the Academic Freedom Alliance's Academic Committee and as a Hoover Institution Visiting Fellow. He has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, an American Council of Learned Societies Junior Faculty Fellow, a National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement Fellow, and a Visiting Scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. A member of the American Academy of the Arts and Sciences, Whittington served on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.  Check out Keith's new book: You Can't Teach That!Follow Keith on X: https://x.com/kewhittingtonFind out more about the American Association of University ProfessorsFind out more about the Academic Freedom Alliance Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

Part 1:We speak with Curt Cardine, who is part of the Grand Canyon Institute.We discuss the inherent racism and calsscism of school vouchers. Specifically, we talk about how vouchers are used in Arizona, and the wasted money and poor results there.Part 2:Race Class, with Professor Jonathan Feingold.of Boston University.#RaceClass Ep. 33:Even a Trump Judge Agrees that Anti-CRT Laws Dont Ban CRTA federal judge recently upheld most of Oklahomas HB 1775, a law that many thought banned Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the state. This might sound like a win for proponents of discriminatory censorship. Its not. The ruling delivered an ironic twist: Judge Charles Goodwin" a Trump appointee" clarified that HB 1775 permits teaching about race, racism, and related concepts like implicit bias or institutional racism. Judge Goodwin's analysis exposes a significant gap between the law's scope and the partisan rhetoric and public understanding surrounding it. Albeit limited to Oklahoma, the ruling implicates similar "anti-CRT" laws across the country, challenging the narrative that laws like Florida's Stop WOKE Act prohibit meaningful conversations about racism in school. As stakeholders fight back and courts continue to weigh in, this decision could signal a major shift in the fight against discriminatory censorship in American classrooms.Jonathan FeingoldAssociate Professor of LawBoston University School of Lawjfeingol@bu.edu|#RaceClass Podcast|research

What is the real purpose of a university—truth-seeking or molding active citizens? Are university campuses becoming echo chambers, leading to self-censorship among not just conservatives but liberals too?Today's guest is Amna Khalid, an esteemed Associate Professor of History at Carleton College and a prominent voice within the Heterodox Academy (HxA) community. Together, John Tomasi and Amna explore this multifaceted question. They discuss the evolving role of universities, the interplay of critical inquiry and citizenship, and the impact of neoliberal trends on campus culture.Amna brings a wealth of experience and academic insight. She shares her perspectives on the necessity of preserving higher education's autonomy while addressing present-day challenges, such as campus speech restrictions and the contentious implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In This Episode:The dual mission of universities: critical inquiry and citizenshipCampus speech restrictions and the self-censorship challengeThe impact of neoliberalism on diversity initiatives in higher educationStudent entitlement and the consumerist mindset in academiaThe essential role of academic expertise in shaping educational experiencesLegislative interference and academic freedomThe need for balanced, viewpoint-neutral reforms in higher educationCase examples highlighting challenges faced by faculty and institutions Follow Amna on X here: https://x.com/AmnaUncensored About Amna:Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Amna is the author of multiple book chapters on the history of public health in nineteenth-century India, with an emphasis on the connections between Hindu pilgrimages and the spread of epidemics. Born in Pakistan, Amna completed her Bachelor's Degree at Lahore University of Management Sciences. She went on to earn an M.Phil. in Development Studies and a D.Phil. in History from Oxford University. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships, Amna has a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks frequently on academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities as well as at professional conferences. Her essays and commentaries on these same issues have appeared in outlets such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Conversation, Inside Higher Ed and the New Republic. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called "Banished," which explores censorship in the past and present. Amna was a Fellow at the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement during the 2022-2023 academic-year, along with her Carleton colleague Jeff Snyder​. They focused on threats to academic freedom in Florida, the state at the epicenter of the conservative movement to encourage state intervention in public school classrooms. Based on interviews Khalid and Snyder conducted with Florida faculty members, they submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging the Stop WOKE Act. Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

This week, we're looking at recent state-level changes and legal trends that have varying degrees of impact on employers. Massachusetts Pay Equity Law Massachusetts is the most recent state to enact a pay equity law. The law establishes new pay range disclosure requirements for employers that employ 25 or more employees in Massachusetts. Illinois Amends BIPA Illinois' new law limits penalties under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and clarifies consent procedures. Employers can now be held liable only for a single violation per person rather than for each alleged use of biometric data. Michigan Supreme Court Reinstates Wage and Leave Laws In Michigan, employers will have to reckon with a new decision from the state's Supreme Court that reinstated two laws that were created through a public initiative. One law provides for annual increases to the minimum wage and a gradual elimination of a wage differential for tipped workers, while the other expands paid sick leave obligations.  Federal Courts Strike Down Controversial Florida Laws In Florida, a federal district court judge permanently blocked the state's Stop WOKE Act, which restricted workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion training. And a different federal judge in Florida overturned the state's ban on transgender health care. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw356 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

The acting director of the Secret Service is expected to give more details about the security failures that led to the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. People have been protesting on the streets after Venezuela's controversial election results. The US is advising people not to travel to parts of Lebanon as the threat of an Israeli strike looms. Simone Biles is hoping to add another gold medal to her collection at the women's team gymnastics final at the Paris Olympics. Plus, a federal judge has permanently blocked part of Florida's "Stop WOKE Act." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NewsRadio WFLA Anchor Chris Trenkmann joins Ryan Gorman and Dana McKay with Today's Top Stories - Forecasters are watching a system in the Atlantic that now has a 50% chance of developing into a storm, judge officially overturns Florida's 'Stop WOKE Act', Rays make more changes, and Kamala Harris raises $200 million in first week of campaign.

First Amendment: Does Florida's "Stop Woke Act" encroach upon academic freedom in a way that violates the First Amendment? - Argued: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:18:13 EDT

LeRoy Pernell, et al. v. Brian Lamb, et al. (consolidated with Adriana Novoa, et al. v. Commissioner of the Florida State Board of Education, et al.), argued before Judges Charles R. Wilson, Britt C. Grant, and Barbara Lagoa in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 14, 2024. Argued by Charles Cooper (on behalf of Brian Lamb, et al.) and Leah Watson (on behalf of Appellees LeRoy Pernell, et al.) and Greg Greubel (on behalf of Appellees Adriana Novoa, et al.). Issues Presented, from the Brief of Defendants-Appellants: (1) Whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to each provision of Florida's Individual Freedom Act that regulates public universities; (2) Whether the Act's regulation of in-class instruction by public employees triggers First Amendment scrutiny; (3) Whether the Act is sufficiently tailored to advance the State's compelling interest in preventing invidious discrimination by public employees at public universities; (4) Whether the challenged provisions of the Act are unconstitutionally vague; (5) Whether any unconstitutional provisions are severable from the remainder of the Act; and (6) Whether equitable factors favor reversal of the district court's preliminary injunction. Resources: CourtListener case docket for LeRoy Pernell v. Commissioner of the FL State Board of Education (pre-consolidation name of one of the constituent cases) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Mr. A is back and today, he's heated about a recent lawsuit involving Starbucks and Florida's controversial "Stop WOKE Act." We explore the motivations behind the lawsuit, its implications for corporate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) training, and the political strategies at play.  

Diversity equity and inclusion: Sounds like a good thing in an incredibly diverse country such as ours, especially when teaching young people at American colleges and universities.But the DEI industry - or DEI Inc. — has arguably gone off the rails. There's a big difference between the intentions behind a lot of diversity training and the results. We learn about the crucial difference between training and education, and hear the case against the Stop WOKE Act in Florida.History professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder share their deep concerns about a growing industry. There is no reliable evidence that diversity, equity and inclusion training sessions at colleges, non-profits, and large corporations actually work. In many places, DEI could be making things worse, imposing an ideological litmus test and encouraging cynicism and dishonesty at places of learning.Amna specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, she has a strong interest in issues relating to free speech.Jeff is also a Professor at Carleton: A historian of education, who studies questions of race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. He's the author of Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow.  Jeff and Amna released this YouTube video about DEI. They speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities. They also write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and TheWashington Post. Amna hosts a podcast and blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Additional InformationThe Democracy Group listener surveyHow Do We Fix It? PodcastMore shows from The Democracy Group

We recently appeared on "How Do We Fix It?", a wonderful podcast in search of constructive and practical ideas to address the many problems that plague our age. We had a fantastic time talking to the hosts Richard Davies and Jim Meigs about free speech, academic freedom and campus politics. We discussed DEI, Inc.—what the term means and why we think it's useful. And we argued that an ascendant discourse of harm is at the heart of today's threats to campus free expression, from the chilling effects of many DEI initiatives to the even chillier effects of anti-CRT legislation like Florida's Stop WOKE Act. Thank you to Richard and Jim for giving us their permission to post our discussion on Banished. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

