Social Justice - A Conversation

Wesley Knight 0:00
This is a Kun V studios original program. The content of this program does not reflect the views or opinions of 91.5 jazz and more the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, or the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education.

Charles Stanton 0:15
Good evening. My name is Charles Stanton. I'm on the faculty of the Boyd School of Law and the UNLV Honors College.

Kira Kramer 0:22
My name is Kira Kramer. I'm a fourth year honors college student, a public health major and a pre law student.

Charles Stanton 0:28
And this is social justice a conversation, a conversation. Well,

good evening, everybody, and welcome back to social justice a conversation Professor Stanton here with my cohort, Kira Kramer, I want to welcome you back to our broadcast. And we have many, many things to talk about tonight, as we always do. One of the things we wanted to talk about, basically, is the attack on our educational system. I think that's an enormous issue, not just for our particular university here, but for universities all over the country. And the question basically being, do our universities have the right and the ability to create curriculum and create syllabus and create courses that are going to be protected, and whether or not the students who come to this university and other universities have the right to partake in those courses and learn from those courses and have a full and fair education to not be denied. A lot of essential things that have happened in our country in the past and are happening now and what may happen in the future. And I think this is a really, really important topic. We've seen a lot of universities who basically abandon their dei programs because of financial constraints. University of Michigan being one of them. There's a whole bunch of them. My feeling on this is very is very clear that the university is in its its ultimate place, a place of learning and a place of knowledge. Its responsibility and its duty is to educate students as to you know, our history and our traditions and and educate them on many of the subjects that they will learn that they can go into careers in the future. I don't believe it's the right of the government to basically try to extort the universities through denial of federal funds in order to make them, you know, teach a certain kind of history, a certain kind of sociology, a certain kind of truth. There's one truth, there's one sociology, and there's one history of our country. And you know, the idea that we can, we can change it or misrepresent it or lie about it as something that's going to be productive or helpful to our students, is a woefully misguided idea. Ultimately,

Kira Kramer 3:21
I think colleges and universities are going to need to start relying on their alumni networks, whether in any of those people that are hold any type of power, whether it be in Congress or in other major sectors of government. I think college and universities need to start relying on each other, with Harvard taking the lead in dissenting against the Trump administration's requests. I think while Harvard has the financial ability to stay afloat without the federal government, likely not every university can, but if universities are able to band together in a more collective way, to collaborate and figure out how to continue their paths without letting the Trump administration berate them, is what is next, and also looking to the states for the state power that is able to stop the federal government in its tracks to a degree?

Charles Stanton 4:29
Yeah, well, I think that's exactly correct. I think there's a parallel from what Kira was saying, not just with the universities, but with the law firms as well. I think we've seen, we've seen, unfortunately, a cowardly erosion of the precepts of what a law firm is supposed to be about among a number of the big law firms in our country. I was, I was absolutely flabbergasted that. It not just Paul Weiss, but a whole bunch of firms, basically were allowing the administration to dictate what kind of cases they would take. I never thought I would see in my lifetime anything like that. I've never, I've never even, not only never heard of it. I couldn't even comprehend it that you, you have spent years building up your law firm, and you have a certain practice that you've created, and all of a sudden the government comes in and tells you, Well, you can't represent people who want social justice, or you can't represent people who have issues with the government and how the government's operating, when, when the legal community and the law firms are part of the apparatus of people to be able to get justice, the justice that we got, the justice that we have created in many areas of our of our law and in our country, whether it's racial Justice, sexual justice, social justice has so much to do with the efforts of so many unsung lawyers who have been able to bring these arguments before the various courts, particularly the Supreme Court. I mean, Brown versus Board of Education, the original repeal of the prohibition on women's rights busting. I mean, like, there's a whole ton of things that never would have come into effect, except for the efforts a lot of times, pro bono of these major law firms. These things didn't happen automatically by themselves. These rights weren't just given one day to the people. These were rights that had to be fought for over a long period of time. And now the idea, basically, well, that, you know, we're going to let the government dictate to us what kind of cases we can take is really, it's repellent, it's repugnant, and it really goes against the oath that you take as an attorney on a very on a very profound level, and I think it's given people applause who you know are involved in social justice issues as to basically, who can we trust? Who can who do we believe now is going to back us up and is going to be able to fight with us to see that our rights are enforced.

