Welcome to Global Connections, I'm your host Carlos Juarez and today we have a fascinating show we're going to be looking at issues related to higher education but from a very comparative global perspective I'm joined today by a guest Dr. Jorge Arenacis from the University of the Americas in Cholula Puebla in Mexico and a specialist in international education for the public policy issues related to higher education and a range of things we're going to see but more to the point we're going to try to understand higher education really from a policy oriented perspective a comparative perspective how it's similar in the U.S. to other places or different and since we're here in Mexico at the moment we're going to look at an overview of this country but first let me welcome our guest Jorge thank you for joining us here on Global Connections it's great to have you here thank you for inviting me special to you and by way of some background you know we uh I want to just alert our host you're a specialist in areas of international higher education uh that is higher education from a comparative perspective in your background and tell us a little bit about it I believe you have uh grounded in sort of sociology but then you went on to do your PhD studies at the State University of New York in Albany uh tell us a little bit about just some of your formation and your background of uh of this area okay I can tell you that my basic background was in sociology the area of study sociology and later I was very interested in in higher education and some issue related to uh police analysis yes and comparative higher education I completed my PhD in Suri Albany in the department of educational administration on police studies yeah excellent and uh you know again when we think of higher education we often you know we think maybe of institutions we think of programs and those are parts of it but of course ultimately higher education is at a very important public policy it's it's a function of on one hand government both fostering and promoting and regulating uh and of course we'll get into some differences because you have a very important role for the state for government uh particularly supporting public institutions but also another uh contrast because we have a lot of private universities in different parts of the world that are very important they either they fill a void or they you know provide sort of an alternative uh and there's some variation there that I wanted to talk about maybe by way of getting us started uh you know give us a quick snapshot uh you've had research uh over the years uh in different areas of higher education particularly comparative but uh tell us maybe very briefly a quick overview of the higher education system uh maybe broadly in the world you know you you're familiar with the United States having studied there for your PhD uh you went to a public institution the state University of New York uh and like uh you I was a graduate myself of UCLA in California these are large public institutions supported by the state uh they have a certain mission a certain focus they're different uh on some level from maybe some of the private institutions but then maybe tell us a little bit about how maybe a country like Mexico which is uh you know an important neighbor to the south uh it also has a higher education system that reflects uh government policy trends just a couple of background overview concepts uh tell us a little bit about helping us frame this issue of higher education as a public policy okay one of the most important issues that uh that I consider very important for Mexico is the problem of funding higher education so the funding where the funding comes from yes and in the case of the United States you have an excellent system of combination of public and private resources and that's not the and that's not the the fact in Mexico and most of the higher education is public funding and you have very important institutions in private education but they are privately funded you know yes we don't have that kind of rich combination of public and private resources and that's a weakness of our country yes and that's something that uh for this very interesting uh talking about the comparative perspective of Mexico and the United States you have excellent uh private funding you know through nations through philanthropy yeah I think I think in Mexico it's totally different absolutely I think the area of philanthropy for the United States is quite important whether it's a public or private institution they often uh you know public ones uh or maybe let's think of it differently uh we have a wide range of different types of institutions public and private is one division but obviously we have some that are focused more on teaching some on research uh but maybe I want to get back to this idea that you mentioned philanthropy in the United States is a long tradition of you know donations whether it's from wealthy donors or individuals alumni and most universities are constantly working in this battle of like endowments you know increasing the money which allows them to pay for many things you know scholarships research you know facilities and resources and for Mexico perhaps uh not quite a tradition of philanthropy so heavier dependence on the state uh however there are also some private institutions that obviously must depend more on on the fees and the payment and of course Mexico itself has a very uh let's say uh you know you could say almost an elite society where those who go to university tend to be a pretty small percentage relative to maybe you know countries like the US or in parts of Europe where it's a bit broader um I wonder if you might tell us from your perspective what other differences between you know Mexico and the US in terms of higher education you talk about the financing and funding uh what else did you speak to uh basic model issue very related to this of the funding the excellent linkage between the enterprises and universities in the United States you have an excellent uh combinations of enterprises and universities you know and there are projects of uh technology and science and they have an excellent connection yeah and private industry for example corporations that have connections either you know supporting programs or being a pipeline to the workforce those are of course things that build up over time and the point in Mexico was that during some decades there was definitely there were some kind of uh how can I tell you gaps between the university and enterprises you know they didn't connect in the appropriate way so that's a problem in Mexico during the last years Mexico has tried to connect this to uh before and here I mean maybe to think of it in a different way universities after all are the basically those that provide knowledge and and prepare those who go into the workforce and so if you have a society and economy that needs a certain type of skills and competencies um you need to have a connection you need to understand from those who are the employers whether they be private business or even non-profit NGOs or even government there has to be some dialogue some connection to understand those needs right and mostly when we talk about the knowledge society yes you need a very tight connection in universities and enterprise and technology yes and that's something that it happens in Mexico but in the very slow yes and maybe in small pockets only yes and again you describe this knowledge society and that's the reality now of the early 21st century we live in an age of you know global interdependence and even though there are you know crises and pushback against that the reality is that we have such you know rapidly changing labor markets and we have needs that you know constant in terms of technology and knowledge so universities play a very critical role in helping prepare those um and you know one of the disconnects is this lack of either a dialogue or a connection between those who are the suppliers the universities and those who actually go on you know because people are studying but at some point they're going to move on and get into the workforce they need to have some connection there I wonder you know from a comparative perspective I have you could you refer to maybe any examples in other places where you mentioned the US of course it makes it but other places in Europe or other parts of the world where there's maybe examples of successful uh I don't know uh connection or providing you know the right uh I don't know the right linkage to to to the workforce I guess it's it's something very difficult to say that it's not fine in Mexico because you know it's chronic as a history there are many factors that maybe are in play when you are talking about connection but in the case of you you have many countries in Netherlands countries England friends so you have a very broad very broad cases of countries that try to my university and industry yeah yeah more of a kind of partnership and actually when I think about it you know public institutions which are very important of course everywhere in the world and in places like Europe they are quite dominant um private institutions often are in the US have been very important you know the Harvard Yale Stanford of the world they obviously they have been very important in developing research and you know training the best and brightest but when you think about it for a moment public institutions one of the challenges they have a different mission they have a different