And you too, all of you. So you came to us early on and you actually was right before crossover and you wanted us to take a look at some language that you thought was really important that we consider. And so we wanted to bring you back in and have that conversation since we have a vehicle for it. And wondering if you could tee that conversation back up for us. Yes, absolutely. So for Yang, Executive Director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission and I'm here to talk about the language that pertains to severe pervasive, which is a legal standard that courts have been using to analyze claims of harassment that have been brought by employees and students and any really public member. And when I last spoke about it, I did share with you all of the stories of how severe pervasive came about at the U.S. Supreme Court and what the circuits courts have been doing across the country that have really created confusion and an insurmountable barrier for people to bring forth claims of discrimination, including students. And I thought that I would I shared a fact sheet with you all that the Human Rights Commission has put together. And I thought that I would also kind of review with you the language that I think is. For a while ago, I believe you send it to us. We don't have it right now. Oh, okay. I can share that again after or now, whatever works best for you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let me send it to you right now. It's a fresh copy to hate. Yep. I'll do that right now. Great. Cause I've looked for her testimony and I couldn't find it before. Okay. It's on its way. I'm terrible at multitasking. So I had to do that first and then come back. So I, so that's the fact sheet. I also wanted to review. The goal here isn't just to get rid of severe pervasive, but to replace it with language that will guide our course and how they should look at harassment in schools. And as you all may be aware, S103 is a bill that changes severe pervasive under the employment discrimination laws, as well as the public accommodations laws. It carves out an exception for Title 16, which is the education laws that fall within your jurisdiction. So S103 passed in the Senate. It's currently in the house, but I do think that there's room and time here to fix that so that when we're looking to change severe pervasive across employment, as well as places of public accommodations that we bring along all the kids that experience harassment in schools as well. Because really there is no reason to bifurcate and to think of kids experiencing harassment differently than adults experiencing harassment. Student rights really are the same as worker rights in this instance, which isn't to say that an employer or a school would be handling it in the same way. That's a different issue. The roles and responsibilities of a school or a manager or supervisor on the job is different, but the harassment and how we look at harassment and the harm that harassment creates for the individual is the same, whether you're dealing with a young woman who's in the eighth grade or a more senior woman who is working on the job. The experience of harassment in the harm that is created by harassment is essentially the same here. And severe pervasive is about how we look at harassment. So I can either go through S103, which is the language that has been passed in the Senate in regards to harassment and why that language is there or I can answer questions. I want to be respectful of your time. So this is the language that came out of Senator Ron Hinsdale's committee. And that would be helpful to pinpoint the exact change you're looking for. Absolutely. Senator Gullick. Yes. Okay. Senator Gullick had a question. Yeah, I was just going to ask if we can see the language change that you're proposing and also, and I'm sorry, you probably should know this, but where would this be embedded? Would this be in the miscellaneous ed bill? Okay. So I'm on page 19 of the bill. And you'll see there on page 19 in the middle of the page, it says definitions under 9VSA 4501. This is our public accommodation statute. And I'll recall that places of public accommodations includes any school in the state of Vermont. And so here we are defining harassment for the first time, which says to engage in unwelcome conduct that detracts from undermines or interferes with the person's use of a place of public accommodation or any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, et cetera, and other places of those protected classes. Race, breed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. I skipped down to B here where it says notwithstanding any judicial precedent to the contrary, harassing conduct may not be severe or pervasive. So this is the correction. This would be the Vermont legislature correcting courts that says we are getting rid of severe or pervasive. B-I says the determination shall be made on the basis of the record as a whole according to the totality of the circumstances and a single incident may constitute unlawful harassment. Incidents that may be harassment shall be considered in the aggregate with varying types of conduct and conduct based on multiple characteristics viewed in totality rather than in isolation. So I'm going to talk about B-I and little I, one and two, which is this language seeks to correct to what courts have not been doing well at, which is viewing people who belong in intersecting identities. And that was something that I had mentioned last time is that when you have a woman who is also a person of color who might also have a disability, is that the courts are not good at looking at the totality of the circumstances. They have asked that woman to prove that in each separate instances, she has been harassed on a severe or pervasive basis. And so she must separately prove that she has endured harassment because of her disability and on a severe or pervasive basis, her race as well as her sex. When in reality, if the courts were able to look at the totality of circumstances and all of the incidents in aggregate, that she would probably meet that standard. And so this is what this is looking to do. Also, the reason why it's important to suggest here that a single incident may constitute unlawful harassment is because courts have sometimes dismissed cases because they said it's not sufficiently severe or pervasive even when it was sexual touching, groping. So something pretty serious. And yet courts have found that that wasn't significant. California corrected this by saying a single incident is enough. The language here also goes on to say that conduct may constitute unlawful harassment. Regardless of whether the complaining person is the person being harassed, whether the complaining person at West or submitted to the conduct, the conduct is also experienced by others outside the protected class. And despite the conduct, the complaining person may also be able to use the place of public accommodation and join the benefit of applicable terms, whether it resulted in physical or psychological injury. And whether the conduct occurred outside the place of public accommodation or dwelling. And I just wanted to kind of clarify. We have a question. Sorry for don't mean to disrupt the train of thought here. I'm just wondering before the conduct resulted in a physical or psychological injury. Is that should instead of psychological, should that be emotional injury? Just for the sake of consistency with this and other, I guess, torts that could happen in civil cases or. What are your thoughts on that? Yeah, that's a great question and thought. I don't think I have an opinion about the term psychological versus emotional injury. I think what's more important here is that some, that you have an individual who could experience significant harassment and yet be getting A's in her courses. Or you have an employee in the employment arena. You might have someone who is actually performing well, but still being subjected to harassment. And in some court cases, courts have said, well, if you don't have an injury, you don't have a psychological physical injury, then I guess you weren't really harassed. It wasn't severe or pervasive. And we want to get away from the idea that a student has to fail in her classes before we take the harassment seriously or that we consider the fact that she was harassed. The reality is that many victims and survivors of harassment have to work that much harder to get the same grade as other students who are not experiencing it. And so this language is really goes to the heart of that idea that we might still be able to survive and do well in our courses and yet have been a victim of harassment. But in terms of just that term, I don't know if I have an opinion about that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think it could be emotional injury. The reason I'm thinking that there's intentional inflection of emotional distress and then you have special relationships that can make different determinations as to how the case would turn out. So for example, the relationship between a teacher and a student is different than a relationship between two people who meet at a coffee shop and there's special responsibilities that that teacher has, which is why, well, yeah, actually, I'm just kind of veering off now. But yeah, that's just something to think about. Please continue. The bill, S103 specifically carves out an exception under 16 VSA, the education, the education laws around harassment. And earlier sort of mentioned, you know, potential vehicles. I just want to say that it's not too late to probably get a bill over to house education. If you passed it in the Senate to house education to kind of fix that on the house side. I think you also have a bill in your committee right now, each 483. That also looks at places, places of public accommodations and clarifying that all schools are considered places of public accommodations. And that's potentially a vehicle as well. I do want to say that while I have been grateful to be the person to testify in this committee, there are many, many people interested in this bill. And you may want to hear from them if a bill does get picked up or even beforehand. Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence.  