Kira Kramer 7:20
Ultimately, we just have to see more organizations, law firms, schools, universities, banding together. I think we can't lose sight of the fact that there are more of us and there are of them. And I feel like that is really getting lost in translation, and it is not hard for the American people to stifle them economically, and to do it very quickly. And so other than the fact that mass mobilization is hard, however, it's not impossible, and we've been able to do it before. And so even though they're sowing the seeds of their own destruction and doing it rather efficiently, people are getting upset. The tariffs are already taking business owners completely out. Small business owners. I was listening to the story of one lady who had famously been on Shark Tank and like she had engineered a product for young babies and children, and she has been entirely decimated by the tariffs and so and people who rely on her products, parents, working America, like the working class of America, the ripples are going to be felt through every class, except for, of course, the 1% so. But there are more of us, and there are of them. And so I think at the end of the day, like we have to continue systematically stifling them economically to the point where they start to back off, which has been somewhat effective when we look at Trump making an accommodation for Apple. Because, of course, anything that hurts corporate interest has to be stifled. And so at the end of the day, corporate interest is very hurt by a lot of what he does. And so, and if no one can afford to essentially participate in the economy, because no one can afford, like, because no one can afford to do it, then I think we'll see corporations push back even more.

Charles Stanton 9:27
Yeah, well, I think what's interesting, though, is, especially with the tariffs, is there's no coherent policy. So you have one day they announce all these tariffs. Okay, now to me, you know it's it's really a self destructive act, but then the next day that policy changes, and then two or three days after that, the policy changes again. So we look to the rest of the world like we have no clue as to what we're doing economically. And. The United States was always relied on by the rest of the world. Our financial stability in the global markets was always considered pretty much a given. And a lot of these countries now are saying to themselves, can we rely on the United States as a leader, as a global leader, not just a global leader morally, but a global, leader economically. And I think what's also interesting about it too, though, is that the policies of the government reflect an attitude of a person, basically, who doesn't really strongly believe in anything except accept his own his own benefit, so that there's no like, right game plan as to how this is all going to how this is all going to play out. I was saying to I was saying to my partner here, before the broadcast began, that both the Japanese and the Chinese own an enormous amount of our debt. Now let's suppose that G and the leader of Japan say, You know what, we should start unloading this in the open market. Let's get rid of all this debt. We it would be catastrophic for our economy. It would be catastrophic for our economy. And what's what's sad also, is in this administration, unlike the first administration that he had, there's no voices that really speak up when he's doing stuff that's completely aberrant. It's just like a bunch of people who, you know, they were put in there, and they'll do whatever He tells them to do. They won't question anything. And that's that's really very harmful, because you want to have people in the cabinet, in your government, who, if they see things going off the rails, they're supposed to be speaking up and basically protecting us and working for us, because more than working for it for him, they're working for all of us, not just the people who you know were in his cabinet, but the Congress as well. And the Republican Party basically has taken a siesta. I mean, there's very little, you know, pushback on any of the stuff that he's doing, although I'm sure a lot of them know that. You know what he's doing is destructive. And really in a lot of the in the case with a lot of the Republicans, both in congressional districts, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, know that it's really going to harm the people that represent particularly in a lot of these states, like Missouri, Kansas, you know, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, where they're going to have cuts involved in food programs for children, meals for the elderly, Medicaid, and on And on and on. Plus, of course, trying to stabilize Social Security, it's all it's all there, but the silence is deafening.

Kira Kramer 12:51
No, and at the end of the day, when people are unable to rely on the government, they're going to have to turn into their communities. And if there's any hope for us moving forward. It's that the midterms will be free and fair, and that when America has a chance to use its voice again, it will use its voice with reason, and the effects are being felt by across the country, by every single American, and hopefully this is a time in which our community networks can be strengthened, because when they don't provide meals for school children, the community needs to step up in every single way we can, because we can get through this together through collective bargaining and using resources efficiently and equitably, even if it's through grassroots organizations and not through the mainstream sources. Yeah,