In episode 141, Coffey talks with Catherine Clifton about recent news about sexual harassment, discrimination, and what's next for DEI programs.They discuss employer lessons to be learned from California's Sunshine Raisin $2 million sexual harassment lawsuit; Florida's Stop Woke Act; two “reverse discrimination” cases; and the shift away from “diversity” to “inclusion.”Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP141 and include the following topics:- Sunshine Raisin / National Raisin to Pay $2 Million in EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit- Stop Woke Act Stopped by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals…For Now- DEI Under Scrutiny, Part VIII: Eleventh Circuit Strikes Down Florida Ban On Workplace DEI Training Under First Amendment- 4th Circuit backs $3.4 mln award in white ex-hospital exec's bias case- DEI Task Force Update (March 13, 2024)- Does DEI training create a hostile work environment?- The shifting language around DE&I isn't just about politics- Episode 118: Evidence Based Inclusion with Dr. Jonathan Ashong-Lamptey- C+: Employers given 'less favourable' score on LGBTQ+ inclusion effortsGood Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for three-quarters of a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Catherine has more than 20 years of experience specializing in employment law in Texas. She worked with multiple local governmental entities as an employment law attorney and also served as a legal advisor for public safety. She spent several years as an administrative services director, where she was responsible for Human Resources, Risk Management, and Payroll. She has advised clients on recruitment, selection, discipline, wage and hour, policies, and grievance matters, including federal and state laws related to labor and employment. Catherine also has experience with general municipal law, utility matters, public information, open meetings, and general governance matters. Catherine is a graduate of Southwestern University, obtained her JD from Texas Tech University. She is certified as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR). She joined Ross | Gannaway | Clifton, PLLC in 2022.Catherine Clifton can be reached at:www.RossGannaway.lawhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/rossgannawayclifton/About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, human resources professional, licensed private investigator, and HR consultant.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations firm helping risk-averse companies make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Today, Imperative serves hundreds of businesses across the US and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence and has twice been named HR Professional of the Year. Additionally, Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and volunteers with the SHRM Texas State Council.Mike maintains his certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute. He is also a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP).Mike lives in Fort Worth with his very patient wife. He practices yoga and maintains a keto diet, about both of which he will gladly tell you way more than you want to know.Learning Objectives:1. Evaluate the effectiveness of discrimination and sexual harassment policies.2. Analyze the complexities of “reverse” discrimination and its implications.3. Explore strategies for fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion in recruitment practices.

Diversity equity and inclusion: Sounds like a good thing in an incredibly diverse country such as ours, especially when teaching young people at American colleges and universities.But the DEI industry - or DEI Inc. — has arguably gone off the rails. There's a big difference between the intentions behind a lot of diversity training and the results. We learn about the crucial difference between training and education, and hear the case against the Stop WOKE Act in Florida.History professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder share their deep concerns about a growing industry. There is no reliable evidence that diversity, equity and inclusion training sessions at colleges, non-profits, and large corporations actually work. In many places, DEI could be making things worse, imposing an ideological litmus test and encouraging cynicism and dishonesty at places of learning.Amna specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, she has a strong interest in issues relating to free speech.Jeff is also a Professor at Carleton: A historian of education, who studies questions of race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. He's the author of Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow. Jeff and Amna released this YouTube video about DEI. They speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities. They also write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. Amna hosts a podcast and blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. Recommendation: Richard has been watching "Nada" on Hulu, a gentle and funny TV series from Argentina about a food critic in Buenos Aires and his observations on life and eating. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trump calls for a bloodbath, appeals court blocks Floridian 'Stop Woke Act', U.S. government scrambles for control of TikTok, and Regina King opens up about her son's death by suicide. NewsIn Ohio campaign rally, Trump says there will be a "bloodbath" if he loses November electionRegina King Opens Up About Son's Death: “He Didn't Want to Be Here”Appeals court blocks Fla. ‘Stop Woke Act,' says it's a ‘First Amendment sin'Former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin says he's putting together investor group to buy TikTok Follow Pod Save the People on Instagram.