So, or why bring it here when the bill is in the house now? Why not fix it over there? That's one of great. I mean, it could be either or. I think that Senator Campion, you have been a champion for all of the kids, BIPOC kids, LGBTQIA kids. And you have invited us in for that conversation. And so we're here because we know that this is a committee that supports this. And really that's it. Okay. Yeah. And I can see it done either, you know, in either spot, you know, we can, we can certainly consider it with 483. If that's the right vehicle. But I would also talk to the house that's dealing with S103. So it's not lost. That's my answer. Yeah. S103 is currently in the house committee on general affairs, which is not education. And they, obviously in both of the Senate economics committee and the house general committee, they're reluctant to pick up education because obviously this is not in their wheelhouse. But yeah, I mean, I was thinking more, you know, sometimes how we would operate would be house education might propose an amendment to that, to that bill. But we're happy to do it as well. I just know, I know, you know, any of these bills may not make it this year. So I just want to, that's always, we always run that risk. Something gets vetoed or something like that. So, and this sounds like it would be something we'd like to make sure gets over the finish line. Yeah. Or have you heard from folks on the ground in schools? Guides counselors or principals or anyone like that? I think that, I mean, I haven't heard from them directly. I certainly think they would have a say in this. We're changing the legal standard here. I can't say what, whether principals or guidance counselors would have an opinion about this. I do know that many of the organizations that I've mentioned that represent the students and families across all the protected classes are very much in favor of this change. And they are the people that we do all of this for and seek to serve. And so, yeah. Anything else for board at this point or anything else for us? Yeah, I think I just want to say I want to thank you for having us in your committee in the first place and bringing up a complex, but also important issue and having that conversation. I want to thank you for inviting me back today to have a conversation about it. And I just want to urge you and encourage all of you to support this and do whatever it is that you can do to move this forward and ask you to do it. Your committee to take this up. To be the champion for our kids. So thank you. For thank you. Really appreciate it. It's good to see you. Sorry you're not. Hopefully we'll see you again in person sometime soon. Absolutely, yes. And I'm sure we can find two different spots for this, one of which I'm sure we'll make it through. And I would just keep an eye on that on the house side as well. I will. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for it. Take care. Senator machine S 120. We have, are you with us? Please join us at the table. This is a bill that you have that we ask folks to go out and sort of get some thought to. And I just need some direction, I guess, from you as the lead sponsor on whether or not, what you'd like to do this year on it or there are all sorts of different options. Well, let me just hear from Daniel as well. Barquist responded. Did send us an email. Well, I think it might be good to hear from Jessica actually regarding the best way to move forward with it because of the working group that they made. And I know that some things were kind of shuffled around and I don't want to speak for that group if I'm not sure what their deliberations were. Yeah. So it was a unanimous request, as I understand it, from the Vermont network, UDM, AVIC via Vermont's ecologist. And they sent us an email. I've got something here that says, what they're requesting is $23,000. The sum of $20,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the Center for Crime Victim Services for this school year 2024 to provide a grant for the purpose of staffing the intercollegiate sexual harm prevention council to provide per game compensation and reimbursement of expenses for members who are not otherwise compensated by members and employer for attendance at meetings. So again, happy to move it. We do have additional testimony today on it. And would you mind introducing yourself to the record and saying a few words and that would give Senator Hashim and others just a couple minutes to think about things. Absolutely. So my name is Danielle Slosses. I'm Norwich University's Title IX coordinator and Assistant Vice President of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. I have prepped just an overview of our process and some of our resources. Great. Please. So I oversee the full Title IX program where we respond to sexual harassment and violence on campus. And so when I looked at sort of the best way to go over how we do what we do, I wanted to start with sort of how we interact with the community to share information about the process and to sort of begin that conversation. So our very first contact with our students specifically is an orientation or actually pre-arrival. So we have a three-pronged approach. We have an online course called Everfi. That's who we contract with. They do research around sort of effective training. And this online course really goes over sort of our full policy and process, applicable state and federal law. It gives that foundation. It does go over some scenarios as well. The next thing we do is an in-person training with myself and my other staff members. This is in small groups in our orientation with our first year students. And the goal of this is to both sort of put a face to the name, talk about specific legal rights, policy rights, and procedures, but then also have a larger conversation around consent and boundaries. This is a real foundational session where I think a lot of people will think that consent only applies in sexual situations. And we want to start reframing that for our, especially our first year students and then continue that conversation through their time at Norwich. Around we talk about consent in our daily lives all the time, right? It's something we use. We always recognize boundaries. How do we start pulling that over into sexual situations, right? And then we build on that training with a curricular model. So a big piece of what we do with sort of our leaders and our upperclassmen are scenario-based trainings that focus on helping people recognize sexual violence and respond to it. And this is really geared towards that idea that a lot of people have an idea of what they think sexual violence looks like, right? Typically it is something fairly violent, right? So they're walking home alone at night and they're accosted by a stranger. But on college campuses it can be a lot lower level, so to speak. You have intoxicants involved. You have people not realizing that they've crossed a boundary.  And so we want to train our students and our staff and faculty to not only recognize those situations but know how to respond. How do you respond to the person who's shouting rape in the stairwell? How do you respond when you see a situation going out of hand at a party? How do you have that conversation and how do you know it to report, right? That's our first big issue is we don't want people to not know what they can report. And so these trainings are then followed up with what are resources. And I will talk more about what our actual process and resources are in a moment. I have brought this brochure. I can see the green on the table, so it seems like y'all have it as well. And then we also offer on-demand training. So safe zone for LGBT students and allyship. Active bystander, implicit bias, community norm building workshops. And so the goal of these workshops is to not only sort of increase the conversation around these topics but get title line staff members out into the campus. People are much more likely to want to report somewhere where they know who the people are, where they know what the office looks like. And so when I talk about avenues for reporting, that's kind of our first big step is someone's going to feel more comfortable if they know who I am, if they know who my staff are. And then we also do specific workshops for student groups and staff and faculty on campus. So for athletics teams, we have a scenarios-based conversational workshop where it really focuses on group think and team dynamic. How do you support a team member going through this experience? When you're all out, how do you recognize a situation where you can intervene? We really take the approach of our students who want to be leaders. So let's talk about how leaders support each other. And so we also have one other sort of reporting avenue that we want to create for students to feel comfortable. And that's our leadership, education, advocacy and prevention program. And so these are peers we're trained in our office who understand sort of our policy and procedure. So if a student wants to report to us, they can talk to a peer first if they're nervous. I want them to know who I am. I want them to know what our process is. But maybe they just, that's a far off distant figurehead, but they know the person down the hall who can say this is what's going to happen when you meet with the Title Line office. And so while doing those trainings, we don't just talk about the Title Line office and those rights. We also talk about local and campus resources. So I have brought some business cards that we flood the campus with. I'm going to leave off the brief. I'm going to show you our reporting form and my information. And then the other side, it has confidential resources, including our Counseling and Wellness Center, Mosaic, which is our local sexual assault crisis team, and Circle, which is our local intimate partner violence team. All of these on this side are 24-7 resources. So students and staff and faculty all have people that they can reach at any time, even if it's outside of business hours. So to take that sort of big picture, all of these sort of touch points have the goal of creating different avenues of access and understanding for our community members of what resources are available to them through us and what resources are available to them locally, what resources are available both in an internal investigation at the university, also a criminal investigation because that would be something available. All these trainings also have lesson plans where we talk about what our goals are, and this is a big piece of how we can then go back and assess to make sure this is serving the community in its institutional context. And I'll talk a little bit more about that assessment after. But the goal and the reason these are kind of a bright color green is to just have these resources everywhere. We have posters. We make specific rack cards for athletics coaches, for student affairs staff to really focus on what questions they may receive. We also do specific training for our leaders who might be taking disclosures including faculty, staff and student leaders. So a lot of our educators are in a space where their way of interacting with students in the community is to be problem solvers, right? A