Charles Stanton 13:48
I think what's interesting, what's interesting too, when you've seen all the things that have happened, you know, which soon will be going on three months, it always amazes me and fascinates me how a lot of the people that voted for this man don't understand that he has absolutely, he has absolutely no interest in their needs. And it's really, it boggles my mind, because, you know, there was a big article in the Times the other day about how these people, you know, still believe that he's going to do X, Y and Z for them. He's not going to do anything for them. He didn't do anything for them when there was the previous tax cut, the middle class, the poor got basically nothing. And the motivation, the energy behind all of this activity regarding downsizing the government agencies and limiting or cutting out these programs has nothing to do with deficiency. It has nothing to do with efficiency. What it has to do with is freeing up money in the budget of the United States of America to allow an even bigger tax cut than was granted before. That's the only reason for this. None of what's none of what he's been doing. Can any, in any way, be called an action of efficiency, because efficiency has to do with planning. Efficiency has to do with evaluation of workers capabilities. In the true sense, efficiency has to do with not just firing a whole bunch of people, but knowing which people to fire, but also which people to retain. And there's been none of that. And he's basically sent a he's basically sent a man who has no government approval, Senate approval, anybody's approval, and basically given him over to bring him in his minions, to go around to different agencies, to terrorize people, to fire people without any kind of a game plan as to what the the end point is going to be, and it the people who the people who voted for him, really need to start looking at themselves in the mirror. I think, though, that's starting to happen. I think, in the case with Tesla now, you're seeing a tremendous amount of of negative, negative vibe for him. A lot of these rallies that they've been holding, I think have been very successful. A lot of people have, you know, given up Tesla or sold their Tesla, the price of the price of the stock, has gone down, and I think those are all positive things. But I think, as Kevin's always saying, and I agree with this completely, we need to branch out from that. We need to go beyond Tesla. We need to go back with, go to all the entities that he's connected with in the corporate world, and do the same thing to them in the corporate world that they've been doing with Tesla. And they have to, they have to create a scenario where being with him will be very financially unsatisfactory for them and won't be worth it for them to keep staying with them. So we have to continue. We have to create a disincentive for supporting him, because his main support is corporate America. And if corporate America, you know, takes their chips and walks away from him, his support is going to radically diminish.

Kira Kramer 17:07
I agree, and everything you said is it's very clear you don't just take billions, if not trillions, out of our government all for the goal of efficiency. Like do efficient inefficiencies exist? Of course, do trillions of dollars worth of efficiencies exist? No, which is why we see critical social services being absolutely gutted when in the first place, they weren't staffed enough in like in the first place, when there wasn't enough resources in these agencies and in these programs to meet demand in the first place, you can't there's just no justification for it. There's absolutely nothing. And so ultimately, I just, I believe that money talks louder than anything else does, and so you have to hit them where it hurts, and that's in the pockets. And so very systematic and organized forms of economic, protest can be a great way for people to mobilize their support. Maybe they're to they're uneasy about going to a protest, but it's really important to be able to mobilize support in different ways. And, yeah,

Charles Stanton 18:22
I agree. I mean, I think what's interesting, though, to me, is one particular thing, which is the veterans and how, you know, there was always talk about make America great again, and all the rest of that stuff. And here you have the veterans who serve the country, the VA. The VA has always been a problem agency. I mean, going, going way back, but what he's done now, he's basically, he's basically emasculated the VA. He's basically emasculated the VA, not just, not more than just the limitation of services, but also all the people who are veterans themselves, who worked, who worked in these different departments, who had an eye witness, few of what was going on, who had been in the military themselves, who knew what the veterans needed, who needed, who knew what services needed to be provided. And basically they got rid of all those people, and those are the people who defend and protect our country. So when you see something like that, you have to realize how bogus this thing is, and it's nothing to do with patriotism. It has nothing to do with making America great again. It has to do with making a few people at the top of the food chain basically feast off the rest of us. I mean, that's really what it comes down to, that America basically has become basically a place run by a really, very, very, very small group of people, and their front is the Supreme Court and the Republican Congress and. And him as well, and the vast majority of people are, you know, in deep financial straits. I mean, you look at the real estate market, the real estate market is terrible, the interest rate situation, the price of food, which he said he was going to bring down, which, of course, was his whole mythology. And, you know? And then I was talking with one of my neighbors last night, and they were saying, like, you know, they were saying, like, this is it. And I said to them, I said, What do you mean? This is it? And I said, Well, I got to go to the store tomorrow, and I'm going to, I'm going to get dirty of this and 40 of this. And I said, Well, wait a minute. Now. Why are you going to do that? And the person said, Well, who knows what the future is going to be. Who knows what the future is going to be? The other interesting thing that's going on, which is also very interesting, is, is the huge jump in gun sales. That's another really interesting thing. I was talking with a guy I know. He's in the he's in the gun trade, and he has a place here, and he has a place in another state, he sold out, he sold out his stock. And that that's not really a kind of a happy thought. It's not something I like to really, you really feel good about, but people are frightened and people are concerned and people are uneasy, and that's where, and that's where, in all these cases in our country, that you need a leader, you need a person. You need a person who has an agenda, but has an agenda that that's a beneficial agenda for the public and a person who has people's confidence. It is not confidence giving when you have a person changing their policy like four or five times on tariffs within the space of a week. It does not contribute to people really believing that the person knows what they're doing, or believe that the country knows what direction they're going in, and that's what's missing. That's what's missing. And there, you know, we're talking about, you know, academia, and we're also talking about, you know, the people who are on Wall Street, but it really is incumbent on the people who are in the financial community to bag currying favor with this guy and just come out and say, basically, listen, this guy doesn't know what he's doing. That's what's going on here. And, you know, we need to get we need to get a government, and we need to get people in leadership authority who have the experience to pull us out before we go down the hall. Yes,