There was so much to talk about—this is the longest Ground Truths podcast yet. Hope you'll find it as thought-provoking as I did!Transcript, with audio and external links, edited by Jessica Nguyen, Producer for Ground TruthsVideo and audio tech support by Sinjun Balabanoff, Scripps ResearchEric Topol (00:00:05):This is Eric Topol from Ground Truths, and I am delighted to have with me Holden Thorp, who is the Editor-in-Chief of the Science journals. We're going to talk about Science, not just the magazine journal, but also science in general. This is especially appropriate today because Holden was just recognized by STAT as one of the leaders for 2024 because of his extraordinary efforts to promote science integrity, so welcome Holden.Holden Thorp (00:00:36):Thanks Eric, and if I remember correctly, you were recognized by STAT in 2022, so it's an honor to join a group that you're in anytime, that's for sure, and great to be on here with you.Eric Topol (00:00:47):Well, that's really kind to you. Let's start off, I think with the journal, because I know that consumes a lot of your efforts and you have five journals within science.Holden Thorp (00:01:02):Oh, we have six.Eric Topol (00:01:03):Oh six, I'm sorry, six. There's Science, the original, and then five others. Can you tell us what it's like to oversee all these journals?Overseeing the Science JournalsHolden Thorp (00:01:16):Yeah, we're a relatively small family compared to our commercial competitors. I know you had Magdalena [Skipper]on and Nature has I think almost ninety journals, so six is pretty small. In addition to Science, which most people are familiar with, we have Science Advances, which also covers all areas of science and is larger and is a gold open access journal and also is overseen by academic editors, not professional editors. All of our other journals are overseen by professional editors. And then the other four are relatively small and specialized areas, and probably people who listen to you and follow you would know about Science Translational Medicine, Science Immunology, Science Signaling and then we also have a journal, Science Robotics which is something I knew nothing about and I learned a lot. I've learned a lot about robotics and the culture of people who work there interacting with them.Holden Thorp (00:02:22):So we have a relatively small family. There's only 160 people who work for me, which is manageable. I mean that sounds like a lot, but in my previous jobs I was a provost and a chancellor, and I had tens of thousands of people, so it's really fun for me to have a group where I at least have met everybody who works for me. We're an outstanding set of journals, so we attract an outstanding group of professionals who do all the things that are involved in all this, and it's really, really fun to work with them. At Science, we don't just do research papers, although that's a big, and probably for your listeners the biggest part of what we do. But we also have a news and commentary section and the news section is 30 full-time and many freelancers around the world really running the biggest general news operation for science that there is. And then in the commentary section, which you're a regular contributor for us in expert voices, we attempt to be the best place in the world for scientists to talk to each other. All three of those missions are just really, really fun for me. It's the best job I've ever had, and it's one I hope to do for many years into the future.Eric Topol (00:03:55):Well, it's extraordinary because in the four and a half years I think it's been since you took the helm, you've changed the face of Science in many ways. Of course, I think the other distinction from the Nature Journals is that it's a nonprofit entity, which shows it isn't like you're trying to proliferate to all sorts of added journals, but in addition, what you've done, at least the science advisor and the science news and all these things that come out on a daily basis is quite extraordinary as we saw throughout the pandemic. I mean, just reporting that was unparalleled from, as you say, all points around the world about really critically relevant topics. Obviously it extends well beyond the concerns of the pandemic. It has a lot of different functions, but what I think you have done two major things, Holden. One is you medicalized it to some extent.Eric Topol (00:04:55):A lot of people saw the journal, particularly Science per se, as a truly basic science journal. Not so much applied in a medical sphere, but these days there's more and more that would be particularly relevant to the practice of medicine, so that's one thing. And the other thing I wanted you to comment on is you're not afraid to speak out and as opposed to many other prior editors who I followed throughout my career at Science, there were pretty much the politically correct type and they weren't going to really express themselves, which you are particularly not afraid of. Maybe you could comment about if you do perceive this medicalization of science to some extent, and also your sense of being able to express yourself freely.Capturing the Breakthroughs in Structural BiologyHolden Thorp (00:05:48):Yeah, well, you're kind to say both of those things are certainly things we have worked at. I mean, I do come from a background, even though I'm trained as a chemist, most of what I did towards the latter end of my career, I mean, I did very basic biochemistry when I was a researcher, but the last part of my research career I worked in on development of a drug called Vivjoa, which is an alternative to the fluconazole family that doesn't have the same toxicity and is currently on the market for chronic yeast infection and hopefully some other things in the future when we can get some more clinical trials done.Holden Thorp (00:06:35):And I've hung around biotech startups and drug development, so it is part of the business that I knew. I think the pandemic really gave us an opening because Valda Vinson, who's now the Executive Editor and runs all of life sciences for us and policies for the journal, she was so well known in structural biology that most of the first important structures in Covid, including the spike protein, all came to us. I mean, I remember crystal clear February of 2020, she came in my office and she said, I got the structure of the spike protein. And I said, great, what's the spike protein? Turned out later became the most famous protein in the world, at least temporarily. Insulin may be back to being the most famous protein now, but spike protein was up there. And then that kind of cascaded into all the main protease and many of the structures that we got.Holden Thorp (00:07:45):And we seized on that for sure, to kind of broaden our focus. We had the Regeneron antibodies, we had the Paxlovid paper, and all of that kind of opened doors for us. And we've also, now we have two clinical editors at Science, Priscilla Kelly and Yevgeniya Nusinovich, and then the Insights section, somebody that you work with closely, Gemma Alderton, she is very fluent in clinical matters. And then of course we've had Science Translational Medicine and we seek continue to strengthen that. Science Immunology was very much boosted by Covid and actually Science Immunology is now, I think probably if you care about impact factors, the second highest specialized immunology journal after Immunity. I've put some emphasis on it for sure, but I think the pandemic also really helped us. As far as me speaking out, a lot of people maybe don't remember, but Don Kennedy, who was the editor in the early 2000s who had been the Stanford president, he was similarly outspoken.Confronting ControversiesHolden Thorp (00:09:15):It's funny, sometimes people who disagree with me say, well, Don Kennedy would never say anything like that. And then I can dig up something that Don Kennedy said that's just as aggressive as what I might've said. But you're right, Bruce Alberts was very focused on education, and each one of us has had our own different way of doing things. When Alan Leshner hired me and Sudip Parikh reinforced this when he came on, I mean, he wanted me to liven up the editorial page. He explicitly told me to do that. I may have done more of it than he was expecting, but Alan and Sudip both still remain very supportive of that. I couldn't do what I do without them and also couldn't do it without Lisa Chong, who makes all my words sound so much better than they are when I start. And yeah, it kind of fed on itself.Holden Thorp (00:10:21):It started with the pandemic. I think there was an inflection when Trump first said that Covid was just the flu, and when he said some really ridiculous things about the vaccine, and that's where it started. I guess my philosophy was I was thinking about people who, they've got a spouse at home whose job might be disrupted. They got children they've got who are out of school, and somehow they managed to get themselves to the lab to work on our vaccine or some other aspect of the pandemic to try to help the world. What would those people want their journal to say when they came home and turned the news on and saw all these politicians saying all this ridiculous stuff? That was really the sort of mantra that I had in my head, and that kind of drove it. And now I think we've sort of established the fact that it's okay to comment on things that are going on in the world. We're editorially independent, Sudip and the AAAS board, treat us as being editorially independent. I don't take that for granted and it's a privilege to, as I sometimes tell people, my apartment's four blocks from the White House, sometimes I'm over there typing things that they don't like. And that tradition is still alive in this country, at least for the time being, and I try to make the most of it.Eric Topol (00:12:11):Well, and especially as you already touched on Holden, when there's a time when the intersection of politics and science really came to a head and still we're dealing with that, and that's why it's been so essential to get your views as the leader of such an important journal that is publishing some of the leading science in the world on a weekly basis. Now, one of the things I do want to get into this other track that you also alluded to. You went from a chemist, and you eventually rose to Dean and chancellor of University of North Carolina (UNC) and also the provost of Washington University, two of our best institutions academically in the country. I would imagine your parents who were both UNC grads would've been especially proud of you being the chancellor.Holden Thorp (00:13:05):It's true. Yeah. Unfortunately, my father wasn't there to see it, but my mother, as I always tell people, my mother very much enjoyed being the queen mother of her alma mater.On Stanford University's President ResignationEric Topol (00:13:16):Yeah, I would think so, oh my goodness. That gives you another perspective that's unique having been in the senior management of two really prestigious institutions, and this past year a lot has been going on in higher education, and you have again come to the fore about that. Let's just first discuss the Stanford debacle, the president there. Could you kind of give us synopsis, you did some really important writing about that, and what are your thoughts looking back on the student who happens to be Peter Baker's and Susan's son, two incredible journalists at the New York Times and New Yorker, who broke the story at the Stanford Daily as a student, and then it led to eventually the President's resignation. So, what were your thoughts about that?Holden Thorp (00:14:16):Yeah, so it's a complicated and sad story in some ways, but it's also fascinating and very instructive. Two of the papers were in Science, two of the three main ones, the other one was in Cell. And we had made an error along the way because Marc had sent a correction in which for some reason never got posted. We searched every email server we had everything we had trying to find exactly what happened, but we think we have a website run by humans and there was something that happened when the corrections were transmitted into our operations group, and they didn't end up on the website. So, one of the things I had to do was to say repeatedly to every reporter who wanted to ask me, including some Pulitzer Prize winners, that we had looked everywhere and couldn't find any reason why somebody would've intentionally stopped those corrections from posting.Holden Thorp (00:15:36):And one thing about it was I didn't want, Marc had enough problems, he didn't need to be blamed for the fact that we botched that. So I think people were maybe impressed that we just came out and admitted we made a mistake, but that's really what this area needs. And those things happened before I became the editor in chief, but I was satisfied that where that error happened was done by people who had no idea who Marc Tessier-Lavigne even was, but because of all that, and because we had to decide what to do with these papers, I talked to him extensively at the beginning of this, maybe as much as anybody, now that I look back on it. And I think that for him, the error that happened is very common one. You have a PI with a big lab.Holden Thorp (00:16:33):There are many, many incentives for his coworkers and yours to want to get high profile publications. And what we see is mostly at the end when you kind of know what's happening, some corners get cut doing all the controls and all of the last things that have to be done to go into the paper. And someone in his lab did that, and he didn't notice when the jails were sent in. The committee that investigated it later found something that I was certain at the beginning was going to be true, which is he didn't have any direct involvement in and making the problematic images or know that they were there. Every time we see one of these, that's almost always the story.Holden Thorp (00:17:32):And if he hadn't been the president of Stanford, he probably would've, I mean, a couple of the papers that were attracted might even could have been just big corrections. That's another topic we can talk about in terms of whether that's the right thing to do but because he was the president of Stanford, it triggered all these things at the university, which made the story much, much more complicated. And it is similar to what we see in a lot of these, that it's the institution that does the most to make these things bigger than they need to be. And in this case, the first thing was that young Theo Baker who I've talked on the phone extensively with, and I just had a long lunch with him in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago, it's the first time we ever met in person. He's finishing up his book, which has been optioned for a movie, and I've told him that I want Mark Hamill to play me in the movie because I don't know if you saw this last thing he did, Fall of the House of Usher but he was a very funny curmudgeonly.Holden Thorp (00:18:46):And so, I think he would be a lot like me dealing with Theo, but Theo did great work. Did everything that Theo write add up precisely. I mean, he was teaching himself a lot of this biochemistry as he went along, so you could always find little holes in it, but the general strokes of what he had were correct. And in my opinion, and Marc would've been better served by talking to Theo and answering his questions or talking to other reporters who are covering this and there are many excellent ones. This is something I learned the hard way when I was at North Carolina. It's always better for the President to just face the music and answer the questions instead of doing what they did, which is stand up this long and complicated investigation. And when the institutions do these long investigations, the outcome is always unsatisfying for everybody because the investigation, it found precisely what I think anybody who understands our world would've expected that Marc didn't know about the fraud directly, but that he could have done more to create a culture in his laboratory where these things were picked up, whether that's making his lab smaller or him having fewer other things to do, or precisely what it is, people could speculate.Managing a Crisis at a UniversityHolden Thorp (00:20:37):But of course, that's what always happens in these. So the report produced exactly what any reporter who's covered this their whole lives would've expected it to produce, but the people who don't know the intimate details of how this works, were not satisfied by that. And he ended up having to step down and we'll never know what would've happened if instead of doing all of that, he just said, wow, I really screwed this up. I'm responsible for the fact that these images are in here and I'm going to do everything I can to straighten it out. I'd be happy to take your questions. That's always what I encourage people to do because I was in a similar situation at North Carolina with a scandal involved in athletics and an academic department, and we did umpteen investigations instead of me just saying, hey, everybody, we cheated for 30 years. It started when I was in middle school, but I'm still going to try to clean it up and I'll be happy to answer your questions. And instead, we get lawyers and PR people and all these carefully worded statements, and it's all prolonged. And we see that in every research integrity matter we deal with and there are a lot of other things in higher education that are being weighed down by all of that right now.Eric Topol (00:22:06):Yeah. One of the things that is typical when a university faces a crisis, and we're going to get into a couple others in a moment, is that they get a PR firm, and the PR firm says, just say you're going to do an investigation because that'll just pull it out of the news, take it out of the news. It doesn't work that way. And what's amazing is that the universities pay a lot of money to these PR companies for crisis management. And being forthright may indeed be the answer, but that doesn't happen as best as we can see. I think you're suggesting a new path that might be not just relevant, but the way to get this on the right course quickly.Holden Thorp (00:22:58):Just on that, there's a person in that PR space who I really like. There are a few of them that are really good, and he's the person who helped me the most. And he used to refer doing the investigation as putting it on the credit card.Eric Topol (00:23:16):Yeah. Yeah, exactly.Holden Thorp (00:23:17):Okay, because you still have to pay the credit card bill after you charge something.Eric Topol (00:23:25):Yeah, better to write a check.Holden Thorp (00:23:27):It's better to write a check. Yes, because that 18% interest can add up pretty quickly.Resignations of the Presidents at Harvard and PennEric Topol (00:23:32):I like that metaphor entirely appropriate. That's a good one. Now, in the midst of all this, there's been two other leading institutions besides Stanford where the president resigned for different reasons, at least in part one was at Harvard and one at Penn. And this is just a crisis in our top universities in the country. I mean three of the very top universities. So, could you comment about the differences at Harvard and Penn related to what we just discussed at Stanford?Holden Thorp (00:24:09):Yeah, so I don't know Claudine Gay, but I've exchanged emails with her, and I do know Liz Magill and I know Sally Kornbluth even better. Our kids went to middle school together because she was at Duke. And I think Sally is in good shape, and she did a little bit better in the hearings because I think she was a little more forthcoming than Liz and Dr. Gay were but I think also Liz was in a pretty weakened state already when she went in there. And I think that what happened that day, and it was a devastating day for higher education. I cleared my calendar, and I watched the whole thing and I couldn't sleep that night. And it was, I thought, oh my goodness, my way of making a living has just taken a death blow. I just felt so much compassion for the three of them, two of whom I knew, one of whom I could imagine having been through similar things myself.Holden Thorp (00:25:20):And I think what my take on the whole thing about free speech and the war and all this stuff is that higher education has got a problem, which is that we have promised to deliver a product that we can't really deliver, and that is to provide individualized experiences for students. So, I'm back on the faculty now at GW. I have 16 people in my class, I know every single one of them. I was teaching during the fall, last fall. I teach on Monday nights, which Yom Kippur was on a Monday night, which was before October 7th. And so, I knew precisely how many Jewish kids I had in my class because they had to make up class for that Monday night.Holden Thorp (00:26:18):I was basically able to talk to each one of them and make sure. And then GW is a very liberal university, so I had a whole bunch that were all the way on the other side also. I was just able to talk to each of them and make sure they had what they needed from the university. But the institutions don't really have luxury. They don't have somebody who's been doing this for 35 years teaching 16 people who can make sure they're getting what they need, but they write letters to all their students saying, you're going to join a diverse student body where we're going to give you a chance to express yourself and explore everything, but there's too many of them to actually deliver that. And none of them want to say that out loud. And so, what happens in a situation like this?Holden Thorp (00:27:19):And everybody says, well, don't send out the statements, don't send out the statements, but how else are you going to communicate with all those people? I mean, because the truth is education is a hands-on individualized deal. And so, the students who are experiencing antisemitism at Harvard or Penn or anywhere else, were feeling distress. And the university wasn't doing what they promised and attending to that, and similarly to the students who wanted to express themselves in the other direction. And so, what really needs to happen is that universities need to put more emphasis on what goes on in the classroom so that these students are getting the attention that they've been promised. But universities are trying to do a lot of research and you're at a place that's got a little simpler mission but some of these big complicated ones are doing urban development and they're trying to win athletics competitions, and they're running hotels and fire departments and police departments, and it's really hard to do all and multi, multi-billion dollar investment vehicles.Holden Thorp (00:28:47):It's really hard to do all that and keep the welfare of a bunch of teenagers up at the top of the list. And so, I think really what we need around this topic in general is a reckoning about this very point. Now as far as how to gotten through the hearing a little better, I mean what they said was technically correct, no question about that. But where they struggled was in saying things that would cause them to admit that they had failed at doing what they promised for the people who are feeling distressed. And again, that's kind of my mantra on all these things, whether it's student affairs or research integrity or anything else, the universities have made massive commitments to do probably more things than they can, and rather than fessing up to that, they just bury the whole thing in legalistic bureaucracy, and it's time for us to cut through a lot of that stuff.Eric Topol (00:30:09):I couldn't agree more on that.Holden Thorp (00:30:10):And in Claudine's case, I think the plagiarism thing, I wrote a piece in the Chronicle that just kind of tried to remind people that the kinds of plagiarism that she was punished for, in my opinion, too much of a punishment