student comes and they say, I failed a test. And that person is supposed to work with them. How do we make sure this doesn't happen again? What steps can you take to make sure this doesn't happen again? We don't want the response to be what can we do to make sure this doesn't happen again. What could you have done differently? Because that really quickly turns it into you should have done something differently and you're at fault for it having happened. And we don't want that to be what's said. And so when I talk about that kind of training, it's also a lot of how do we respond in an effective, compassionate and trauma informed way. It's also a lot of how do we respond when a friend discloses. Because again, I think it's a natural instinct to want to problem solve, but that's not the appropriate space for it. And so this is sort of all of the avenues where people get different touch points where they can learn sort of how to contact us. And the next step would be we get a report and then we talk about that process, but I want to focus on that. All right. So when we get a report, this is sort of the first thing that I want to focus on. So we will usually reach out to the student via email. If we know that they're so we get a report they're named as they're called the complainant in our process. Yes, I have some extras too. They're an awful couple. So we get their name and they get outreach from our staff. And this is via email. And that first email, it is a little dense. It goes over all of their rights and options. So both a potential investigation through the Norwich Title Line office, a potential criminal investigation if they would like help reporting to the police, supportive measures including academic accommodations, housing accommodations. It also attaches a list of trained Title Line advisors that they can reach out to. They would like to have someone who sort of solely in their corner in the room so to speak when they meet. We will sometimes outreach via call if we know that the number we have on file is their cell. We don't always call if we're not sure sometimes people put their parents phone number in and they don't want their parents getting a call from our office necessarily. But that first email gives them all the information and this is attached as well. It can be very dense so we're not assuming that students are reading this line by line and absorbing all of that. But for students that want to come in feeling like they're worried that there might be a surprise as to what happens, the goal of this email is to make sure they know what's there. The other piece is that this email makes clear that the student doesn't have to respond or come in. And this is the next important part of our process is that we want to keep people in choice. If someone has experienced sexual violence, they have lost the right to fundamentally control something that was only theirs to control. And we don't want to re-victimize or re-traumatize someone by saying, great, you've reported and now you don't get a choice as to what we do next. So that email is very geared towards hear your choices, hear your options. And so when they meet with us, it's either online or in our intake room which has coffee and snacks, it's designed to be comforting. It has grounding techniques on the wall and posters, a lot of different pieces that, you know, so the student knows that this is not an administrative hearing they're walking right into. And the first thing we will talk about are supportive measures. And so directly in the center of this brochure, we go over the supportive services and resources. We have a lot of different things we can put into place for a student who may have experienced sexual violence. And this, like I said, it includes academic accommodations, room moves, no contact orders, connection with the police. So if someone wants to report the police, we will not force them to, but if they would like to, we have contacted Northfield PD before the officer will come to our office and meet with them. A criminal investigation is completely separate from a Norwich investigation and we let the student know that they have the right to both. And so then we'll talk about connection with confidential resources, local advocacy groups. We've also included a variety of resources in here in the case, you know, some people want to meet with a supportive service that reflects a protected characteristic they might be a part of. I have a lot of, you know, male survivors that want to talk with specific organizations that support male survivors. So we also include those groups in there as well so that we can have that contact information. When talking about supportive measures, it's very much a fine, it's a complex process, right? So when we look at what does someone need to continue to succeed academically, that can be very different for different individuals. So we actually work with our Center for Achievement and Academic Success to look at what classes are they in? What specific deadlines might they need help with? Are there different topics that some assignment should focus on? If it's a sensitive topic that maybe they're not, you know, feeling comfortable doing, you know, do they need extra time on tests? Do they need to retake something? Are they incomplete? It's very specific to each student and it's ongoing over time because we want to make sure that we're really offering a robust and actual support. It's not, okay, you're out of one test and that's all. And they know that they can come back to our office to get those supportive services updated as necessary. So the next step is we ask them what type of response they would like. And so they can request a confidential, or they can make a confidentiality request. This is where they say, I don't want you to do anything. I don't want you to contact the person who's alleged to have engaged in this behavior, the respondent. I just want you to hold that info. We try very hard to respect that request. I don't want to move forward with something when someone is saying this is not right for my emotional health or well-being. Just because they've declined to move forward one time doesn't mean that they are barred from moving forward a day, a week, a month, a year later. So long as we control the respondent, so they're a Norwich University student, staff, or faculty member, we can investigate. I will typically assess are there repeated reports on this individual? Was there violence involved? Is there risk to the community? If I need to move forward with something without the consent of the complainant, I let them know that they aren't required to participate. They'll still receive notifications as they're entitled to by law, but they are welcome to disregard those. They are welcome to start participating again. I will usually try to work with them to get them to a space where they are comfortable moving forward. I don't want this to feel like someone is abruptly losing choice and control. The next piece is that there's the potential that an informal resolution is on the table. An informal resolution is an educational conversation we have with someone when they are alleged to have done something that is not yet a policy. You first year students come in and they have asked someone out and that person has said no. They keep kind of asking about their floating around. They're not threatening. They're not making someone feel scared, but it's a boundary that's being crossed and it could escalate if left unaddressed. That's when we'll bring that person in. It'll be a conversation around boundaries. It'll be a conversation around you need to leave this other person alone. Let's talk about that. If we continue, that's where it ends. That's sort of the educational piece. We would not use this for an allegation of sexual assault. That is not a okay, let's have an educational conversation. The next option is a formal investigation. This is when if someone is alleging something that has proven true would meet one of our policy violations. They're in our policy. I do have a description of them here as well. They're a formal investigation. If the allegations have proven true would be a policy violation, we will move forward. It's the very last page of this that goes over our flow chart of our process. I think one thing that's really important is that Title 9 is highly federally regulated and very legalistic. One thing that I think Title 9 are struggling with is how do we take a process that is this legalistic and make it digestible and understandable for our students, particularly students who are already in a vulnerable and stressed and anxious position. Right? And we do this in a few different ways. This is part of why we have this flow chart. We will walk a student through this process. We'll do it at the beginning. We have trained advisors who are trained more robustly than just your average staff or faculty member to understand what this process is. And we have different tools that students can use in the investigation to sort of understand what policy elements we are talking about and we are assessing. But I do think that you can see here. It's complicated. It is if someone wants to move forward, we meet with them. We get enough information to type up. It's called the formal complaint. We don't want them to have to retell their story multiple, multiple times. So we try to keep it very minimal. We get sufficient information to write a notice of allegations. We type up what they have told us. We let them review and sign it. They can make any edits. We then notify the respondent. So the respondent also gets a lengthy email that goes over their rights, that goes over supporting measures available to them. The other thing I will say is we have a presumption of good faith reporting, which is that we believe people are reporting what they are reporting in good faith. We also have a presumption of not responsible unless demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. So a title line investigation is a little different than a criminal investigation where in a criminal investigation is geared towards gathering all available evidence and it's by a neutral decision maker or a neutral investigator. So our investigator is going to meet with the complainant, the respondent, any witnesses that they suggest and then typically the complainant and the respondent again. Our investigators are trained to ask questions in a neutral way and trained to make those sessions as easy as possible. I say as easy as possible because that is an easy session to go through. It's not easy to be asked about a consensual sexual encounter and never mind one that was not consensual. It's not easy to be asked about whether or not you sexually assaulted someone. It is a very stressful