Kira Kramer 22:30
and before we close up this broadcast, I want to take mention to the Save act. I think that's something that really needs. Is worth mentioning in today's episode, the Save Act, which is the safeguard American voter eligibility Act, is going to the Senate currently. However, it's worth noting that the Senate and Congress is currently on a break and will be on a break until April 27 so now is the time for us to reach out to our elected officials, because this piece of legislation is extremely harmful and a little bit terrifying, and so it was introduced to respond to fears around voter fraud, Even though significant Research has consistently showed that instances of and incidences of voter fraud are exceedingly rare, and it is not a significant factor in American elections, regardless, the current administration wants to make it so that in order for you to vote, you have to have a birth certificate, us, passport, naturalization, PACE per work and only certain versions of the REAL ID will be accepted to indicate your citizenship. Now, if you're an American woman who has changed your name to your spouse's name and your name no longer matches that name on your birth certificate, then you would not be able to vote. And so this could happen to anyone who's changed their name or anyone who doesn't have access to those documents, perhaps like college students who go away and are voting in their cities that they go to school in, and so they don't have access to those types of documents, like a passport or a birth certificate, and this would disenfranchise millions of voters, particularly women. And so I really urge everyone to call their elected officials, and even if you have a Democrat that has responded to you saying that they will vote no on this, they need to do more than that. They need to pressure their Republican colleagues and fellow Democratic colleagues to shut this bill down. This is extremely harmful to the legislative and democratic process of our elections, and I would highly urge that everyone use their voice and please call your elected officials. Yeah,

Charles Stanton 24:57
well, I think, I think. If obviously what you said is true, I would say, from my from a long study of this going back a number of years, when I worked in the board of election in the city of New York, with millions and millions and millions of people, the instances of voter fraud and voter regularized were very, very small. I had worked on some of those cases, and in a mayoral election, say, in New York City, where you might have a million and a half 2 million votes, maybe 15 or 20 out of 2 million votes, in my experience, what is going on here is an attempt to deny people the right to vote. It's an attempt to deny people their franchise under the excuse that we know we're protecting the we're protecting the system from fraud, the cases of fraud, the cases of fraud in the just finished election, and the cases of fraud in 2020 were minimal, very, very minimal, and and they were, they were minimal because there was tremendous security, both at the polling places and also in the internet, in the computer and all the rest of that stuff. I find it so ironic now that one of the people who was involved in, you know, trying to protect that system, Chris Krebs, who was a computer expert, is now, you know, on the verge of being investigated, investigated for what, investigating for protecting the system. Or the bottom line is, the bottom line is, and has always been, that the people, the powers that be, do not want minorities, women, people of color, etc, etc, to be able to vote. This is what it's about. Has nothing to do with voter fraud. They want to exclude as many people as they can from the voting ranks, because they know the demographic in America has turned against them, and the Democrat demographic in America is not supporting any of the stuff that they're promoting, so they're trying to use all these different methodologies to exclude people from voting. But we need to, as Kira said, we need to be very vigilant about this. We need to get in touch with our congress people and all of our representatives to support to support people's right to vote in our franchise. Because without that, you know, and with all the other things that are going on, our democracy can erode away, and it's not. It's not eroding away in one act. It's eroding through a whole bunch of Acts and to and through a process like you chip away at a sculpture every little bit, one piece at a time, over over days and over months, until people wake up one day and they find that the democracy they always counted on and relied on and took for granted is gone. So we all need to wake up in our country, the threat is very, very real, and we need to face that threat, and we need to address that threat, and we need to mobilize to fight that threat, and only by fighting together. Whether it's black, white, Hispanic, Latino, Jew, Christian, Muslim, whatever, it doesn't make any difference at this point, because the rights that will be lost for some of us, ultimately will be the rights that will be lost for all of us. I

Kira Kramer 28:25
could not have said it better myself. Thank you all for joining us today. I urge you to participate over this weekend in the economic blackout that will be taking place from April 18 through the 20th so if you're going to be celebrating any holidays this weekend, please do your shopping before then, and please take the time to enjoy with your family and friends, and perhaps a nice picnic. And so with that, I hope everyone has a great rest of your week, and please be sure to stay engaged and involved.

Charles Stanton 29:06
Thank you, Kira, for that, and on behalf of the both of us, have a wonderful holiday and good night.

Kira Kramer 29:22
Thank you for listening to this broadcast, and if you have any questions or ideas for future discussion topics, please contact myself at K, R, A, M, E, k two@unlv.nevada.edu or Professor Charles Stanton at C, H, A R, L, E, S, dot, S, T, a n, t o n@unlv.edu, see you next time we look forward to it.

SFX 29:52
You.