is stuff that we routinely pick up now with authenticate and other tools in scholarly publishing, and people just get a report that says, hey, maybe you want to reward this, and that's it. If it doesn't change the academic content of the paper, we hardly ever even pay attention to that. She was being subjected to a modern tool that didn't exist when she wrote the stuff that she wrote. And it's same thing with image analysis, right? When Marc Tessier-Lavigne made his papers, Elisabeth Bik wasn't studying images, and we didn't have proof fig and image twin to pick these things up, so we're taking today's tools and applying them to something that's 20 years old that was produced when those tools didn't exist. You can debate whether that matters or not, but in my opinion it does.Generative A.I. and Publishing ScienceEric Topol (00:31:31):Yeah, that's bringing us to the next topic I wanted to get into you with, which is AI. You've already mentioned about the AI detection of image, which we used to rely on Elisabeth as a human to do that, and now it can be done through AI.Holden Thorp (00:31:51):Well, it doesn't get everything, so I keep telling Elisabeth she doesn't have to worry about being put out of business.Eric Topol (00:31:58):But then there's also, as you said about text detection, and then there's also, as you've written in Science, the overall submission of papers where a GPT may have had significant input to the writing, not just to check the spelling or check minor things. And so, I want to get your views because this is a moving target of course. I mean, it's just the capabilities of AI have just been outpacing, I think a lot of expectations. Where do you see the intersection of AI and Science publishing now? Because as you said, it changes the ground rules for picking up even minor unintended errors or self-plagiarism or whatever, and now it changes the whole landscape considerably.Holden Thorp (00:32:54):Yeah. So, I think you said the most important thing, which is that it's a moving target, and you've been writing about this for medicine for longer than just about anybody, so you've been watching that moving target. We started off with a very restrictive stance, and the reason we did that was because we knew it would keep moving. And so, we wanted to start from the most restrictive possible place and then sort of titrate in the things that we allowed because we didn't want to go through the same thing we went through with Photoshop when it first came along. Like all these altered images that we keep talking about by far the most papers that surface are from the period between when Photoshop became a tool and when we finally had sort of a consensus as a community in terms of what was okay and what wasn't okay to do with your gels when you process the images.Holden Thorp (00:33:55):And we didn't want the same thing with words where we allowed people to use ChatGPT to write, and then a few years later decided, oh, this thing wasn't permissible, and then we have to go back and re-litigate all those papers. We didn't want to do that again. So, we started off with a pretty restrictive stance, which we've loosened once and we'll probably loosen more as we see how things evolve. What we keep looking for is for entities that don't have a financial interest to issue guidelines, so if it's another journal, especially a commercial journal that makes money on the papers, well, you can imagine that these tools are going to give us even more papers. And for a lot of these entities that charge by the paper, they have a financial incentive for people to use ChatGPT to write papers. We look for societies and coalitions of academics who have come together and said these things are okay.Holden Thorp (00:35:04):And the first one of those was when we decided that it was okay, for example, if you are not an English speaker natively to have ChatGPT work on your pros. Now there are lots of people who disagree about that ChatGPT is good at that. That's a separate matter, but we felt we got to a point, I forgot when it was a couple months ago, where we could amend our policies and say that we were going to be more tolerant of text that had been done by ChatGPT. As long as the people who signed the author forms realize that if it makes one of these hallucinating errors that it makes and it gets into the paper that's on them, whether that actually saves you time or not, I don't know.Holden Thorp (00:36:03):I also have my doubts about that, but that's kind of where we're going. We're watching these things as they go. We're still very restrictive on images and there was this debacle in this Frontiers paper a couple of weeks ago with a ridiculous image that got through. So right now, we're still not allowing illustrations that were generated by the visual counterparts of ChatGPT. Will we loosen that in the future? Maybe, as things evolve, so when we did our first amendment, some of the reporters, they're just doing their jobs saying, well, you can't make your mind up about this. And I'm like, no, you don't want us to make up our mind once and for all. And by the way, science is something that changes over time also. So, we're watching this develop and we expect everybody jokes about how we spend too much time talking about this, but I think everybody's gotten to the point now where they're realizing we're going to talk about it for years to come.Eric Topol (00:37:17):Oh my goodness, yes because we're talking about truth versus fake and this is big stuff. I mean, it affects whether it's the elections, whether it's every sector of our lives are affected by this. And obviously publishing in the leading peer review journal, it couldn't be more important as to get this right and to adjust, as you said, as more evidence, performance and other issues are addressed systematically. That does get me to self-correcting science, something else you've written about, which is kind of self-correcting as to how we will understand the use of large language models and generative AI. But this, you get into science in many different ways, whether it's through the celebrity idea, how it has to adapt and correct that there's a miscue from the public about when evolves and it's actually that science. So maybe you could kind of give us your perspective about you are continuing to reassess what is science as we'll get into more about that in a moment. Where are you at right now on that?Holden Thorp (00:38:40):Yeah, so my general sort of shtick about science is to remind people that it's done by human beings. Human beings who have all different kinds of different brains who come from different backgrounds, who have all the human foibles that you see in any other profession. And I think that unfortunately a lot of, and we brought some of this on ourselves, we've kind of taken on an air of infallibility from time to time or as having the final answer when, if you go back just to the simplest Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn early writings in the philosophy of science, it's crystal clear that science is something that evolves. It's something done by sometimes thousands or even hundreds of thousands of millions of people depending on the topic. And it's not the contributions of any individual person hardly ever.Holden Thorp (00:39:54):But yet we continue to give Nobel prizes and hold up various individual scientific figures as being representative. They're usually representative of many, many people. And it's a process that continues to change. And as always point out, if you want to get a paper in science, it's not good to say, hey, here's something everybody thought and we tested it and it's still correct. That's usually not a good way to get a science paper. The right thing to do is to say, hey, the W boson might weigh more than we expected it to, or it turns out that evolution occurs in ways that we didn't expect, or that's how you get a science paper and that's how you get on the cover of Science. Those are the things that we look for, things that change the way people think about science. And so that's what we're all actively looking for, but yet we sometimes portray to the public that we always have everything completely figured out, and the journalists sometimes don't help us because they like to write crisp stories that people can get something out of. And we like to go on TV and say, hey, I got the answer.Holden Thorp (00:41:23):Don't wear a mask. Do wear a mask. This is how much the temperature is going to go up next year. Oh, we refined our, and it turns out it's another 10th of a degree this way or that way. I mean, that's what makes what we do interesting and embedded in that is also human error, right? Because we make errors in interpretation. We might see a set of data that we think mean one thing, but then somebody else will do something that helps us interpret it another way. In my opinion, that's certainly not misconduct. We hardly ever publish corrections or retractions over interpretation. We just publish more papers about that unless it's some very egregious thing. And then we also have greed and ambition and ego and lots of other things that cause people to make intentional errors that get most of the attention. And we have errors that are unintentional, but still may relate to fundamental data in the paper.Holden Thorp (00:42:36):So when you put all this together, the answer isn't to try to catch everything because there's no way in the world we're going to catch everything and we wouldn't want to, even if we could for some of it, because as John Maddox, who ran my competitor journal for many years in a brilliant way at Nature, someone once asked him how many papers in Nature were wrong? And he said, all of them, because all of them are going to be replaced by new information. And so, what we'd be better off trying to convince the public that this is how science works, which is much harder than just going to them with facts. I mean, that takes a lot of work and doing a better job of telling each other that it's okay when we have to change the record because the biggest thing that erodes trust in science is not the fact that we make mistakes, is that when it turns into a drama over whether we are going to correct the record or not, that's what all these, the Stanford case is probably the biggest in people's minds. But if you look at, we've had this behavioral economic stuff at Harvard, I have this superconductivity at Rochester, Dana Farber's having a big event right now. All of these things don't have to be this dramatic if we would do a better job of collaborating with each other on maintaining an accurate scientific record rather than letting ambition and greed and ego get in the way of all of it.Who Is A Scientist?Eric Topol (00:44:21):Well, you got some important threads in there. The one thing I just would also comment on is my favorite thing in Science is challenging dogma because there's so much dogma, and that's obviously part of what you were getting into and many other aspects as well. But that's the story of Science, that nothing stands. If it does, then you're not doing a good job of really interrogating and following up on whatever is accepted at any particular moment in time. But your writings, whether it's in Science and editorials or science forever, your Substack, which are always insightful but I think one of the most recent ones was about, who is a scientist? And I really love that one because I'll let you explain. There are some people who have a very narrow view and others who see it quite differently. And maybe you could summarize it.Holden Thorp (00:45:23):Well, I had the privilege to moderate a panel at the AAAS meeting that included Keith Yamamoto, who was our outgoing president, Willie May, who was our incoming president, Peggy Hamburg, who ran the FDA and many, many other things. Kaye Husbands Fealing who was a social scientist, and Michael Crow, who was the president of Arizona State. These are all extraordinary people. And I just asked him a simple question, so who was the scientist? Because I think one thing that I see in my work, and you probably see in the communication work and writing that you do, that not all of our colleagues who work in the laboratory think that the rest of this stuff is science.Holden Thorp (00:46:17):And the place that breaks my heart the most is when somebody says, one of our professional editors isn't qualified to reject their paper because they don't have their own lab. Alright, well you've interacted with a lot of our editors, they read more papers than either one of us. They know more about what's going on in these papers than anybody. They are absolute scholars in every sense of the word and if someone thinks they're not scientists, I don't know who a scientist is. And so, then you can extend that to science communicators. I mean, those are obviously the problems we've been talking about, the people we need the most great teachers. If someone's a great science teacher and they have a PhD and they worked in lab and they're teaching at a university, are they still a scientist even if they don't have a lab anymore?Holden Thorp (00:47:11):So in my opinion, an expansive definition of this is the best because we want all these people to be contributing. In fact, many of the problems we have aren't because we're not good in the laboratory. We seem to be able to do a good job generating that. It's more about all these other pieces that we're not nearly as good at. And part of what we need to do is value the people who are good at those things, so I pose this to the panel, and I hope people go on and watch the video. It is worth watching. Keith Yamamoto was in the group that said, it's only if you're doing and planning research that you're a scientist. He knew he was going to be outnumbered before we went out there. We talked about that. I said, Keith, you're my boss. If you don't want me to ask that question, I won't. But to his credit, he wanted to talk about this and then Michael Crow was probably the furthest on the other side who said, what makes humans different from other species is that we're all scientists. We all seek to explain things. So somewhere in the middle and the others were kind of scattered around the middle, although I would say closer to Michael than they were to Keith.Holden Thorp (00:48:33):But I think this is important for us to work out because we want everybody who contributes to the scientific enterprise to feel valued. And if they would feel more valued if we called them scientists, that suits me but it doesn't suit all of our academic colleagues apparently.Eric Topol (00:48:54):Well, I mean, I think just to weigh in a bit on that, I'm a big proponent of citizen scientists, and we've seen how it has transformed projects like folded for structural biology and so many things, All of Us program that's ongoing right now to try to get a million participants, at least half of whom are underrepresented to be citizen scientists learning about themselves through their genome and other layers of data. And that I think may help us to fight the misinformation, disinformation, the people that do their own research with a purpose that can be sometimes nefarious. The last type of topic I wanted to get to with you was the University of Florida and the state of Florida and the Surgeon General there. And again, we are kind of circling back to a few things that we've discussed today about higher education institutions as well as politics and I wonder if we get some comments about that scenario.What's Happening in Florida?Holden Thorp (00:49:59):Yeah. Well, I'm coming to you from Orlando, Florida where I have a home that I've had ever since I moved to a cold climate, and I spent the whole pandemic down here. I observed a lot of things going on in the state of Florida firsthand. And I think in a way it's two different worlds because Florida does make a massive investment in higher education more than many other states and that has really not changed that much under Governor DeSantis despite his performative views that seem to be to the contrary. And so, I think it's important to acknowledge that Florida State and Florida and UCF and USF, these are excellent places and many of them have thrived in terms of their budgets even in this weird climate, but the political performance is very much in the other direction. This is where the Stop WOKE Act happened. This is where, again, I live in Orlando. This is a company town that Ron DeSantis decided to take on the Walt Disney Corporation is the second biggest city in Orlando, and it's a company town, and he took on the employer.Holden Thorp (00:51:32):It doesn't make a whole lot of political sense, but I think it was all part of his national political ambitions. And down at the base of this was this all strange anti-vax stuff. Now I got my first vaccines down here. I went to public places that were organized by the Army Corps of Engineers that were at public properties. It was at a community college here in Orlando, was extremely well organized. I had no problem. I was there 10 minutes, got my vaccines. It was extremely well organized but at the same time, the guys on TV saying the vaccine's not any good. And he hires this person, Joseph Ladapo, to be his Surgeon General, who I think we would both say is an anti-vaxxer. I mean he just recently said that you didn't need to get a measles vaccine and then in the last couple of days said, if you're unvaccinated and you have measles, you don't have to quarantine for 21 days. Now really would be disastrous if measles came back. You know a lot more about that than I do but I'm a generation that had a measles vaccine and never worried about measles.Holden Thorp (00:52:59):So the part of it that I worry about the most is that this person, the Surgeon General, also has a faculty appointment at the University of Florida. And you can see how he got it because his academic resume has been circulated as a result of all of Florida's public records laws and he has a very strong, credible resume that would probably cause him to get tenure at a lot of places. The medical faculty at Florida have tried to assert themselves and say, we really need to distance ourselves from him, but the administration at the University of Florida has not really engaged them. Now, I did ask them last week about the measles thing. I was going to write about it again, and I wrote to them and I said, if you guys aren't going to say anything about what he is saying about the measles, then I'm going to have another editorial.Holden Thorp (00:54:05):And they sent me a statement, which I posted that you probably saw that they still didn't condemn him personally, but they did say that measles vaccination was very important, and it was a fairly direct statement. I don't know if that will portend more stronger words from the University of Florida. Maybe now that their president is somebody who's close to the governor, they'll feel a little more comfortable saying things like that. But I think the bigger issue for all of us is when we have academic colleagues who say things that we know are scientifically invalid, and this always gets to the whole free speech thing, but in my opinion, free speech, it is within free speech to say, yes, all these things about vaccines are true, but I still don't think people should be compelled to get vaccinated. That's an opinion. That's fine. But what's not an opinion is to say that vaccines are unsafe if they've been tested over and over again and proven to be effective.Academic FreedomHolden Thorp (00:55:24):That's not an opinion. And I personally don't think that that deserves certainly to be weighted equally with the totality of medical evidence. I think that it's within bounds for academic colleagues and even institutions to call out their colleagues who are not expressing an opinion, but are challenging scientific facts without doing experiments and submitting papers and having lots of people look at it and doing all the stuff that we require in order to change scientific consensus. And this happens in climate change in a very parallel way. I mean, it's an opinion to say the climate is changing, humans are causing it, but I still don't think we should have government regulations about carbon. I think we should wait for the private sector to solve it, or I don't think it's going to have as bad of an effect as people say. Those are policy debates that you can have.Holden Thorp (00:56:28):But alleging that climate scientists are falsifying their projection somehow when they're not is in my opinion, not covered by free speech. And I think the best evidence we had of this is this recent verdict with Michael Mann, where it was the people who were criticizing him were found to be defamatory when they said that he committed research fraud. They could say he's exaggerating the threat. They could say they could dislike his style. He does have a very bombastic style. They can say all kinds of things about their opinions about him personally but if you accuse him of committing research fraud, and the paper that was in question was one of the most highly litigated papers of all time. It's been investigated more times than you can count. That's not something that's protected by free speech because it's defamatory to say that, and the jury found that. I think we have a lot of work to do to get within our own world, our colleagues, to get their arms around these two forms of debate.Eric Topol (00:57:51):Right. Well, I think this is, again, another really important point you're making during the pandemic parallel to the Michael Mann climate change case is that leading universities, as we recently reviewed in a podcast with Jonathan Howard, who wrote a book about this leading universities like Stanford, UCSF, Johns Hopkins and many others, didn't come out about the people that were doing things, saying things that were truly potential public harm. Not like you're saying, expressing an opinion with the truth, but rather negating evidence that was important to keep people protected from Covid. This is a problem which is thematic in our discussion I think Holden, is that universities have to get with it. They have to be able to help not put things on the credit card, be very transparent, direct quick respond, and not hide behind worried about social media or journalists or whatever else. This has been an incredible discussion, Holden, I got into even more than I thought we would.Eric Topol (00:59:15):You're a phenom to defend the whole science landscape that is challenging right now. I think you would agree for many reasons that we've discussed, and it affects education in a very dramatic, serious way. I want to thank you all that you're doing at Science with your team there to lead the charge and stand up for things and not being afraid to stimulate some controversies here and there. It's good for the field. And so, I hope I didn't miss anything and this exhaustive, this is the longest podcast I've done on Ground Truths, I want you to know that.Holden Thorp (00:59:59):Well, I'm flattered by that because you've had some great people on, that's for sure. And thank you for all you're doing, not just in science, but to spread the word about all these things and bring people together. It means a lot to all of us.Eric Topol (01:00:15):Oh, much appreciated. And we'll convene again soon to discuss so many dimensions of what we just have been reviewing and new ones to come. Thanks very much.Holden Thorp (01:00:25):Okay. Always good talking to you.*******************************************************Thanks for listening or reading this episode of GT.Please share if you found this podcast informative.Ground Truths is open-access. All content (newsletters and podcasts) is free.All proceeds from voluntary paid subscriptions support Scripps Research and have provided major funding for our summer internship program. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