experience and so we try to make it as not stressful as possible. We let students know they can have an advisor in the room with them when they have any part of this process and they can take breaks when necessary. This is given to both parties to review if they have other witnesses they want interviewed, if they would like to be additionally interviewed, if they have other questions they think should have been asked, they get to give that feedback, it goes back to the investigator for finalization and then once it's final it again goes to the parties for review and goes to a hearing. Our decision makers receive a substantial amount of training at nationally recognized association because our investigators like our decision makers need to be sort of neutral and unbiased and there's a lot that goes into weighing all this evidence. We make sure that our decision makers are looking at this based on policy elements and that they're using the same standards that you see around credibility and I believe it's the California state system and in this hearing which they don't participate or not their statements can still be considered even if they don't participate the decision maker will ask questions and questions can be asked of parties and witnesses through advisors so if a party says I want these questions asked they have the right to do that they also have the right to just submit those questions to the decision maker. The decision maker now comes our life changing regardless of what the decision is and to respect sort of the humanity and dignity of everyone involved I never want someone to wonder why we made the choice we made and so that is also part of what our decision makers are trained on is we need to show our work I don't want to be oh the school just didn't care we didn't care the decision maker and the appeal decision maker are all separate people so it's not that you just keep going back to the same person it keeps the integrity of the process do you have any specific concerns on S120 or anything that you want to say on that bill or is this more of I know Susan Stighley asked you to come in I know that the committee I think sort of thinking about that bill I think about sort of the climate survey and that assessment I think assessment is very important we do use a climate survey that asks generally about safety perceptions understanding of how people how you can report I also think some campus specific assessment is really important we look at our specific caseloads has that been accessible so I do think that would be a valuable sort of thing to consider anything else from you can you highlight since we should know about Title IX committee questions I think just the piece I'll add so I have an education background and a lot of my research was around creeping legalism and higher ed and I think as this process becomes more legalistic the more work we need to do to make sure it's accessible for students I can't talk about specific cases to the campus population at large but I can always let the campus know what steps I'm taking we can look at aggregated data and share that but Title IX is becoming increasingly difficult to make transparent and so I do think that is something that every Title IX coordinator is facing and is a really important piece of helping establish trust that we hold resources and access that are incredibly important to students and that transparency is a big piece of how we get that to them and our machine any questions from you as it relates to having a Title IX person in here as it relates to 128 things? No nothing in particular I mean my understanding from the working group is that their priority is the $22,000 and then the Title IX defy consensus on how to get them properly implemented and remind me that $20,000 would do what? would go to the crime victim services to provide a grant for the purpose of staffing to intercollegiate sexual harm prevention council please also the amnesty provision that is something very supportive so our students and would be less likely to participate if they thought they could get in trouble for using alcohol when they were providing their statement and so we provide amnesty and I think that's an important piece we want to investigate the greatest harm and so we also actively train students on that that's something we make them aware of in the wider community Yeah on the amnesty piece I was going to say that if anything that we could pass I feel like that would be the simplest one to get out there but at the same time I don't want to step on the toes of the several people who have been working on this for two or three weeks now then bringing their heads together and without hearing from them first as to you know why they want to spend some time looking at the amnesty piece so yeah Okay Any other questions? Yeah Just out of curiosity since you're subject matter expert in a harassment scenario whether it's before or after the appeal process does it ever go legal like into the courts like say I was looking for that in your nature tonight I didn't see that where the somebody puts up their hand whether it's the victim or the alleged perpetrator and say this isn't cutting it it's got to go outside of the university I want to go mainstream legal is that option big 10? So I think that's always an option for our students they also can report to the Office for Civil Rights the Federal Office for Civil Rights which is sort of a separate federal administrative process I think there's frequently a lot of litigation around Title 9 as well and sort of these matters so yes I think a lot of schools know that that is something that you know if there's an ongoing criminal piece or there might be a civil case that comes out of it either between the parties or directed towards the school between one part of the other it's absolutely a possibility Thank you Thank you so much Ms. Parton I'm going to ask you to join us since we're having a committee discussion here on Universal Rules we are ramping up this conversation I think I'm going to ask me does anybody else if anyone needs to hear from Universal Rules we've done an outreach to the Catholic Coalition not heard that they have a fiscal note coming from Julia Richter the next couple of days is there anything else before we likely vote just on Friday any other witnesses from anybody You know I'm so curious about the stigma you know how you really feel that would be like an ideal solution is if you take care of the stigma you don't have to spend tens of millions of dollars on something which parents can already afford and that's the bit I just don't get and I understand it's tied to the federal level federal requirements but you know maybe if the federal or federal delegation was aware they could take action there to reduce those elements that create the stigma I mean it's I mean it's not a lot of rocket science involved here but it's costing big money we just had a conversation about well okay we just had a young lady in here talk about her school construction concerns okay so we take we take x million tens of millions away from that we put it into this that's my only that's my only speed bump right now is why can't we just solve this stigma problem not just throw money at it just throw money what's the point about that since we're really finalizing sure for the record Anor Horton executive director of humbly free Vermont and you know senator weeks I really I really understand your questioning your concern and I've been working on this question of how can we make that all students who need to eat school meals are actually accessing them at school for over a decade. And so while I understand that it seems like, you know, there's, you know, what is the simple solution to this? It is universal school meals. And I know that's not the answer that you want to hear, but it is the answer because many, many other things, you know, have been tried. And all I can tell you is what the data shows, which is that when students know that there is a differentiation and they do know, right? They take the forms home to their parents, they have to deal with when their account doesn't have money on it in the lunch line, they know that this differentiation is going on. And when they know, a very significant percentage don't eat. So in 2019, which is the last year before the pandemic. So it's all solving how it's known. But because it's known, because kids know and there's no way to avoid it. Everybody has a pin code, but I eat in school cafeterias a lot. And I sit down at tables with students and I have conversations with them. And they say to me, well, I'm free. So I have to go through the lunch line while I'm reduced. Well, I, you know, my family can pay for my meals, but I feel really bad about eating meals because I know I've got two friends who can't afford to pay and they're not eligible. And they're in the cafeteria. I mean, they're in the library every lunch period. And I know that and I feel bad about eating the meals that my family can pay for. That is the reality of what kids' experiences are like in our school cafeterias without universal school meals. And a lot of really smart people, passionate people, you heard testimony from some of them this session who work in those cafeterias day in and day out, the agency of education, advocacy organizations like ours, which are anti-hunger organizations. So our issue in this is how do we make sure all kids who are going hungry are eating? We've all been working on this for a decade. And the answer is universal school meals. And not only is that the answer that is the only one that will solve the stigma problem, but it's also actually the most cost-effective answer. Because the other problem is that the federal cutoff and what families need to cover their basic needs are two completely different things. And there's a group of students who families cannot afford to pay for school meals, who also are not eligible for free and reduced price meals. And so when you take that into consideration, it would really cost us more money to exclude some kids than it would to provide universal meals to everybody. So that is my answer to you. There is a way to solve stigma, we know what it is. And it is actually the creative solution, which is not just going along with the old assumptions, built in by history, that school meals are somehow different from every other resource we provide to students on an equitable basis in our schools. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Senator Shane, any final thoughts or questions on universal school meals? I think it's great, I'm happy to vote yes when we get to that point. Okay, Senator Gillick. I will vote yes. My major issue other than stigma will not be fixed by doing that, and maybe one aspect of stigma might be fixed with stigma who lives in a panoply of areas is that it's going to be taken out of the Ed Fund. And this is going to be money that we need for a variety of issues that we've talked about in here, whether it's school construction, whether it's paying for a PCB testing, et cetera, et cetera. I heard testimony the other day that said, teachers are for this, everyone in school is for this. Were they asked the question in context that this is going to be pulled from other stuff? You might lose staffing or you might have to give up this or that to pay for this. I don't know how the question was asked, so I'm not sure if that, you know, for me if that testimony was really completely accurate. So I'm really disappointed that it's coming out of the Ed Fund. I think we need all hands on deck right now in our schools and we need all possible resources. So that is disappointing to me. As I said, I will vote yes. I do live in a city that because of our high poverty rate, we have universal school meals. So in that sense, this isn't, you know, going to be super helpful for my particular area, but yeah, I just, I'll just leave it at that. Now I have something to say. Okay. Yeah, I think for the stigma piece, at least, you know, when I went to Bell's Falls High School and talked to about a, I don't remember, six or seven students there and some teachers and other staff, you know, one of the main things, aside from the fact that the food was actually good now, was how many students from different cliques and different demographics actually started coming together and sitting at the table together, all eating the same meals. And I mean, food does bring people together and I think that this is one of the ways in which stigma gets reduced. You know, when it comes to the funding, you know, it's, we have to recognize that we're able to do multiple things at the same time while thinking about how one thing will affect other things. You know, we talk about mental health for students and how mental health challenges for students are on the rise. We talk about declining test scores.  It also includes food. It also includes access to clean drinking water. And so, yeah, so those are some of my thoughts on it. Anything else? So we have it on the calendar to vote it out on Friday. We'll hear again from, we've got a fiscal note on it. That'll, we'll leave it there. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, one other item that's important to talk about. I understand just the state board of invitations to have an emergency meeting tonight. That's state board of invitations. The state colleges, board of trustees has had some kind of emergency meeting tonight. I might come out of that, I have no idea. But I just wanted to take the temperature on the library conversation also, just to see where people are. Is there, we all have to get agreed to hear from a couple of the librarians this week. This is also the week we need to send some kind of document this week early next week to the appropriations committee. So this would be the time if people are interested in doing anything on this topic, to be thinking about doing it. That letter to the provost will contain ideas and requests that we'll all look at again that we've heard and we'll hear about this week. But on this issue, where are people and what do you think? That did it around for a long time, yeah. What are our options? Yes, and what's the expectation of us? So you could do, we could do a number of different things. We could just do absolutely nothing. You could say the state board of the libraries or the state colleges and the state colleges, they can continue to operate as they're operating. As you know, we receive emails and requests from a number of different organizations and people that have said, hey, will you repeal the decision? Will you say, you know, you cannot do that? Repeal the decision by the library. By the library. In some way make it contingent upon something else that happens in appropriations.  The other option is, and I mentioned this one, the St. James went through the appropriation language from 2021, tighten up the reporting language. In other words, what we put in 2021 was you have to come before appropriations and various other committees and update the legislature on how you are cutting services, making the cuts that the statute's requiring to make cuts. We could tighten that up and say, we want a report, we want a formal report, we want to make sure we want to review this every year. The other thing that people could do is say, all right, we have said that over the past X number of years, you need to cut $5 million. There's also people that would like to see us lighten that up and say, okay, no, you don't have to cut $5 million. We'll use the flexibility there. The issue there is whether we like it or not, they're probably still cut. They need to survive. They absolutely need to survive and I hope they do more than survive. I hope that they end up thriving. So people are getting emails. People are going to continue to get emails. Just would like to know what people would like to do so we can either do it or do nothing and kind of say, okay, this could be dead, yeah. My other question is I'm still unclear as to exactly what is happening because the emails say save our library. Are we really losing libraries or are we losing books in libraries? And I'm asking that because Senator Campion knows my personal anecdote as a librarian, as someone who leaded a lot of books out of my library and created a stigma-free, safe space, maker space library after I leaded out a large portion of my books because they were for a number of reasons irrelevant out of date, not appropriate for high school, et cetera, et cetera. My circulation went up. My visits to the library went up and it ended up being this really successful thing and was actually a great, it was, I would say it was positive. People weren't happy with it at the time. You're getting rid of our books. So I don't want to diminish anyone's feelings on this, but I also just want some clarity. Is it, is this like a, we are re-envisioning our libraries to be, I hate to use the term 21st century, forward-looking, or is it really, so is it like an, is it, well, I won't use the word, but that's what, if anyone has any clarity on that, I would love to hear it because I'm still not clear. I think it is the latter. I don't, it's, as we've heard in testimony from Katharine and others, re-envision 21st century, these are different spaces. We know that they put, return some books, putting books online, all that kind of thing. So yeah, that's how, and I, their way of saying save our libraries, gee, you're complaining, it's all in, it's all how you interpret, disappear. Does anybody else heard differently or? Well, it did me with the Gaston librarians, got a deep dive into, you know, what the original offer was, what the current offer is. What they did to, on their own, they were tasked to contribute to the five million per year reduction, like what could they do, and what could they, and I didn't bring a sheet with me today, but I'm happy to brief you guys tomorrow, but it essentially cuts down to about 20% of the current hard copy, and that would essentially, the majority that remains, I think it's in, it's like a special collections, kind of archive, it's kind of, and the rest goes digital, but there's, you know, they had certain reservations about electronic subscriptions, et cetera. If you want, I can bring that summary tomorrow and review it with interest. So, to all of you, I mean, I kind of know where, I'm looking for one of you to say, I'm generally comfortable with letting the process play out, but if that's not the committee's wish, I'm more than fine with going in a different direction, but generally, I'm fine with what's transpiring. I do have some, I could see tightening up the reporting language, but that's just, again, where I am, yeah. So, to stay away from the concept of being super trustee, as a legislature, I recommend, and you've probably, you heard this this morning, I recommend 24 hours and see what the Board of Trustees does tonight, and then find a guideway, because they may make that decision much simpler for us. I agree with that a lot. I think, though, that one thing worth revisiting so that we don't have this play out again next year, and then the year after that is that $5 million a year reduction, I don't want to assume to know the thinking of why that $5 million was picked, but I mean, it's, I think more information has to be gathered as to why that's the number, and if it needs to be revisited and turned into a percentage, because it could be very different depending on how the economy is doing if we're in a recession or there's inflation. So that's what I think needs to be revisited so that we don't encounter this quackamire again. Yeah, no, it's a great question, great point. I mean, unless I'm mistaken, they could cut $6 million. I don't know if it's, I don't think it's anything but just cutting $5 million, but I would say, given, you know, if that's important to you in terms of a priority, I'm gonna ask you just to sort of bring something to the committee and have us look at it. That's all, just because I mean, it's not, again, if that's where the committee is, it's fine. I'm just saying, you know, I could go, I, yeah. Yeah, I think, I mean, work with you on it. Yeah. But I know we're gonna vote out 1004 and T1 tomorrow. Next week. Purchase is still 17. Once again, okay, actually, that's not the end. But yeah, so happy to work with you to talk to Jane, meeting. Because I've had, yeah, I feel like the system is between a rock and a hard place. Yeah. And, well, actually, I'll just leave it at that, yeah. So we weren't here in the conversation last year. I guess it was last plan, where the 5 million for five years was, the mandate was created. Don't know that environment. We didn't deep study it, you know. I think, actually, if you're on a certain term, I think it was the 2021 budget that we passed in 2020. It might have been before, but yeah, your point's well taken. We just don't know the landscape. Yeah, yeah, it's tricky. No, no point, we just, we're this group. Yeah. Just like in the old background. Can you find 15 minutes with Senator Kishel, so that we can understand the 5 million? We don't need to do it during committee time, but maybe we'll have Senator Masheem and Senator Beats and anybody else who's just set up 15 minutes at their committee at some point. Or it's in quality, just to understand that and see if there's something they may want to do. Because even in our letter, whatever we recommend, they may not agree, but I think on this, they're gonna look for some direction. We want to take it. Good. Yeah. Okay. Thanks everybody. Go take it. Thank you.