focus they have to be maybe addressing more public uh you know I don't know public uh it needs exactly and and community needs in ways but there's another often criticism that public institutions often tend to be more bureaucratic more maybe more political and and that can sometimes lead to difficulty and change and adapting a private institution I'm going to be very general here can sometimes be more flexible adaptable and maybe have the ability to change programs to address the needs public institutions just by their very nature are going to be more bureaucratic for the demands that are placed on them uh what are what are you what can you say about some of those challenges the the bureaucratic nature of public uh the flexibility found in I mean do we see I don't know any trends in terms of public institutions trying to be more flexible and adapt to you know things that private institutions have done better well it's important to say that we cannot speak about one sector of private education you have a lot of institutions in private education you have for instance this sector of demand absorbing institutions and these kind of institutions as for are for the people you know they don't have the the conditions the quality the valuations of private institutions so in this sense when we talk in Mexico with private institutions you have to make the distinction between the elite institutions yeah as long as the demand absorbing institutions you know we talk about the private sector the elite private institutions they have good conditions for research good conditions for teaching in the case of this institution you know but uh the original most private institutions are not so good like in the United States yeah so we have to think about it because in the U.S. we often point to a handful they're not a big majority but they're a number of what we would call for-profit institutions that are really maybe you know they have less quality assurance and control and they're driven more by profit motive obviously the the most prestigious private institutions the again the elite ones tend to be not for profit although they raise tremendous money they have large endowments but their goal their focus their mission is mostly be excellent in academic areas but uh you know here in Mexico there are a lot of big number of private institutions but many of them are just very poor quality don't have a lot of oversight and this is again one of the challenges of higher education it's a pretty big business and it's difficult to regulate and control uh and you know in the U.S. as you know we have a number of uh accrediting accrediting commissions uh regional ones that basically provide that oversight similarly in a place like Mexico you have some measure but only for the more elite ones we're going to take a short break right now and when we come back I want us to maybe unravel a little bit more what are some of the challenges facing higher education now in this era of globalization independence uh but also push back against that so in a moment we'll come back we're joined here on global connections my host is Dr. Jorge Arenas a professor at the University of Americas and a specialist in higher education on a comparative international level join us as we come back after this short break. Hey Loja my name is Andrew Lening I'm the host of Security Matters Hawaii airing every Wednesday here on Think Tech Hawaii live from the studios I'll bring you guests I'll bring you information about the things in security that matter to keeping you safe your co-workers safe your family safe to keep our community safe uh we want to teach you about those things in our industry that you know may be a little outside of your experience so please join me because Security Matters Aloha Aloha I'm Cynthia Sinclair and I'm Tim Apachella we're hosts here at Think Tech Hawaii a digital media company serving the people of Hawaii we provide a video platform for citizen journalists to raise public awareness in Hawaii we're a Hawaii non-profit that depends on the generosity of its supporters to keep on going we'd be grateful if you'd go to ThinkTechHawaii.com and make a donation to support us now thanks so much Aloha and welcome welcome back I'm your host Carlos Juarez here on Global Connections and joined today by Jorge Arenas a professor at the University of the Americas in Cholula and a specialist in international education higher education in particular we're talking about how some of the challenges are facing many institutions of higher learning these days we live in an era of interdependence interconnectedness every university now is trying to be more global and more connected and that includes everything from student mobility students have opportunities to exchange and study in other places that's right faculty themselves obviously have opportunities for that a country like Mexico has always had a long you know steady flow of people who go do higher studies in US or in Europe and then they come back or in some cases they don't and one of the challenges are facing I think a lot of developing countries countries let's say in emerging markets is that while they need people to get trained and understand the world they also need them to come back in different times and some some of the challenges is what we might call the brain drain your president right as they will go off to college and in another country but will they come back now in the case of Mexico often they will receive funding from the government to do that and maybe sometimes requires them to come back can you maybe explain a little bit about this process of higher education opportunities for maybe an example of Mexico like yourself studying abroad but then also the requirements or the need to come back because uh while you want to train people outside you also need them to come back and work here that's true well this is a very fascinating point point because when you're talking about the training and the brain the brain the drain uh drain brain drain brain almost brain drain I gotta mix up the brain drain yes it's right because we have in Mexico many students in other countries or the problem is what you offer once they finish the studies or that's the real problem because sometimes you don't you can you cannot offer the best salaries for these people you know a Mexican government have tried to launch on public programs to be sure that these students and students in foreign universities they will come back to Mexico but that's not the case many people with with the capacities with talent they they're remaining in the in the university for this but yeah so probably Mexico is is serious because you know the salaries in universities are not so good in other countries yes so if somebody wants to be a academic researcher or professor the reality is that there are more opportunities outside of the country and that becomes a challenge because the country itself needs talented people who can help train the next generation of leaders uh and again we live in this era of greater mobility so that you're like yourself we have Mexico an excellent body government and what institution the name is conesit national I yeah national council for science and technology or something like that basically this is a government agency that funds the researchers and and study abroad and this institution is just also of the scholarship for students and and and inter compass for instance the national research system so they have tried to achieve conditions good conditions for students that come back to Mexico after graduating yeah so this but it is a challenge not enough and again on one hand you can speak of this period of globalization now these last 20 30 years where we've seen more mobility on one hand it has been more opportunities so for Mexicans and other you know foreign nationals to go to places like the u.s and study and for americans to study abroad elsewhere but as you know there the challenge is now though that mobility once you've gone to another place suddenly it opens up new opportunities for you and you know why come back so it remains a very big challenge for a serious problem of course I wonder you know maybe continue our dialogue about you know we're talking about higher education from a comparative perspective it is a government policy and it's one of the most important you know roles of government to help you know obviously provide education and train you know its society address its needs but it's also a very inherently political agenda that is a you know we may agree that it's important and it should be supported but it also has other things pushing it and I wonder maybe you could you identify what are some of the ways in which higher education either becomes politicized or captured by I don't know certain groups that might have different interests or what are some of the competing interests do you have a very uneven picture of the universities in Mexico you have an excellent excellent city public institutions like man national university one and this kind of universities and they try to remain with the excellent levels of quality excellent levels of knowledge what you have on the other hand very poor institutions in some states and the result of these institutions are not so good because as you said many of these institutions are controlled by local groups and they don't have accountability yeah but obviously very poor accountability yeah and many resources that are supposed to be for researchers or for good researchers and it might