On tonight's program: As the judicial system puts the brakes on Florida's “Stop Woke Act,” Governor DeSantis insists the whole thing was taken out of context; Some institutions, however, including the state's flagship university, are keeping at least some of the “anti-woke agenda” in place; During recent arguments on abortion before the state supreme court the chief justice has brought up the idea of fetal personhood; Governor DeSantis signs into law a bill to prevent undocumented immigrants from using local IDs to misrepresent their immigration status; State lawmakers kept up their drive to take more and more authority from local governments during the session that just ended; Florida's money managers are making plans to drop China-owned investments; And a proposed state land purchase has some residents of a rural North Florida county upset.

Despite a slow start to the week in legal news, Sarah and David have a tightly packed episode today starting with a dissent from denial from Justice Thomas on bias response teams at a Virginia university. The Agenda: —Bias response teams —ACLU vs. NLRB —Florida's Stop Woke Act naw-dogged by Eleventh Circuit —Texas' law on minor access to explicit content at the Fifth Circuit —TikTok: Welcome to the culture war —Kevin Newsom's speech on text, history, and tradition —Be careful with tradition —Understanding standing doctrine —The Oscars and a good legal movie Show Notes: —Federalist Society 2024 National Student Symposium —The Volokh Conspiracy —Luis Parrales: The Oscars in an Age of Distraction —MIT legal complaint Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today we discuss an appellate court ruling that found Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" to be unconstitutional. Then we hear an update about the continuing fraud trial of two former JEA executives.