I'm Petroch Willie. I'm Professor of Catechetics here at Franciscan University. The world meeting of families with the Holy Father is just a wonderful occasion for us to be able to engage in real supportive prayer for what's about to take place. It's going to be focused on the identity and the mission of families, really what they're all about. And when Saint John Paul wrote earlier about this, he said that right at the centre of our pastoral strategy to support families should be the place of Catechetics, that way of teaching the faith. Now that sounds unusual. It sounds as though that might be one of the lesser of the pastoral tasks we've got, but in fact he placed it right at the centre. In fact, when he was speaking to bishops he said that if Catechetics is done well everything becomes easier to do. Now that's an interesting statement. And what he meant by that was, first of all the doctrine delineates the shape of family life. It helps families to really know their identity, to know who they are. So if we're sure about that it helps us to live our mission securely and well. And so one of the main ways in which the Church and her pastoral work can support the family is by really explaining to the family who we are as men and women and children together and the mission that we've got. And this is a marvellous opportunity with all these families coming together with the Holy Father in order to have that identity reaffirmed and their mission reignited. So that idea of making everything easier. Catechesis isn't just one task among many. It's not like an extra burden the Church has. It's the way in which every single boat can lift. And this is because she not only sees parents as being the recipients of a Catechesis but she wants to form them. She wants to actually help parents join her in mission. Every single Catholic parent, every single Catholic family, imagine the mission opportunities once the Church manages to engage us as families in that role. And so the Church has said families, parents are irreplaceable for this Catechesis. And of course the trouble is most parents feel woefully inadequate. Most of us feel as though we haven't had the formation we need. We're not quite sure what we need to get. And so this is where the Church steps in to give us courage, to give us hope and practically to give us what we want. She defines the task of parents in two ways in relation to their children. Parents need to be formed as the first heralds of the faith. Now a herald is somebody who announces, who proclaims the good news. And so parents are in the best position to be these heralds precisely because there is a community of love. There is family life into which that proclamation can be made and that can't be said of any other environment. No other environment has a natural space in which that simple annunciation, that simple proclamation of the good news can just be made with such ease, such casualness, with repetition, with confidence and one can see how it's picked up in the daily life of the children. And so parents really are in the best place to be the first heralds of the faith, which is the good news Pope Francis said.  It's very very simple, it's not a difficult proclamation to make, but parents can be confident that their role is above all to give that to their children. And then secondly, the church says that parents are the first teachers of the faith. Now that sounds even more onerous, but teachers of the faith, again the church says they are irreplaceable in this role. And that's because they know their children well, they know when they can teach certain elements. And so she doesn't want to delegate that particular role, especially with regard to the faith and with regard to the virtues and the moral life. She really wants parents to hold on to the sense and have the confidence to know they do know their children best. And because they want the best for their children, they will be the most motivated to give them the best they have, which is the teaching of the church, the saving doctrine of the church. And so the motivation for all of this from the point of view of the church, it may be the parents who are giving, but the motivation comes from the children themselves, from the parents' love for their children. The French poet Pégui pictured this. He said that a little child is a little bit like the virtue of hope who leads her two sisters faith and love. And virtue of hope is in France because it's even in a natural way we hope to give our children what is best for them. We hope for their future. We look forward to all the good they could have and we want them to have that securely.  And so when the church addresses the parents, she does so knowing that she can do so in terms of that relationship with the children. So let's pray for this meeting of world families with the Holy Father. Let's really pray for him, for his message to be as clear, sonorous and lasting as we all ourselves hope and can be secure and know that it will be.


This is Think Tech Hawaii, Community Matters here. Bingo, two o'clock, rock. I'm Jay Fidel here on Think Tech. And with me is John David, and hi, John. Yeah, it's good to be here again. Professor of History at HPU, wonderful to have you here. And we're initiating the notion of Trump Week. There's other sites and video organizations around the country that cover Trump, one called Trump Government that interests me. Oh, that's interesting. What's it like? How is this world different in terms of government than before? And we need to look at it. We need to see it in a historical context. Yes, I agree. So what's happened this week? I mean, within the last week or two, anyway. So I think the biggest thing at Capitol Hill, at least, was the failure of the health care. The Republicans failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. And the thing is, this indicates that the Republican Party might not be able to govern as it's currently constituting. I mean, you have the right wing of the Republican Party is insistent that they're not going to compromise at all. It's going to have to be some compromise for them to govern. And they've been called out by their leadership in the Senate. So this is a very big issue going forward. Tax reform coming up, they're going to have the same problem because Trump would like to link tax reform to a border tax on goods coming into the United States. And the Chamber of Commerce, which is a very conservative organization, has already come out very strongly against it. They're organizing right now to stop this bill dead in its tracks. So once again, you have a divided Republican Party that can't, that is, we'll see. They might be able to get taxes done. But I think it's going to be very difficult if Trump insists on a border tax, which is essentially a tariff. That's what we're talking about. A bad effect on the American consumer and American business. It could have all kinds of bad effects, a bad effect on the American economy. It could damage relations with other nations. One could argue that it led to war in the late 1930s. So there's all kinds of bad ramifications here.  You talk about the ability, I suppose, of Congress to come together, which certainly it hasn't been together in a long time, and how it can work, if at all, with the president. And I guess my first question has so many questions about this, really. My first question is, what drives him? It certainly can't be anything simple. And I mentioned in this context this book I'm reading called Democracy in Chains, which where an investigative reporter went to the South that she found out about James Buchanan, who had this long view of trying to turn the government upside down, of taking the money and putting in the hands of the rich, taking it away from the poor, no social safety net, back to robber baron days. And it's a long plan by James Buchanan, who died in around 2000, and sort of a way for there to be a constitutional revolution, he called it. And they tried with the benefit, they are trying with the benefit of the Koch brothers, to fund a national initiative to change things, to move in that direction. And they have been, to some extent, successful by having Republican right-wingers run for office, funding them against, in primaries, funding them against the middle of the road Republicans, so that the whole Republican machine has turned. I think it's a certain danger in saying, well, these are the same Republicans as before, they're not. There's so many different members of Congress now that we would not have elected a few years ago. So the whole thing is in process, the Koch machine, if you will, is in process. And so what drives Trump knowing that he's going to run into so many issues within the Republican Party and within the Republican establishment, if you will? Well, of course, the question of what drives Donald Trump, that's a kind of frightening question. So I'm not sure I can answer that. Only Trump knows, and I think he doesn't know on any particular day. But I do think what's driving him right now in a political sense is Trump is a very insecure person. And he has decided, I don't think he even decided. I don't think he even thought about it. He is governing for this very small part of the electorate, 30% or less. And it's also a minority of the Republican Party, the Tea Party and the extreme freedom caucus types. He's governing towards them. So the decisions he's making are the rest of us, who cares? He's really governing towards this very small minority. So this indicates the terribly fragmented nature of the Republican Party, that they can't elect a leader that would actually not even be able to lead their whole party much less the whole country. And of course, there's a historical context to that. Yeah, we should talk about that. Have we been here before? Or is this brand new material? No, we have actually been here before. We were here in the late 70s, late 60s, early 70s with the Roosevelt Coalition, the New Deal Coalition. And there was a similar fragmentation that had taken place over decades. So when Roosevelt got elected and then re-elected in 1936, he really put together a terrific coalition. It was pretty amazing. I mean, he won four elections. It's a great politician. Well, really a mastermind of putting politics together and putting this coalition together. So he had southern Democrats who had always been Democrats. He put southern Democrats together with African-Americans, who hadn't gotten quite to the level of the Civil Rights Movement yet, but who were moving in that direction. Urbanites, the working class, the labor unions, and new immigrants, and then liberals. So all of these folks voted for Roosevelt. That didn't come easy.  