be maybe they are and I think you know this is not unique to a country like Mexico we have uh even I can tell you you actually have a wide variation we have some of the most you know prestigious institutions the MIT the you know SUNY UC system you know which is Texas at Austin Wisconsin Madison any of these big major public institutions that are among the top in the world and yet you can also find on the margins you know smaller you know public institutions that simply don't compete because those elite ones are obviously on one level they're competing with the best of the brightest etc but you know you have as well I guess what I want to say is that even in our US country we've got some variation we have some of the very best we've also got some more mediocre or less maybe less competitive but I go back to this you know public institutions have a different agenda a different purpose their mission because they are funded by the state and they're there to promote they address a lot more issues of fairness and equity and access and they have to have you know to some degree more transparency more accountability private institutions can often they don't have to you know be as open I mean some choose to but in general they have more control over their resources right in a way exactly and and the issue here for public institutions is that you have to like public university to fulfill many options yes leadership in knowledge is very important it's very important but also you have to be sure that many poor students once they finish they they get good jobs yeah so they have vocational education yeah technological education yeah so this is a big challenge for universities because you you need to have in the same place or these different functions and it's it's not easy to do that that's right now as a researcher scholar yourself and you've been studying this issue many years now you've had opportunities to both teach and research in other countries you've participated in many international conferences where you learn what's happening in other places these forums these dialogues you know the research agenda helps to sort of you know I guess it helps to disseminate information what's happening in other places success stories or challenges I wonder maybe from your vast experience in this area what have been some either anecdotes or opportunities you've had where you've learned at another place I think you you studied sometime in Argentina briefly years back you've done in Europe attending a number of places there have you come across some I don't know examples that were very surprising that were valuable to learn and in this dialogue you obviously are trying to share ideas best practices what's happening in other places can you talk a little bit about that talking about Argentina for instance yeah I think that is an excellent opportunity to compare Argentina and Mexico because we're facing similar challenges for instance Mexico now with the new president and the new policies we want to have universal access to higher education and universal access means a lot of money a lot of programs and in some the Argentina have experienced this kind of policies and they don't have a cheap resource you know they say that the quality has been very poor compared to the and so what you're describing there of course Mexico this past year has elected a populist president a left-wing president and so his goals in general are going to be you know more easy access expanding opportunities easier said than done because where does the money come from or at the expense of what but also often when you throw a lot of money at a problem if it's not carefully managed you can create different more problems exactly yeah and the biggest is the is the quality range quantity yes yes because if you have a lot of students of course you are facing the quality quality norms yes but on the other hand you have serious problems of quality you need to hire more professors to be sure that you have appropriate infrastructure yeah places for students and you need to be sure to have this quality for exchange exchange internationally change yeah and you need all these expenditures yeah these two things to do that that's right and the problem is that you can offer a higher education for students but once they finish these programs they are not enough return face the yeah are we teaching them the real skills they need I mean this is a real challenge and I go back to this idea that often criticism made of many universities is that there's different incentives because on one hand they are I don't know if you would say controlled but the you know one of the major players would be faculty who are doing their research and and obviously they have a certain set of interest administrators who have had to address certain goals and criteria then pressure if they're public institutions from the legislature the government that's funding it they want to see other results there's often a lot of competing interest and criticism that are we doing what we're supposed to or are we really producing you know future leaders one challenge I or maybe I can just take you I mean if you think 50 or 100 years ago universities were generally thought to be very very you know privileged small you know very few people came and got to opportunities today there's a view maybe a different value that university should be accessible to everybody it should be you know we all need higher training the knowledge society etc but how realistic is that because sometimes if our secondary education is not preparing them for universities and if the job market doesn't need certain types I'm reminded of in some of the european countries you often have an education system by the middle school that will divide those because not everybody is going to be as academically oriented and rather than train everybody to go to university some might be better going into technical fields vocational fields generally something like a community college in the United States you know yeah they the students in community colleges are able to complete some higher education studies vocational and this kind of jobs not related to academic issues you know and that's very important because I know that in your country community colleges are the important subsystem of higher education yeah so in Mexico we have tried to have some kind of community college inside the technological universities yeah all the problem is the the market because it's the other side of the universities you can have excellent students but if you have a poor market that is not able to solve these good students what the problem is that they will be without employment yes and that's a problem in Mexico this speaks to wherever you're doing it I mean the university education needs to be in a very holistic way it needs to bring together all the key players the employers who obviously what what are your needs and how can we connect you know the right people to the right jobs the government that needs to understand how all this works and and funding it and not be driven by short-term interest because often these investments take time to get over and then the institutions themselves because I think too often we have a lot of very bureaucratic hurdles and obstacles and again the public versus private what is the right role but I don't think there's an easy answer because some some you know some countries have greater emphasis on the public sector being primary I think of a lot of European countries that way with the US we have a strong role for private interest private sector and private institutions are very you know one important part of that as well but they do not replace the important role of public so I think in the end what we come away with is this topic of international or education higher education is complex it has many different players both public versus private but also the needs of society and how do we connect those we have to understand that universities are basically an important puzzle for you know government to have to address the needs of creating jobs filling job but also giving the right capacity to the people I try and giving the skills and knowledge that we need well thank you okay this has been a great conversation a chance to learn a little bit about different challenges and issues and as a scholar of higher education yourself again you are both training future generation of education leaders themselves and also helping countries like Mexico learn about these issues in other places because since you study it in whether it's in Europe US or other parts of Latin America it helps you bring some of that knowledge to help dialogue and improve Mexico's higher education system thank you again and I appreciate this and we'll have to continue the conversation and move on with other things for our guest thank you for joining us a brief overview of higher education from a comparative perspective and we have to think of it more than just names of universities but a very important public policy a role for government but a role for both public and private institutions and in this knowledge society that we live in universities remain an important piece of that so thank you for joining us here on global connections I'm your host Carlos Juarez and we'll look to see you here again at our next show