A flyover from this weeks top heartland stories including:State of the state of the union; Wisconsin fake electors foiled; Missouri water threatened; Alabama IVF protection law; Missouri private school horror; the ugly reality of school choice; Florida MAGA gator chomped; Iowa lawmakers funds to feed kids… wait sorry Iowa Lawmakers paying to arm teachers SOURCES Missouri independent, the heartland collective, associated press, axios, nbc news, the Des Moines registerSOTU Quick reactions: Wisconsin Fake Elector Scheme Exposes The Underbelly Of The 2020 Schemehttps://apnews.com/article/electors-trump-settlement-ballot-2020-wisconsin-f416cd04adfa9f92c382b7c9e8a94ce7?taid=65e5f72999a0eb0001ff36b9&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=TwitterMissouri Waterways https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/06/missouri-bill-would-slash-state-regulations-over-small-streams-and-major-aquifers/Missouri bill would slash state regulations over small streams and major aquifers Critics say the legislation debated Tuesday could jeopardize the state's groundwater and 136,000 miles of streamsAlabama Governor Signs IVF Protection Bill That Shouldn't Have Been Necessaryhttps://www.axios.com/2024/03/07/alabama-ivf-fertility-protection-billAlabama Senator silent on if embryos are children https://t.co/lzmTr37K9rMissouri christian boarding school founders charged with kidnappinghttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-christian-boarding-school-founder-wife-charged-kidnapping-rep-rcna141716?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=65e64b6d17ae0900010956b2&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitterSecret Recording Exposes What We Already Know About The School Choice Lobbyhttps://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/revealed/revealed-secret-recording-shows-school-voucher-proponent-talking-of-public-hangings-of-lawmakersAppeals Court Tells Florida MAGA “NOPE”https://www.axios.com/2024/03/05/florida-stop-woke-act-appeals-court-blockA federal appeals court in Florida blocked enforcement of employer provisions in a law state Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) dubbed the "Stop WOKE Act" in a unanimous ruling on Monday. The big picture: In upholding an earlier ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in an opinion Monday said the legislation "exceeds the bounds of the First Amendment." It stems from a lawsuit filed by several Florida businesses challenging the act, also known as HB7, which would prevent them from requiring workers to attend workplace training promoting diversity and inclusion.DeSantis administration officials argue the law is designed to prevent indoctrination in workplaces and schools and have indicated they may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the decision Details: "This is not the first era in which Americans have held widely divergent views on important areas of morality, ethics, law, and public policy," the appeals court ruling states.Iowa Spending Tax Dollars To Arm Teachers, But Won't Feed Kidshttps://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/06/iowa-house-panel-advances-3-million-grant-program-for-schools-that-arm-staff-buy-guns-teachers/72868745007/Iowa House lawmakers are pushing through a bill that would provide $3 million to pay for training for school districts that choose to arm staff members and could be used to buy guns for school employees.The legislation, House Study Bill 692, is part of a larger bill with other school safety requirements. It is meant to complement a separate measure House lawmakers passed last week that would allow teachers and other school staff to obtain a professional permit to carry guns on school grounds, and provide them with legal immunity for the use of reasonable force.Both bills are part of Republicans' legislative response to a deadly shooting at Perry High School in January. @TheHeartlandPOD on Twitter and ThreadsCo-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Post)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Post) Sean Diller (no social)The Heartland Collective - Sign Up Today!JOIN PATREON FOR MORE - AND JOIN OUR SOCIAL NETWORK!“Change The Conversation”Outro Song: “The World Is On Fire” by American Aquarium http://www.americanaquarium.com/

A flyover from this weeks top heartland stories including:State of the state of the union; Wisconsin fake electors foiled; Missouri water threatened; Alabama IVF protection law; Missouri private school horror; the ugly reality of school choice; Florida MAGA gator chomped; Iowa lawmakers funds to feed kids… wait sorry Iowa Lawmakers paying to arm teachers SOURCES Missouri independent, the heartland collective, associated press, axios, nbc news, the Des Moines registerSOTU Quick reactions: Wisconsin Fake Elector Scheme Exposes The Underbelly Of The 2020 Schemehttps://apnews.com/article/electors-trump-settlement-ballot-2020-wisconsin-f416cd04adfa9f92c382b7c9e8a94ce7?taid=65e5f72999a0eb0001ff36b9&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=TwitterMissouri Waterways https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/06/missouri-bill-would-slash-state-regulations-over-small-streams-and-major-aquifers/Missouri bill would slash state regulations over small streams and major aquifers Critics say the legislation debated Tuesday could jeopardize the state's groundwater and 136,000 miles of streamsAlabama Governor Signs IVF Protection Bill That Shouldn't Have Been Necessaryhttps://www.axios.com/2024/03/07/alabama-ivf-fertility-protection-billAlabama Senator silent on if embryos are children https://t.co/lzmTr37K9rMissouri christian boarding school founders charged with kidnappinghttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-christian-boarding-school-founder-wife-charged-kidnapping-rep-rcna141716?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=65e64b6d17ae0900010956b2&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitterSecret Recording Exposes What We Already Know About The School Choice Lobbyhttps://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/revealed/revealed-secret-recording-shows-school-voucher-proponent-talking-of-public-hangings-of-lawmakersAppeals Court Tells Florida MAGA “NOPE”https://www.axios.com/2024/03/05/florida-stop-woke-act-appeals-court-blockA federal appeals court in Florida blocked enforcement of employer provisions in a law state Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) dubbed the "Stop WOKE Act" in a unanimous ruling on Monday. The big picture: In upholding an earlier ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in an opinion Monday said the legislation "exceeds the bounds of the First Amendment." It stems from a lawsuit filed by several Florida businesses challenging the act, also known as HB7, which would prevent them from requiring workers to attend workplace training promoting diversity and inclusion.DeSantis administration officials argue the law is designed to prevent indoctrination in workplaces and schools and have indicated they may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the decision Details: "This is not the first era in which Americans have held widely divergent views on important areas of morality, ethics, law, and public policy," the appeals court ruling states.Iowa Spending Tax Dollars To Arm Teachers, But Won't Feed Kidshttps://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/06/iowa-house-panel-advances-3-million-grant-program-for-schools-that-arm-staff-buy-guns-teachers/72868745007/Iowa House lawmakers are pushing through a bill that would provide $3 million to pay for training for school districts that choose to arm staff members and could be used to buy guns for school employees.The legislation, House Study Bill 692, is part of a larger bill with other school safety requirements. It is meant to complement a separate measure House lawmakers passed last week that would allow teachers and other school staff to obtain a professional permit to carry guns on school grounds, and provide them with legal immunity for the use of reasonable force.Both bills are part of Republicans' legislative response to a deadly shooting at Perry High School in January. @TheHeartlandPOD on Twitter and ThreadsCo-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Post)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Post) Sean Diller (no social)The Heartland Collective - Sign Up Today!JOIN PATREON FOR MORE - AND JOIN OUR SOCIAL NETWORK!“Change The Conversation”Outro Song: “The World Is On Fire” by American Aquarium http://www.americanaquarium.com/