Right. And the way he did this was in 1935, he decided he had to push his agenda to the left. And he passed the Social Security Act. He passed the Wagner Act, which established the National Labor Relations Board, the National Labor Relations Act. This was a direct appeal to unions to vote for him. And then he passed the WPA. He pushed all of these things through Congress. The WPA was a works program. It was a program for unemployed people. So it helped poor people. So Roosevelt did all of that, and then he reaped the gains in the election of 1936 when these folks who had seen this said, well, I'm going to vote for Roosevelt because he's supporting me. So he was able to actually shift the entire electorate to the left in so doing this and put together a very durable coalition, at least for another 40 years. It wasn't really until 1980 with Ronald Reagan that this coalition fell apart. This was a very important piece of American history. It was incredible because he developed the New Deal, the New Deal which the Republican Party is continuing to attack and to try to dismantle today. But they've been superbly unsuccessful at it actually. The healthcare issue is another demonstration that American people want the government to work for them. They don't want no government. They want a government that actually helps them. So, but the problem with the coalition from the first was that you had two warring parties in the coalition, Southern Democrats and African Americans. So these two groups went at it. And by 1948, Southern Democrats were beginning to leak out of the New Deal coalition. This is of course the year when Harry Truman ran for president and Truman, he was in trouble actually. He didn't know whether or not he was going to get reelected and so he decided to go for the African American vote. He did this by desegregating the military in the summer of 1948. Interesting. Yeah, and this is something. There's a big focus in those days who's just after the war. We still have a big military. Civil rights advocates had been pushing for this for some time. So, but then during the Democratic National Convention, Hubert Humphrey, mayor of Minneapolis gets up and gives a speech in which he says the Democratic Party needs to move out from under the shadow of state's rights and into the bright sunshine of civil rights. And the Democrats from the South got up and they left the convention hall. Really? They didn't like that. Yeah, they formed their own political party called the Dixie Crats and they ran Strom Thurman, senator as their presidential candidate. So this marked the beginning of the end of the New Deal coalition. So it became more and more fragmented after that. Again in 1960, Southern Democrats ran their own presidential candidate. And then in 1960, George Wallace ran as an independent and actually got 13% of the vote. That 13% if it had gone, if it had stayed in the Democratic Party, Hubert Humphrey would have easily been elected. But without it, he lost by 500,000 votes to Richard Nixon. Which was more in those days than it would be today. That's correct, that's correct. But that, so that marked the real unraveling of the New Deal coalition. Then it remained for, where was Kennedy on this? Kennedy in 1960, just like Truman in 1948, wanted the African American vote. He also wanted Southerners' votes and that's why Lyndon Bates Johnson became his vice presidential candidate. But he wanted the African American vote and so he got into contact with Martin Luther King Jr. And Southern Democrats were outraged about this. It split the Democratic Party but not enough. I think Johnson made a big difference for Kennedy and Kennedy won the election in a very close election. So you've got this situation where it got tighter and tighter for the Democratic Party and then they lost in 1968 and then they lost in a landslide in 1972. And by that time you had Democrats who were really hard boiled Democrats beginning to vote for Republicans, including what we would call Archie Bunker Democrats. Very important. You remember the show Archie Bunker, of course. Archie was a working class guy. He was an immigrant, ethnic voter. And Archie Bunker was the type of voter who began to vote Republican. Why? Because African Americans moved into his neighborhood because they, because he- It's Archie Bunker the whole thing. Yeah, because he believed that LBJ, Lyndon Bates Johnson, had given too much to African Americans- The Civil Rights Act of 1968. That's correct that he was kind of preferentially giving stuff to African Americans, tax payers, dollars that Archie was paying out of his paycheck. So there was this politics of resentment which actually worked very well and it worked in 1972 and then it worked again in 1980 and Reagan got about 70% of the Archie Bunker Democrats. Interesting. These are working class types. They belong in the Democratic Party but they voted for Reagan. So the country's turning right and the country's turning race. Race is a big issue here. Yeah, yeah, it is. It is, it's a very important issue because it's the issue that keeps Southern Democrats, it moves, pardon me, Southern Democrats into the Republican Party. This kind of coded campaign against African American welfare mothers. That keeps Southerners, that moves Southerners into the Republican Party and keeps them into the Republican Party. So it's really race versus class issues and in the history of the United States, race has always trumped class. Don't use that term. Sorry. Okay, we're gonna take a break. Not because you use that term. That's John David and Professor of History at HBU and we're talking about Trump Week and all the things that flow out of the events and developments in our time, including some scary ones. We'll talk about after this break. We'll be right back. This is Think Tech Hawaii, raising public awareness. You're watching Think Tech Hawaii, which streams live on thinktechhoai.com, uploads to YouTube, and broadcasts on cable OC16 and Olelo 54. Great content for Hawaii from Think Tech. Aloha, I'm Kaui Lucas, host of Hawaii is My Main Land. Here on Think Tech Hawaii Fridays at 3 p.m. Hawaiian Standard Time. We explore environmental issues, political issues, keeping it local, any way we can. Aloha. Okay, we're back, we're live. We're here with John David here at, well, Trump Week on Think Tech. And we're talking about the things that have happened lately and how they fit in historical context. So the directions, the vectors, the historical sea changes that you described a minute ago, are they still in play? Yeah, so Ronald Reagan wins in 1980 by putting together a new coalition. And that new coalition includes the Archie Bunker Democrats. It includes the religious right. It includes conservative, traditional conservative Republicans. And so Reagan puts this coalition together. Some have argued that the coalition really didn't survive the 90s when, of course, Bill Clinton won two elections as a Democrat. But if we could argue that it has survived into the 21st century, then there's been a new addition to the Reagan coalition. And that's the Tea Party. The Tea Party in 2009, 2010, when it formed, this was a real innovation. And the Tea Party started running its own, and just as you said earlier, Jay, it started running its own candidates against other Republicans. And so it's actually actively trying to destroy the Reagan coalition and create a new, a new, extremely- It's a transmutation of the whole Republican thing. Yes, a new, extremely conservative Republican party. The problem with this, of course, is that most Americans don't identify as extremely conservative. A very small proportion, maybe 25% of them. They have more power now than they did five years ago. And so this is the part of the Reagan coalition that Trump decided to use. And he didn't think he could win. We didn't think he could win. I think of it as a kind of rip in time, honestly. Yeah, because he shouldn't have won, running with this small minority. But he had a kind of unconventional approach. He had a populist message at a moment when populism was, you know, we don't think about this typically, but Obama won twice on a populist message and then became a very conventional, much more kind of conventional president when he came into power. But so Trump used a populist message and then there was a very weak Democratic candidate. Let me ask you this. So we go back, say, you know, 2010 or so, or 2008, nine, 10. And we have the emergence of the Republican party where ideology is more important, where they'd rather bring the country down than capitulate or negotiate on a given point, the Tea Party approach. And I was always like shocked by that because I felt it was a violation of their oaths of office to defend the Constitution, do the right thing by the country as a whole. But they don't do that. They take one point, maybe it's abortion rights and hold up a whole slate of legislation on that until they get their way, stamping their feet. Strange that, I wonder if that's ever happened before, you manipulate the whole system on one issue and it's an issue where not everybody agrees. Yeah, sure, it has happened. And it happened in the 1850s when in this case Democrats who did not wanna hear about the slavery issue and abolition, because of course they were deeply supported by slaveholders in the South, Democrats were getting all of these petitions from the abolitionist movement out of New York State and some other places, mostly New England. But these abolitionists were sending dozens and dozens and dozens of petitions to be read on the floor of the Congress. That was the movie Lincoln, Stephen Spielberg. But that was the practice. They had to read the petitions. Well, there were so many of them that it was clogging up business. And they wanted that. Well, that's what, yes, the abolitionists wanted that. Holding hostile, holding Congress hostile. They wanted this, and so the Democrats who controlled the Congress put in a so-called gag rule which prevented these petitions from being read on the floor. It's a long way from pure democracy, I would say. So here we are. It's never been pure democracy, in fairness. Hey, thank you for that, it's true, I know. I only say that. It isn't now, so. So say, you know, 2010, we had the Tea Party emerge. And now we have Trump, and there's a resonance going on. They have a resonance with him and he has a resonance with them. But what is it that brings them together and how healthy is that resonance? Well, okay, so the other thing about Trump is that he's not a typical populist. He's actually a businessman. So he brings in the financial republicans.  