Welcome everyone. Again, this is the House Health Care Committee and it is Wednesday, March 10th and now about 11am. So we have heard testimony earlier this morning from witnesses to help us understand the impact of health disparities or health disparities within the native communities of remarked. We are going to turn shift gears. We've heard testimony from different impacted communities. And as I said earlier, we are in the process of hearing feedback about the bill each to 10 we are taking up. This is about each to 10. The health equity bill addressing health disparities with particular affected communities in Vermont. And we have the opportunity today to hear from Will the white, who is welcome you to say more if you will, but is part of the coalition that helped originate the language of the bill. And I believe is going to bring us some thoughts and feedback on perhaps where to take the bill in next steps, given that some of the testimony that we've heard. And some of the suggestions that have been put forward in the course of that. So with that will I'd like to turn it over to you, and have you introduced yourself, as you wish. Further. Thank you, Robert. And thank you. House committee on health care. My name is will the white, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about each to 10. I'm the founder of an organization called mad freedom, which is a human and civil rights advocates the organization whose mission is to work to secure political power to end the discrimination and oppression of people based on their perceived mental freedom and visions of world where every person regardless of race and gender and sexuality and ableness class and mental state has the freedom to live their life on their own terms without coercion and with the quality under the law. By training and experience I'm an attorney in a business woman. I was a plaintiff's trial lawyer primarily in New York California in Massachusetts, and also a management international management consultant, and I've started businesses and run businesses. And I was also the inaugural executive director of the Center for social justice at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, which is my alma mater. And also the former executive director of Vermont psychiatric survivors, which is a almost 40 year old organization here in Vermont. That advocates on behalf of psychiatric survivors and when I use the term psychiatric survivors.  And also the inaugural chair of the Vermont mental health crisis response commission and H 210 with its focus on health disparities affecting based on race ethnicity LGBT status and disability is something that actually touches me quite personally. I guess I would be called a quadruple threat, because I'm a member of all those, all those things that this bill touches. And I'll explain more about that a little later. My freedom is also a member of the racial justice alliance. People who are discriminated against based on their perceived mental state is a very unique population of people because we cross all all demographics. We were, and I don't think any other group can say that we were all races all genders all whatever. And even people who don't have mental illnesses are within our, our population because they proceed this having them. We represent all those interests and that is why we're interested in the work of the racial justice alliance because the people that on whose behalf we advocate across so many of those, those, those, those issues are important to so many of our members. I'm testifying on behalf of both mad freedom, and as a member of the racial justice alliance, as a myth as testifying on behalf of mad freedom. I'll express mad freedoms observations about the bill. And in my testimony on behalf of the racial justice alliance, I'll be mostly responding to testimony that we've heard about the bill and suggesting ways that the bill might be improved or ways that we think the bill should stand on its own. I should first say that you know this is not a bit mad freedom does support age 210 but it's not a bill that I would personally normally on the normal circumstances support I'm probably based on my own background. I'm a self-help type businesses and run businesses I am very much a self-help type person. And I don't believe really the government can solve all of our problems. However, I came around to supporting and working and drafting this bill. After I saw how the state of Vermont. Should be the vaccines for the COVID-19. So the first tier were I think for like that were not like first responders were people who were living in nursing homes and the second tier were people who were 75 years and older. And I saw this as really a classic example of structural racism and structural racism is defined in the bill. And the reason I say that is because you know Vermont I feel has made a commitment to health equity the Department of Health has put out has done studies and has put out bulletins about it, but not withstanding its commitment to health, health equity, including racial health equity. It's still had a policy of distributing the vaccine in this way. And the reason I say it's an example of structural racism is because when you look at the first population that was prioritized those living in nursing homes. Nationally, 78% of nursing home residents are white. And I imagine the population that that percentage is much greater in Vermont simply because of Vermont's demographics. And because of both financial reasons and cultural reasons, many of the people in Vermont who were contracting COVID-19 lived in multi generational households, and they lived in communities where they kept their elders and their household. So even though this policy was raised neutral on its face, it had an adverse impact on people who weren't white, simply because of policies practices cultural norms in our society. And then the next batch of people who were prioritized or people who were 75 years and older.  And so, once again, they are not prioritized, even though the policy on his face is raised neutral, just because of the history of how kind of more white people are privileged and that people are not in the society, it had a disparate impact. On the other hand, I think it was in today's Vermont digger. The state has has said, yeah, black people aren't being vaccinated.  And so, I just felt okay, given that given that the Vermont has already expressed the commitment to this. But, and given that they've had this policy that really did show a classic example of structural racism. I became more interested in pursuing this kind of solution, because it's not a lack of will that we're seeing right from on is already expressed in our interest. I think it's just not being able to see the impact of these policies because you don't have enough people who are impacted by those policies making decisions. So for those reasons, I decided that a bill such as this might be helpful in addressing those really more insidious types of structural rate the impacts of structural racism. But I also want to say that this is a very modest bill. It really just aims to establish an infrastructure for working to eliminate health disparities based on rape as NISC LGBTQ and disability status. It's not meant to eliminate those disparities in and of itself, but to provide a foundation to do this work. If Vermont were to pass this legislation it would be the 42nd state in the United States who have enacted legislation aimed at eliminating health disparities. It's actually very late to this, this party so to speak. But I think how this could benefit Vermont and Vermonters is because it would gain access the state would gain access to federal funding. That's available and for grants that are available that address the limit the elimination of health disparities. Right now you know in the United States Department of Health and Human Services there is an Office of Minority Health that distributes grants to states and these other states that have these offices of health equity are able to access those grants, and then kind of these nonprofit organizations in those states that do this kind of work can also access that money and I think Vermont should access that money as well to do this kind of work. I think now I'm just going to go into the particular aspects of the bill, kind of why they were drafted that way and respond to some of the comments on the bill. So one of the first comments like who was covered. There was a letter written by the National Alliance on mental illness. And that asked why the bill did not define disability like who's included our people with mental health challenges included. Well, the bill didn't include a definition of disability, because the, we felt like the behavioral risk factor surveillance system upon which a lot of the data in the bill is based defines disability actually too narrowly. So disability to include anyone who reports, having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, concentrating or making decisions, hearing seeing dressing or bathing, or who because of a physical, mental or emotional condition has difficulty doing errands alone. So that's the definition that that generated the data that's in the findings in the bill. However, you know, disability in practice is much wider than that and the people who suffer discrimination and oppression and health equities comprise a much larger group than that. And so if we were to put a definition in the bill, I would suggest that it just have three elements one, recognize that both physical and mental impairments are included that they substantially limit one or more major life activities. Or you're regarded as having that impairment so this is something that I can