Wednesday, March 6th, 2024Today, Senator Bob Menendez has been hit with a superseding indictment; Senator Kyrsten Sinema will not run again this year; the 11th Circuit strikes down Ron DeSantis' Stop Woke Act; the Supreme Court Inadvertently revealed a confounding late change in the trump ballot ruling; the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing a controversial Texas immigration law to take effect. Plus, Allison and Dana deliver your good news.Promo Code:For a limited time, HomeChef is offering you 18 Free Meals, plus Free Shipping on your first box, and Free Dessert for Life. At https://HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS. Robert Menendez and Wife Are Charged With Obstruction of Justicehttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/nyregion/robert-menendez-indicted.htmlFederal appeals court to allow controversial Texas immigration law to take effect, if SCOTUS doesn't intervenehttps://www.cnn.com/2024/03/03/politics/texas-immigration-law-appeals-court/index.htmlSupreme Court Inadvertently Reveals Confounding Late Change in Trump Ballot Rulinghttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-metadata-sotomayor-trump-dissent.htmlAppeals court slams Florida's ‘Stop-Woke' law for committing ‘greatest First Amendment sin'https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/desantis-woke-law-court-00144801 Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good Newshttps://www.healthcare.govTote the Vote and other productshttps://www.bakedfish.funUpcoming Live Show Dates (Look for the presale ticket link this week)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryWednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris HallThursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple DoorJoin the private Facebook Group Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Kysten Sinema announces retirement from politics.Audio aired of a hostage calling for help days before mistaken IDF killing. Text messages shed new light on scope of fake electors plot after 2020 election. Appeals court blocks Florida's ""Stop Woke Act"" by stating it's a ""First Amendment sin."" Yemeni-American explains to TYT why he's supporting Donald Trump." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just ran into a huge First Amendment roadblock after a federal court blocked his "Stop Woke" Act. Brad Polumbo and Hannah Cox break it down in this episode of the BASED Politics podcast.   Then, they discuss a new "Bidenomics" website that embarrasses the president and a new viral video that exposes AOC's hypocrisy. As always, they round out the show with some hot takes.   Check out the latest episode of Hannah Explains it All: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klefOcstP5Q  

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just ran into a huge First Amendment roadblock after a federal court blocked his "Stop Woke" Act. Brad Polumbo and Hannah Cox break it down in this episode of the BASED Politics podcast.   Then, they discuss a new "Bidenomics" website that embarrasses the president and a new viral video that exposes AOC's hypocrisy. As always, they round out the show with some hot takes.   Check out the latest episode of Hannah Explains it All: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klefOcstP5Q  

Trey's Table Season 3: Episode 19 The Death of the Stop Woke Act In this episode I discuss how Gov. Ron DeSantis' signature piece of legislation The Stop Woke Act has been declared unconstitutional. https://media.ca11.uscourts.go...https://www.courthousenews.com...https://youtu.be/kWUgjZrBkNY?s...

New laws in at least 14 states are forcing teachers to rethink how they teach history when it comes to race in particular. For the last day of this Black History Month, one education leader on why having more Black teachers, and leaning into Black teaching traditions, can help all students get a better handle on American history. Plus, Axios Miami's Sommer Brugal on the education view from Florida, more than a year and a half since Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" went into effect. Guests: Sharif El-Mekki, founder and CEO of the Center for Black Educator Development and a former school principal; Sommer Brugal, Axios Miami reporter. Credits: 1 big thing is produced by Niala Boodhoo, Alexandra Botti, and Jay Cowit. Music is composed by Alex Sugiura and Jay Cowit. You can reach us at podcasts@axios.com. You can send questions, comments and story ideas as a text or voice memo to Niala at 202-918-4893. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last summer, Reveal host Al Letson returned home to Jacksonville, Florida, to find a changed state. The Republican Legislature had passed a slate of laws targeting minority groups. Educators could now face criminal penalties over the material they teach regarding gender and sexuality, and schools across the state were banning books about queer families, transgender youth and Black history. There were also repeated instances of racist and anti-Semitic speech, including Nazis waving swastikas in front of Disney World. All of this contributed to the NAACP issuing a rare travel advisory stating that “Florida is openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.” Then on Aug. 26, a White supremacist killed three Black people at a Dollar General in Jacksonville.  When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis attended a vigil for the victims, he was met with boos and mourners shouting, “Your policies caused this.”  In this episode, Letson digs into the policies DeSantis and the Legislature have passed in recent years and their effects on Black Floridians and other people of color. He speaks with a history teacher who says the new laws have made it harder to educate students, as well as a mother who describes books being removed from her daughter's classroom and rules barring students from sharing books with friends at school. Letson also interviews state Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who championed many of the new policies, including the Stop WOKE Act, which restricts how racism and history are taught in schools.  In the final segment, Letson examines redistricting in the state. In 2022, DeSantis vetoed maps drawn by the Republican Legislature, and the governor's office instead drew new maps that got rid of two Black-dominated districts and increased the number of Republican-leaning districts. Those maps, which were subsequently passed by lawmakers, are now being battled over in both state and federal court. To understand the debate, Letson speaks with reporter Andrew Pantazi of the Jacksonville news organization The Tributary, as well as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Fine defends the new maps, saying they're designed to challenge Florida's Constitution, which he argues requires “racial gerrymandering.” Democratic state Rep. Angie Nixon says the new maps violate Florida's constitutional protections of racial minorities and their ability to “elect representatives of their choice.” Support Reveal's journalism at Revealnews.org/donatenow Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get the scoop on new episodes at Revealnews.org/newsletter Connect with us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

En 2022, le gouverneur ultra-conservateur de Floride signait une loi visant à limiter l'enseignement du passé raciste dans les écoles de Floride. Selon Ron DeSantis, l'histoire de la ségrégation et de l'esclavage ne doit pas faire peser une culpabilité sur les épaules d'enfants qui n'en sont pas responsables. Cette loi baptisée le « STOP Woke Act » a déclenché un tollé parmi le corps enseignant et en particulier chez les historiens. Certains ont donc décidé de contre-attaquer en faisant visiter les lieux des lynchages pour affronter ce lourd héritage de l'ère ségrégationniste. C'est une rivière de Floride prisée des vacanciers, mais redoutée par les Afro-Américains. Douglas Udell 77 ans, a toujours refusé de s'y baigner : « Jamais, je ne mettrais les pieds dans la Suwannee River » dit ce vieil homme afro-américain né sous la ségrégation. « Car à cette époque, raconte-t-il, ces eaux maudites charriaient parfois des corps de victimes de lynchages racistes. Cette rivière a une mauvaise connotation pour ma famille. On nous a toujours dit de ne pas pêcher ici parce qu'on risquerait d'avaler un poisson qui s'est nourri de la chair des gens qui ont été lynchés et jetés dans la rivière. »Son grand-père a lui-même été lynché, alors aujourd'hui Douglas Udell fait son devoir de mémoire. Au bord de cette rivière, il accompagne un groupe d'étudiants. Le vieil homme leur raconte le passé raciste de l'Amérique, à travers une histoire dramatique, celle d'un adolescent de 15 ans tué ici en 1944 : « C'est ici que Willy James a été noyé. Il était accusé d'avoir envoyé une lettre d'amour à une fille blanche. Alors, ils sont allés le chercher chez sa mère. Ils ont pointé une arme sur elle et ils l'ont sorti. Ils l'ont conduit à la rivière. Ils lui ont attaché les mains et ils l'ont jeté à l'eau et il s'est noyé. Ces atrocités se passaient partout en Amérique. »« J'ai une question, demande Jonas, un étudiant, vous disiez que des corps ont été retrouvés un peu partout dans cette rivière. On a une idée du nombre de victimes ? »« Non, le chiffre est inconnu », répond Douglas. Aucun décompte des victimes ni aucune plaque commémorative. Ces étudiants de Floride n'en ont d'ailleurs jamais entendu parler à l'école et ce n'est pas par hasard selon eux, affirme cette étudiante : « Il y a beaucoup de "whitewashing", de blanchiment de l'histoire. Ils essayent de minimiser l'impact de tout cela sur les Afro-américains. »Ces étudiants suivent un historien afro-américain qui a décidé de partir en croisade contre les réformes éducatives du gouverneur ultra-conservateur de Floride. Ron DeSantis a restreint l'enseignement du passé raciste américain, accusé d'inciter les élèves à détester l'Amérique, il a aussi reformé l'enseignement de l'esclavage qui aurait eu, selon lui, des effets bénéfiques « Inacceptable », pour le professeur Marvin Dunn : « Quand l'État de Floride a demandé aux profs d'enseigner que l'esclavage avait été bénéfique pour les esclaves, je n'avais pas été aussi en colère depuis des années. Comment auraient-ils pu en bénéficier ? »Marvin Dunn conteste devant les tribunaux les réformes de ce gouverneur qu'il accuse de révisionnisme historique.