The Wall Street guys actually supported him, even though he talked about tariffs, which Wall Street does not like at all. So here's the thing. I think that we haven't really understood this very well, that the Republican Party in electing Donald, in choosing Donald Trump, did not grapple with some fundamental issues. What is the identity of the party? Is it gonna be a pro-trade party or a tariff party? Is it the party of American supremacy or the party of American isolationism? They didn't have these conversations. Instead, they were transfixed by the spectacle of Trumpism. Okay, and then once he was elected, I think many republicans thought, well, we're gonna have this conversation now about what the party is about. No, they still haven't had that conversation. So the problem with the idea that Trump will transform the electorate and push it all, like Roosevelt did, push it all to the extreme right is he's done nothing to convince the American people. There's been no conversation. That's why healthcare failed. That's why it's quite possible that tax reform will fail because he hasn't made the case. The truth is he doesn't know what the case is. So if you don't know what the case is, you're gonna have a tough time actually making the case.  But, but, I didn't say that. I don't mind, but the query though, what about the leadership in Congress? I mean, doesn't some of the responsibility for this fall on them? Why do you expect that Trump is gonna solve these problems, address these issues? He's not up to it. Why don't they do it? They seem to have faded off the stage lately. Well, no, I mean, I think the Senate is where this is going to happen. And it already did happen with John McCain kind of calling the Senate to task and then sticking with it, sticking by his word. Okay, that's what American politics is about. And that's what this country needs right now. It's politicians of integrity standing up. Men of courage, so to speak, standing up and saying, yeah, standing up and say, hey, wait, wait, this is wrong, we're not gonna do this. So I think that it's going to happen in the Senate. Quite frankly, it's gonna be close. But I think you've got a small group of moderate Republicans there who are pretty, who have decided, you know what? We're not for Trump. The problem for Trump is he's attacked every one of them. He attacked McCain. He attacked Murkowski. He attacked the Senator from Maine. He's attacking his own party. So this is an extension of this very self-destructive Tea Party movement, which was, you know, they attacked their own candidates. So you're gonna see more of this. And I think the upshot of this is that the Reagan coalition is in the midst of its collapse. It's collapsed. Yes, so I know it's strange to say it. The Republicans have a lot of political power right now, but it's not gonna last. How do you see it devolving? Well, I think the biggest division right now is between moderate Republicans and the extreme right of the party. And they're not gonna agree on Trump. And if Trump can't even agree himself on what he stands for, then they're just gonna fight it out with one another. And I think, you know, voters who came out for Trump, especially in rural areas, might be one-time voters because they're already disillusioned about what's going on in Washington. So as the party, the coalition, the Republican, the Reagan coalition, or the legacy of the Reagan coalition devolves, what happens? What happens to Trump and his policies? His ability, what you've already indicated, it's gonna be hard for him to get any of his issues through. But what happens to the regular ebb and flow of government work? What happens to the efficacy of Congress? What happens to the relationship of Congress with its constituents? Right, right, so the, but the other thing about the American presidency in the 20th and 21st century is still very powerful. And so Reagan has already, pardon me. Not so Freudian slip there. Trump has already exerted quite a bit of power through executive orders and is changing our policies on the environment. That's what Obama did. That's true. It's true because we live in a divided country and it's hard to get a consensus. The only way to get anything done, yeah. So, but the Democrats have made it clear they want to work with Republicans and Democrats could actually benefit here. Okay, so the Democrats could maybe pull votes away from the Republicans if they do it carefully. And they could develop a kind of big tent centrist approach which could really benefit them in 2018. And even in 2020, we don't know what will happen with Trump and the Russia investigation. The problem for the Republican party right now is if they wanted to get rid of Trump, they've got this 30%, 30% of the electorate says whatever Trump does is fine with me. I still support him. Will that change if the party comes apart? Yeah, I mean, it's already changing. The truth is that his base has really begun to erode quite badly.  So, this- And you see it in Pence. Yeah. I mean, is this issue about, is Pence gonna run against him or not is he collecting money or not and the answer is yes, he will and he is collecting money and he can deny it but I think it's clear from the newspapers that he's doing exactly that. So, and Pence would be a much more conventional, traditional conservative Republican and he could actually win the nomination on that basis but what's he gonna do with the Tea Party types? The extreme right wing of the party. You're gonna oppose him. And so his message, unless he goes completely populist will not be populist. And therefore it's gonna be, you're gonna see the Republican Party, the votes of the Republican Party shrinking and I think, you know, they've, unfortunately, they set themselves on a pathway to minority party status in the future. Yeah. But the Democrats have a hard row also. I mean, they've lost their primacy. They've lost their vision, some people think. They're not as serious as they might be. They're not as organized and their leadership hasn't really surfaced and you really wonder, you know, and it seems to me that all of these elected officials have a duty to defend the Constitution. They all have a duty to make a deal. They all have a duty to keep the country balanced and they're not doing that. So the question I put to you was, what does the next coalition look like, John? It's hard to know. I mean, you know, right now it looks like coalition building would come from the extreme right or the extreme left, right? Well, that's risky business, isn't it? And I agree with that. I think it is risky business. I think that, you know, I think one good election would cure the Democrats, you know, pretty well. But I do think the Democrats have to take account of the fact that they got beat at the polls on the issue of populism, which is their issue. They didn't get beat on national security. No, Hillary was actually stronger on national security. They didn't get beat on the economy. The economy was strong. The economy was not, you know, it wasn't something that overturned the election. It was the question of what is the Democratic Party doing about people whose incomes have stayed stagnant? The kind of the lower third of the electorate. They lost touch with that, right, right. And what's very interesting is a week ago, maybe a little less, the end of last week was the piece of the paper that really struck me, is that they were at least considering bringing anti-abortion principles and players in under the Democratic tent. That their platform now had room, I guess in order to reach some kind of populist approach to things, to allow for anti-abortion, which to me is a tremendous violation of all the trust that the supporters of the Democratic Party have put to them for all these 30, 40 years. So this is the debate of the Democratic Party. Will it become the multicultural party? Will it go back to its roots in the working class and in the Archie Bunker Democrats? Will it go back in that direction? I think the Democratic Party has always been fractious and I think it can actually go in both directions. Quite honestly, I think it has to go in both directions, but it needs leadership that can manage those different factions. The working class faction, the rural faction, and then the multicultural faction. Well, here's a hard question for you, John. We have a president who, short of some amazing revelation about the Russian connection, is probably gonna stay in office, even though he does very crazy things, my word. But do we have the time to go through this process? Because the iterations you've described in the past, the American experience you've described, sometimes it takes decades to reach balance or at least a new paradigm on these political connections. And this war he's talking about with North Korea, it doesn't give us a lot of time. Any minute, it counts somehow. So do we have time for this? Well, that's gonna happen. I mean, we'll have to see. I mean, the comment on North Korea is very dangerous. I mean, it belongs in a novel, not out of the words of the president. Maybe a B movie, yeah. No, it's very dangerous, and but I think he's got enough of national security people who have cooler heads, who can prevail in that particular debate. The real issue is that with all of the fuss about the language, the kind of the noise that comes out of Trump's mouth, is that the North Korean problem is not being worked on or at least we don't know that it's being worked on. I mean, there should be a very strong approach to the Chinese to restart multilateral negotiations. I mean, that's the way out of this. Now they joined in the sanctions, the United Nations, but that's not what he wants from them. That's not what we want from them, it's more. Right, right, so that's definitely an issue. We need to keep the country together. There's no doubt about that. But I- He doesn't care to be a leader of the country, does he? Trump has not ever, no, I mean he's, that's one of his characteristics is he's an insecure guy and so what he did is he has responded to those who just fell in love with him, this small part of the extreme, small part of the electorate that just loves him unconditionally. And that's what, apparently that's what he needs is that kind of unconditional love. The best reality show, the best reality show ever, better than The Apprentice for sure. It's quite a story, but I think we're actually living it, right? And part of his thing is to be unpredictable. So that's why my last question to you was the most difficult question of all, here on Trump week, our discussion of Trump. So John, given all that we've discussed on all of these historical processes, what do you think is gonna happen next week in Trump week? Oh, I have no idea. I wouldn't even venture again. Does anyone know? Jay, I'm a historian. I don't prognosticate. Thank you, John, David, dad. Wonderful to talk to you, hello. It's good to be here with you.