speak to personally because I don't personally consider myself disabled, but the world treats me as if I am. And so I'm discriminated based on that and suffer, you know, and suffer some of the ill effects of that treatment. So, while I would agree with Nami that it would be helpful to have a definition in the bill, I think it does need to be broader than the statistics, broader than what Vermont has used. And I think it's important to make clear that it does cover both physical and mental limitations. So then I would move then to the findings section of the bill I didn't hear any of the testimony that contradicted any of the findings. And so I'm not going to spend any time on that. I think those speak for itself. And I'll just move then to the portion of the bill that proposes the creation of an office of health equity. Again, this is this is that infrastructure that I talked about the sole purpose of this office is to actually provide a sustainable infrastructure for supporting the work, work that I hope is driven by the community that's most affected. But it would be it would support the work of the commission which we'll talk about later in it will be able to apply for those grants. And it'll be able to communicate with other offices within government to prevent some like, like that circumstance I alluded to earlier in my testimony about a vaccine policy that because of structural issues has a disparate impact on in this case, racial and ethnic minorities and I use that only in a numerical sense. There was some testimony about whether it was more important for this organization to be outside of government for purposes of independence and trust. I actually think it's really important to keep this this health equity office in government, because I do think it's important to educate government and to communicate with all kind of government systems I think it would be much more sustainable and helpful to have this entity working within government. People want to create an organization outside of government either using grants at this, or that this position should should, you know, apply for and receive. I think that's helpful to be helpful for them to be working in tandem. But at this juncture, I think it's really important for this infrastructure to be situated within state government. There's also some testimony that the Department of Health just doesn't have the capacity right now to hire this person who would lead this effort, and also get this organization, this entity up and running and that's understandable given the pandemic. And so what the racial justice alliance would propose is that, you know, the bill be amended to delay the effective date of the creation of the Office of Health Care equity and in its place, charge somebody with hiring a contractor putting out an RFP hiring a contractor who would come in to do two primary things. The first would be to get the commission up and running. And the second would be to start applying for grants to support the work of the commission and to support the provision in this statute that allows for distribution grants. And I believe that you know the money that would have been allocated for paying the director of health equity could easily be transitioned to funding this request for proposal to do that work, because as I do think I think of the Office of Health equity as the bones of this proposal and I consider the commission its heart and mind and soul because they would be driving the process and so I think it's really important to try to get that up and running. And I don't think you need a director to do but I think it could be done through an RFP. The Health Equity Commission itself. It doesn't seem to be a lot of, or any testimony against the idea of creating this commission. What I heard and read where people questioning why some people weren't on it. And what I would, and about unpaid labor. What I would say is that the commission is really important, because, as you notice, it's, it's, it's popular, it's intended to be populated by people who are most affected. It's something I learned, I heard Madeline Cunan say, you know, and I repeated every time I have the opportunity is the people who are closest the problem or closer to the solution. And so I think it's really important to have people who are familiar with what, what is stopping them achieving greater health, be advising the Department of Health equity. It's also important for people to realize that, even though we've kind of lumped people together under kind of race, ethnic and LGBTQ and disability status. None of these groups, either separately or together is monolithic, even within those groups there's great diversity. And so it's really important to, to have a lot of different voices from a lot of people within those communities on this commission. I think one of the more unfortunate things is this new kind of language about BIPOC because it's, it's, it suggests that these issues are all the same for these people and you've heard this morning that there's simply not. I heard the indigenous community talk a lot about access just financial access to healthcare. I would hear like, you know, black people also more talk about discrimination and receiving healthcare. So I think it's really important to have as many voices on this commission as possible. But I think it's at the same time it's really important to have only the voices of people who have lived experience of these, of these, of these challenges. One of the other things that the National Alliance for Mental Illness wanted was a place at the table they want a family member of adult children to be on that table and the racial justice lines would probably push back on that because adults can speak for themselves. And they should speak for themselves. And the experience of family members of people with mental health challenges is very different from the experiences of those who have those challenges themselves. And I know that because for 30 years I've been the guardian of a brother with a mental health challenge. And what I learned after having my own experience with the mental health system is just a great deal different from when I was advocating for him. And so I just know you, it's very different and I don't want the voice on this committee to be speaking for other people I think it's really important for people to speak for themselves. We also included to address some of the points raised by Don Stevens, a per diem because we realize how difficult it is for people to do this kind of work for free. So that's why there is a per diem allocation for attending meetings. It's not meant to cover all the costs but it is to say that we respect that this is, you know, there's an opportunity cost to participating here and we want to try to recognize that and and compensate you for that within the limits of a, you know, a public body. And then I'm so then I'm going to next move to the grants for the promotion of health equity. And I think this is really the work where I'm excited about, because it really is consistent with my own philosophy that people can do for themselves. But what the problem is we don't have the same kind of access to these funds and so that's why there's the grant in here that people can apply for to do projects that they think are most geared for helping themselves. You heard feedback this morning from Beverly Little Thunder that grants are really problematic for some communities, which is why we took great care in this bill to put in the bill, the requirements for getting the grants because we wanted to be transparent about it. We didn't want people going around, like, after like the bill was passed for people to create unreasonable grant expectations that would limit access to them. And so our purpose in putting the grant requirements in the statute was to make it very transparent and to generate feedback about whether they felt that these were too onerous, or not, or wouldn't achieve the results that we set out to achieve. And I didn't hear any testimony that the grant provisions in the statute were too onerous or would not achieve the results that the bill was aiming to achieve. So the bill has wants to do some data collection for all the reasons that the Green Mountain Care Board suggested in its presentation on race and ethnicity data in the Green Mountain Care Board healthcare database. In order to reduce disparities you have to, you know, detect understand and understand them. And so I think that's a really important vision in the bill and I didn't hear anyone saying you didn't want to collect them it was just that's very difficult. And this bill, again, it's just the very beginning of trying to centralize the collection of this data in order to we can see how we're doing. And finally, the last piece of this bill this geared towards medical education, and it has written only addresses the education of medical doctors. Which as which we don't, we agree is only the tip of the iceberg. And yes, everyone who's involved in healthcare needs to increase their awareness of issues of health disparities health inequities. But it was it was a challenging it was challenging to write a bill that looked at all the allied professions and figured out how to implement or institute a continuing education requirement. So this like I said is a very modest bill and just a very first step. And she did receive some testimony, oral in written about this medical education requirement.  