Free Speech: May Florida, under its STOP WOKE Act, prohibit private employers from conducting DEI trainings for employees? - Argued: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 18:6:59 EDT

Federalism: Could litigants challenging the constitutionality of the Stop WOKE Act subpoena the records of Florida legislators who sponsored the bill? - Argued: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:0:2 EDT

Now Ron DeSantis and his STOP WOKE Act is targeting shero, Ruby Bridges?! Come on, bro.

Retired Florida professor Marvin Dunn has been dismayed at recent efforts to battle so-called critical race theory and limit the way educators can talk about race. Last year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law the Stop WOKE Act, which mandated that public schools teach race in a manner where students would not “feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she played no part.”Like many educators, Dr. Dunn feared this would create an environment where teaching hard truths about history is discouraged. He decided to start the Teach the Truth tour.This week, Trymaine Lee hops on the tour bus with Into America to speak with Dr. Dunn and students about what's at stake when it comes to learning the truth about American history. They visit historic sites related to the Ocoee Massacre, the lynching of Willie James Howard, and the Black town of Rosewood, which was destroyed a hundred years ago by a white mob.Follow and share the show on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, using the handle @intoamericapod.Thoughts? Feedback? Story ideas? Write to us at intoamerica@nbcuni.com.For a transcript, please visit our homepage.For More: Professor slams DeSantis for quashing Black history educationKnow Your History‘We need to hear it.' This tour explores Florida's horrific history of racial violence

Erin Ryan and Alyssa Mastromonaco start off by discussing the Texas abortion pill hearing, where Judge Kacsmaryk wants so badly to ban mifepristone…get a life, dude. Then, Parker Molloy comes on to talk about anti-trans legislation, the coverage of it in the media, and finding hope in outspoken trans kids. Next, Hysteria fave Akilah Hughes joins Kiran Deol in the panel to discuss the various definitions of “woke.” To finish things off, some praise (shoutout, Alyssa's jam!) and complaints (people in LA canNOT drive in the rain) in Sani-Petty.Show NotesThe Present Age, Parker Molloy's newsletterThree Dancing Bears, Alyssa's jam For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about documentary filmmaking legend Ken Burns telling CNN's Don Lemon why Ron DeSantis' “Stop Woke Act” and attacks on CRT in schools are something he would expect from the Soviet Union or Nazis; Ron DeSantis correcting the mainstream media's lies about the “Stop Woke Act” and book banning to their faces; and highlights from the Florida state of the state address. Dave also does a special “ask me anything” question-and-answer session on a wide-ranging host of topics, answering questions from the Rubin Report Locals community. ---------- Today's Sponsors: Birch Gold - Protect your retirement from Bidenflation. Convert your IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals. Claim your free infokit on gold and talk to one of their precious metals specialists now. Go to: https://birchgold.com/dave

You've probably heard about what Florida governor Ron DeSantis is up to. One of the most controversial things he's done is sign the Individual Freedom Act, also known as the “Stop W.O.K.E Act,” short for Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees. The law, among many things, prohibits teaching certain concepts related to race. Although there's currently an injunction against the law, its implementation had far-reaching consequences for students and professors alike. Jonathan Cox is an assistant sociology professor at the University of Central Florida. He faced a tough decision last fall. Cox, who is the only Black professor in his department, could either teach two courses that would explore colorblind racism, “Race and Social Media” and “Race and Ethnicity,” or cancel his classes. He had to choose the latter option of cancelling some of his courses because of DeSantis' law banning the teaching of critical race theory. Cox joins WITHpod to discuss the circumstances that led him to change the courses he taught last semester, the importance of inclusive spaces that encourage constructive debate, the effect of anti-CRT laws on his students and more.

Many on the right blame “wokeness” for all of America's ills—everything from deadly mass shootings to lower military recruitment. Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, recently signed a so-called Stop WOKE Act into law, and made the issue the center of his midterm victory speech. In Washington, there has been talk in the House of forming an “anti-woke caucus.” “I think ‘woke' is a very interesting term right now, because I think it's an unusable word—although it is used all the time—because it doesn't actually mean anything,” the linguist and lexicographer Tony Thorne, the author of “Dictionary of Contemporary Slang,” tells David Remnick.  Plus, the poet Robin Coste Lewis talks with the staff writer Hilton Als about how suffering a traumatic brian injury led her to a career in poetry. Her most recent book, “To the Realization of Perfect Helplessness,” was published last month.

We're not afraid to tackle any topic on this podcast, and this week that topic is drag. It's a new year, but right-wing extremists keep reading from the same old playbook, trying to find boogeymen to scare us… especially suburban women. Armed right-wing extremists have been showing up to protest drag storytime events, which seems far more traumatizing for a child than a princess reading them a book could ever be. So much for the party of personal choice.The hosts are joined by Cress Barnes, a mom in North Carolina who's had to deal with threats and calls to shut down her restaurant because she hosts family-friendly drag events. Cress talks about why it's important to provide inclusive spaces, some misconceptions about drag, and how she always tries to lead with kindness. When she threw a "not a protest" party to celebrate diversity in her town, hundreds of people showed up to support her and the LGBTQ community... and the right-wing extremists were nowhere to be found.Then Jasmine interviews Tara Hoot, a drag queen who regularly hosts storytime events for kids. Tara is a teacher and a parent, so events that bring joy to kids and parents alike has always been a passion. They discuss what exactly drag is, why drag events have become such a popular target, and why it's so important for kids to see themselves and their experiences reflected in the books they read and the events they attend. Finally, Amanda, Jasmine and Rachel raise a glass to not-so-expensive eggs, favorite flowers, and moms standing up for inclusive playgrounds in this episode's “Toast to Joy.”First Ron DeSantis passed "Don't Say Gay." Then he banned discussions about racism with the "Stop Woke Act." Now he's banned AP African American History in the state of Florida. If you want to stand up for education, we encourage you to sign our letter to the Florida Board of Education here.For a transcript of this episode, please email theswppod@redwine.blue. You can learn more about us at www.redwine.blue or follow us on social media! Twitter: @TheSWPpod Instagram: @RedWineBlueUSA Facebook: @RedWineBlueUSA TikTok: @redwineblueusa

...despite Mitch McConnell voting against codifying his own marriage into law... This is good news! Is it perfect news? As usual, no! But is it still very good? Yes! Would this have happened without Democrats controlling congress even by the slimmest possible majority? NO! Also, MAJOR show announcement! And it's a good one! Then Liz Dye joins to talk about a judge slapping down the Stop Woke Act. Links: Remaining House Election Results and Race Calls - The New York Times, Bipartisan senators revive effort to pass bill codifying same-sex marriage protections, U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), 28 U.S. Code § 1738C - Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof, H. R. 8404 To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act

We’ve got a lot to talk about today! First, we’re still considering the ways in which the Inflation Reduction Act is going to change our economy. Speaking of change, in July, Americans for the first time spent more time streaming than watching cable. Pause for quick detour into what we’re streaming now. Then, a Make Me Smile for those looking for a solution for hair loss: There might be a pill for that. Here's everything we talked about today: “Why Buying an Electric Car Just Became More Complicated” from The New York Times “Americans Spent More Time Streaming Than Watching Cable TV in July — a First” from The Wall Street Journal “Florida’s ‘Stop Woke Act’ for Workplaces Blocked by Federal Judge” from Bloomberg “An Old Medicine Grows New Hair for Pennies a Day, Doctors Say” from The New York Times Join us tomorrow for Economics on Tap! We'll be livestreaming on YouTube starting at 6:30 p.m. Eastern time, 3:30 p.m. Pacific time.

In this edition of VesperTrend, Jack and Miles discuss a federal judge upholding the law in "Stop Woke Act" trial, Mitch McConnell's grim midterm forecast, Andrew Tate getting banned from Facebook and Instagram, Sesame Street disappearing from HBO Max, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant bombing, and Bjork's new albumSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.