No doubt it needs to be expanded. And that goes to just the beginning of this, the Vermont Medical Society on the other hand, did express some opposition to a kind of blanket two hour every year training. And I don't disagree with their opposition to that because they didn't think it would be that effective I know as an attorney I have to do. And I think it's a combination of bias training periodically to and after you know being a lawyer for almost 40 years, it's, it just, it's, you don't even pay attention no one pays attention anymore. So I do think that it, I think I would like to see this stay in the bill but I'd like to also see probably a sunset on it. So it can be revisited. I think the bill could be improved in the way that the Vermont Medical Society suggested by including in the bill not only UVM College of Medicine but also the area health education centers and the Vermont program for quality and health care. But I also would also say they should be working alongside the Commission, and doing this work, because, you know, people who don't have the live experience of this don't know what they don't know. And I think it would be a really strong collaboration if we had both the UVM College of Medicine, those that the Vermont Medical Society suggested in consultation with the Commission, coming up with some really robust and helpful training programs. So that, I think pretty much concludes my testimony bill I really appreciate your attentiveness, and I am available to answer questions if any of you have any. Thank you I'd unmute myself thank you, thank you will do. Let me let me set the outset say I, I appreciate your walking us through the bill, the different areas of the bill and I'm just going to speak for myself at this point to say that I, I appreciate the framing of this as to point that this is this is actually about establishing an infrastructure that would then be in the position to actually take some of the substantive steps, but that this infrastructure is an is an is an important and necessary infrastructure to establish in order to facilitate further further steps as necessary. And so I think I think that's a, that's a helpful framing. And I want to thank you for that, that piece. Okay, I see we have some questions and again, I'm going to, let's just be clear that we're here to clarify and to ask questions that are clarifying and not to question the presenters information represent Peterson. Thank you, will the thank you very, very much for your testimony, this was the most, the clearest concise this testimony about this bill that I have heard and I really appreciate it. It opened my eyes and a number of ways. In the very beginning of the testimony sounded like you were skeptical of bills like this. I am also very skeptical. Tell me why I should support this bill. It would depend on what you're what you what you are trying to if you believe.  So, if I assume that's your motivation for serving as a legislator. I think this is a bill that you should support, because it makes Vermont a better place for all Vermonters, because it's very difficult. You know I love Vermont. Sometimes I think Vermont doesn't let me back. Because, you know I've lived all over the world and I live in Cal I say I say this people tell me Vermont races I said no Vermont is no more racist than he but by place sells the way we experienced racism is different in California the way I experienced it is like everybody just objectified me they just assume they knew everything about me. Based on the color of my skin and Vermont mostly you ignored. I actually prefer being ignored to being objectified. However, when it comes to health care being ignored can kill you. Right. And so I think in this case because this is a bill that addresses health care. We all have access to health care, because if all Vermont is healthy, all you know Vermont is healthy. I think this bill can do some of that work. And that's why I think you should support it just because it's really hard in a state where, you know, that's 90 something percent white to remember that not everybody is white, and we all have different challenges, because of that. And so I think this would make Vermont just better for all Vermont right because we you don't want to, as you, you don't want to be spinning more on other things that come from not having healthy Vermonters right, and I think this bill could help you reduce those expenses you know if people actually have more health care they wouldn't be running to the emergency room that's already a saving. If people had you know access to some of these determinants of health care like if they were saying I need this to be healthy. Right, you would be saving in other areas. And so that's why I say this is a bill that looks at health inequities for people who aren't wider people who aren't you know, heterosexual, but it helps all of us. That's why I think you should support it. Okay. And again, thank you for your great testimony. Appreciate it. Thank you. Representative Peterson. Representative burrows. Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. And it is still morning. An actual clarifying question. It's still morning. The second question is, I've been writing down what you've what you've said, and in the part where you were talking about the definition of disability, you said to recognize physical you said three things. Yes, recognize physical and mental impairment. Recognize those who've who are regarded as having that impairment. And what was the third thing. I probably didn't say it and should have a recognizing people who've had a history of those because they're still, even if you've had a history of it, you're, it's no longer an issue, it still follows you. Got it. Yep. Thank you. You're welcome. Representative China. I want to thank Wilda for making time to come in today to testify to the health care committee. We've one of the some of the feedback we've heard about the bill from the Department of Health is that currently they're very consumed with keeping up with the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, and that it would be hard for them to take on the duties these right now of hiring and managing a director of health equity and setting up an office of health equity. And we've been considering ways to keep moving that work forward, being mindful of that challenge. And one of the ideas that has floated around was that perhaps the bill could be amended to fund a position whether it be the director of health equity or some precursor to that position and have that position work with the office of health equity, the office of racial equity, and that we would fund that position and fund that work and better fund that office so that the commission could be convened and that work could begin and then there could be some kind of transition to an office of health equity. And I know you and I have discussed this not in this space, but I'm curious if you could speak a little bit more about the Racial Justice Alliance's position about any kind of adjustment in that area. Okay, I thought I tried to speak with that where I said that I thought that you could hire a contractor to do that work. But what's really important if you want to shift it to the office of racial, what's it called the Racial Equity Director's Office? Is that, it's not an unfunded mandate, right? They already have too much, just. Right, absolutely. Yeah, that office is just as busy as the Department of Health Office. And so what you wanna do is make sure that resources go with the directive to that. I think that office could handle just sending out the RFP and fielding responses and hiring somebody. And then that contractor works with, works almost independently to get that commission working is the way I understand, the way I'm proposing and the way I think the Racial Justice Alliance is also proposing it. The Racial Justice Alliance does not wanna keep adding work onto the Racial Equity Director's plate without resources going there. And then I hope I'm right, Representative Sheena, I'm responding to your question correctly because I believe it's the Racial Justice Alliance position that we hire a contractor that it could come from the Racial Equity Director's office to oversee that work, but that we don't just pile on to that office without giving more resources. Does that answer your question Representative Sheena? Yeah, and I appreciate it. And I really just wanted it to be really clear and on the record that the Racial Justice Alliance has considered that compromise and that you're expressing that there's a willingness to compromise with mindfulness to the impact on the already overburdened work of the Racial Equity Director. So... Yes, and let me step in if I may and say that some of us have floated various ideas and I'm appreciating hearing that the Racial Justice Alliance's analysis is I think in many ways in alignment and to say that to the degree that I have participated in suggesting the possibility of the Director of Racial Equity having a transitional role, which is what I think we're all talking about that it cannot be done unless and until and it must be done with the staffing of the Racial Equity Office fully staffed with the positions that are in the current budget proposal and that additional resources. As you said, well, the additional resources for this task need to follow the task that they would be taking on. So I'm in complete solidarity with that proposal because otherwise it's simply not appropriate. In fact, it's more than not appropriate. It's inappropriate. So with that, I'm going to field questions first from folks who haven't had a chance to speak. So represent Paige and then represent Goldman then represent Peterson. Thank you, Ms. White for your testimony. And I guess my question is, and it's a concern. We've discussed where this office should be or shouldn't be and we've heard testimony that the Department of Health is too busy with the pandemic and I get that, okay? But we've also received testimony as I recall from the Department of Health, the Director of Planning Health Care Quality. And I just have to wonder, I mean, if you already have this office that's in charge of plans and programs and also quality, why aren't they doing this, I guess? And I suppose you probably don't have the answer to that but it seems to me that's that office should already be doing these functions without us starting up another office to do that. And then the other issue I have and I get it with the commission members, everybody have a seat at the table but it seems to me that there might be too many commission or too many commission members. And I don't know if I would call it a commission. I would maybe call it, oh, I don't know. I said, you know, commission is something that doesn't last for a great deal of time. It gets in there, it perhaps looks at a problem. It maybe writes a report and then it goes away. So those are a couple of my concerns and I'll just let you comment if you so wish. Thank you. Yeah, I have to agree with you that I don't know the answer to your first question. They're not doing what they're doing. They're not doing this work, which is, and that's not a, you know, if you look at other, which I have, I've looked at the other 41 states that have legislation that aims to address health disparities and those that have a office of health equity, it's a standalone office. There's no one kind of doing what you suggest, which doesn't mean that we can't do it. I'm not one that wants to just follow what other people are doing. I'm just suggesting that, you know, 41 other states that not all those states have an office of health equity, they might have some other kind of legislation, but the states that do have an office of health equity, they also have what you said, this other office, and they haven't charged that other kind of entity with this work. They have created kind of a separate office of health equity. Not all of them lodged into the Department of Health, but I think it makes the most sense to lodge it there. So that's all I can say on that first question. On your observation about commissions, I would probably disagree with you just based on kind of empirical evidence because, you know, you look at commissions in Vermont, there's a women's commission that's been around forever. It's an ongoing body. And there are other commissions like that, that I was on one, the Mental Health Crisis Response Commission. That's an ongoing body because there's always work to be done. But I don't, I mean, I don't think your quarrel with this is really based on what it's called. I think you seem, there's something, I hear something else underneath the question that you're asking. You've talked about its size. I think if you think about it as a commission, you would be troubled by its size because it seems unwieldy. I would agree with you with that. But what I envision is that they would work, you know, you would have attendance problems, right? Cause not everyone can come to every meeting. And they would also wanna probably do their work through little work groups to be most effective. And I think that's a good size for that model working through work groups. Because remember, like I said, this group is not monolithic. They're not gonna sit around a big table and agree that the issues are the same. They're going to probably be working how these problems arise, right? So, you know, I can see indigenous people working together who are recognized and maybe indigenous people who aren't recognized having some other kind of work group. And then, and so that's how I, and that's why I think it makes sense to have it this large. Cause I don't see them sitting around a big table collectively reaching decisions. I see them in small work groups, solving problems. Well, thank you very much. I guess I would look at it as maybe a board or a committee for a specific amount of time.   Call somebody in the department of health and say, you want this data, you know, we would like it at such and such a time. Well, the way the bill is written, it's written really to give them the power to do that, to be, and what I really wanted in the bill and what's in the bill is that they actually have the power to apply for grants and do their kind of own fundraising. And that's not something you see with a lot of commissions, where they actually have the ability to raise their own funds and accept grants. So, and you know, and they're charged with kind of writing a report. And so that means they're gonna have to do some work. And so I've tried to put incentives and safeguards in the legislation to make sure they actually have some powers and make sure they have incentives to use that power and then report out to hold them accountable to the people of the state of Vermont. And once they write this report, will they, how long will this commission last? I mean, I suppose it could last forever, right? It could last forever, but you know, that's up to you as legislators. You could make it time limited or you couldn't. I mean, it would be great if, you know, the need for such a commission could go away soon. But I always feel like legislation should revisit. You know, if you pass legislation such as this, you should revisit it periodically to see if it's making strides and if it's not change it. You shouldn't just say, we're gonna pass this and go away and never see you again. I think that's not prudent.  I think that's not appropriate. I think that you should read the report and you should look at the data to see if this commission, this structure has had any impact whatsoever.  Thank you very much. Thank you. Representative Goldman, I'm watching the time as well. Will has been generous with their time and we also have a goal of finishing. Certainly we had said 1145, but we can take some more time. So Representative Goldman then Representative Peterson. Thank you and thank you for your testimony. I just wanna sort of expand or understand more a little from the questions that Representative Sheena had asked you about sort of the structure. If we can't go through the Department of Health and then you use the word delay and my chest hurts. So I didn't want it to go there. So you talked about hiring a contractor and I don't really have an image of what that is of like who could be a contractor that could do this work meaningfully. Where would the leadership come from? How does that, and you may not know, but I'm just trying to have a little deeper. It's maybe too weedy, but a little deeper understanding of how contractor would work. And could you give an example of who that might be? Yeah, yeah, actually this is something I can comment on. So I said before I spent some of my life as a management consultant. And so I'm very familiar with entities such as this Office of Health Equity putting out a request for proposal for people who do work in this area of health disparities. So for example, if one of the witnesses that you heard from Dr. Avila, if she weren't at UVM she could be a contractor. She would respond to a RFP such as this. There's lots of people nationwide doing this kind of work. And they do it both affiliated with universities or they do it independently as consultants. So what I probably should have said instead of contractor was consultant because that might be a word that you're more familiar with. I use the word contractors because I wanted to let you know that this you're not hiring an employee. You're hiring somebody for a limited amount of time to do a specific project and then it's over. Does that help? Yes. Had a little mute event here. Thanks. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Representative Peterson. Yes. Thank you. Wilda, you mentioned 41 other states have an Office of Health Equity. I think she said they passed legislation regarding health disparities, but wouldn't you correct that if that's not accurate? Right. I said that 41 of those states have a legislation that address health disparities. Not all of them do it through an Office of Health Equity, but many do. Okay. Well, my question is, is there empirical data in those states that shows that whatever they have established have actually had a positive effect on the health disparities? In some states, you can see changes. The states that have collected data, you can see changes. I think California has seen some changes. I think there's some states in the South that have seen some changes as a result. Well, I won't say as a result, but there's a correlation between establishing this office and seeing improvement in eliminating health disparities. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. I want to raise one further point. And again, I said earlier that Susanna Davis is here as listening in because she and her office have been mentioned on numbers of occasions as possibly involved in this and to be hearing our testimony and thinking. One of, I'm going to, and I know I'm also aware of the time, but one of the things that Susanna, I think brought forward that I appreciated was to name the issue of process equity as well as in thinking about the commission's work. And in the current draft, the commission is prescribed to have three meetings per year, but that we in this possible revision of this, that perhaps there should not be a stated specific number of meetings. And again, I just welcome any input on that, or there should be something more than the three. I don't believe, I mean, I, the draft, Maybe I'm misstating what you said. When I wrote this, I put down that they could, they would have them, they could have a minimum number. There was no- Yes, you're correct. I'm misstating. And then when the council got it, they limited the meetings that you could be paid for. Yeah. But anybody, and we put in the bill that anybody could, the meetings are typically called by the chairpeople, but a quorum, it said how many people to get together and say they wanted the meeting as well. Yeah, I stand corrected. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you, Will. I appreciate you're joining us this morning and I am gonna call this to a close at this point. Representative Peterson, is your hand up or was it left up? I think it's left up. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, we're all technologically working to get our hands up and down and mute on and off. Again, thank you, Will, for making the time. Thank you for your input on behalf of the alliance and for your comments as well. So- Thank you. I appreciate your time. Okay. And thank you committee members. We are, so let me just say that I'm, I'm a little, our schedule now says that we are adjourned until 15 minutes after the floor. We have scheduled a number of witnesses this afternoon and on the secure residential proposal. And what has been suggested to me is that the floor might be a long floor today in a way that I had not anticipated. And so I think we're going to need to, so I'm going to ask of this. We may need to ask some witnesses to not be heard today, depending how long the floor goes. I, you know, I don't appreciate having witnesses waiting and waiting and waiting, but that's the nature of after the floor. But what I would ask of you, is it, would it be agreeable for us to come directly to committee after the floor, rather than taking a 10 or 15 minute break in order to be respectful of any witnesses who can wait until whatever that unnamed time is? Is that, I see a bunch of nodding heads. So, so my request, and if, and if that does not work for you, I think the committee should still go ahead immediately, you know, like within five minutes come to the committee. We'll then hear what witnesses, who is available at that point in time. In the meantime, we'll be working that out with witnesses, depending how long the floor goes. Representative Donahue. Yeah, just to, to mention, and Colleen can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, and I'm not disagreeing, we may not be able to fit everyone in, but these witnesses who were, you know, people who had written letters, as opposed to organizational and so forth, they did get a heads up that they, they are more, you know, public hearing type. They will be fairly brief, maybe five minutes, not 20 minutes. Yes, I think that's right. And these, every, every, every witness here has already sent something in writing to the committee, but we wanted to reach out and see if there was something further they wanted to add in order to have the breadth of comment on the issue. Okay, well thank you. And I know there's also, there's a childcare luncheon today, and there's other, other commitments, but I really think everyone should go outside, at least for, at least for five minutes. Carve out five minutes. The sunshine is glorious. Where I am, it's reflecting off the snow. The temperature has risen. I'll bet the sap is running. So, this also, squeeze it, squeeze in something outside. And I'll see you back here five minutes after the floor. Okay, thank you all. This has been helpful.


I think it's actually pretty nice because I guess I'm going to learn something new. The Army is reaching out to young women in high school to show them all the opportunities that enlistment has to offer. Staff Sergeant Tiffany Hightower is a recruiter in the U.S. Army Reserve and is one of 44 members of the Army's female recruiting team. I wanted to become an Army recruiter because I wanted to make an impact in taking a civilian from normal life to the soldier life. Sergeant First Class Heather Romine is also on the female recruiting team and says she encourages young women to enlist because she knows they can accomplish anything they set their minds to.  That is one thing that people don't understand that size doesn't matter, it's the heart. If you're going to be able to have the heart to get through basic training, you're going to be able to do it. I want to learn more about what the Army is about and how they do stuff and I want to join the Army when I grow up. Today, students have gathered at an event co-sponsored by the Army and the National Hot Rod Association's Youth Education Services Program. They participate in events showing off feats of strength and team building skills and also get a chance to explore career opportunities. Staff Sergeant Hightower and her team have been able to engage with young women around the world and encourage them to be all they can be. You get to share your story to so many people now than just in the area where you're recruiting. This female recruiting team is going to go all over the world, you're going to meet other people that you can learn from their story, they can learn from yours, and you're going to be impacting, yet again, people which is something that has been the root of everything for me.


Everybody forced here ripping a box of 2023 plates and patches football for Andrew s best of luck Andrew Let's find a Richardson here Bryce young base There's a three nothing right now Bryce young base It's Tyler Scott rookie to 25 Steel signatures is rookie Sam LaPorta Sam LaPorta 290 of 300 got Ricky Williams auto to 149 All alone No nice Ricky Williams And dual patch rookie to 25 is a Jaren Hall Jaren Hall to 25 All right, thanks for the order Andrew. It's hoping for Richardson there obviously for you, but you get a brace young We'll get those out to you


What's up everybody? Jason here for jazzybiscaysbrace.com We got a little Bogo buy one get one tonight only if we sold out the Spectre R&B for these Pikachu number seven that includes the magic, wars, thunder, rockets, pisses, blazes, Celtics, T-wolves, Grizzlies, Hawks, Nets, Bulls, and Heats.  We go by the first number, the left side Sierra number dash with R&Bs. And we're not entering to the $500 break credit promo giveaway, but Bogo, basically buy one you get one. So here's the dice roll, here's the customer names. We're going to double it up basically, Bogo, right? I'll put a little character sign to know which ones were giveaway ones here. There you go. So let's click the dice roll. It's a six into two eight times. We'll randomize the names eight times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Six to eight, eight, A-A-Round down to Nancy. And eight times here. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Seven down to two. All right, so you gotta match it with a little number. Let's see what you guys got. So A-A-Round, you got seven, James, five, Aaron, eight, Nancy, six, James, zero, Aaron, three, Nancy, four, one, Aaron, nine, and then Nancy with two. So there you go guys. So again, in a separate video guys, we'll do the break. Good luck everybody. And hopefully some really nice hits for you guys. Thank you guys so much.


The value of this summit is just really extraordinary. I've been to three other summits like this, and this is the only one where it's really connected the people with the social problems and the knowledge experts about what we should be using AI with, with the people such as myself who are AI technologists. And so getting that dialogue of all the stakeholders presenting that in just the introductions alone to the problems into each other is a wonderful contribution. So as part of my work with the Center for Robot Assistance Search and Rescue, we actually deploy to disaster, starting with the first use of robots for disaster, which was 9-11, the World Trade Center collapse, and includes Fukushima Daiichi, nuclear accident, and most recently the Syrian boat refugees coming into Greece. Well, one thing is an academic institution, we're not very good at keeping up with the latest commercially hardened technology, and you can never take something that's experimental to a disaster because you risk making things worse. So we created Robotices Without Borders, it's kind of to become a dating service. So when a disaster happens, having a cadre of companies that are trained in emergency response who've practiced and worked together and have technology we know that will work. They've tried it out at Disaster City or other training facilities and are ready to volunteer up 10 days of their time and their equipment if they're asked by an agency to go. So that can help speed the adoption. For me, the big thing is it's not to have this technology us providing it to these agencies all over the world, but them seeing the value in investing in it themselves. So when you think about disasters, so many aspects of them, you can think of something like the Syrian boat refugees. We got involved because they're actually robot lifeguard, they're really lifeguard assistants. Think of a very large life preserver, one of those throwable ones, but on a miniature jet ski robot. So now the lifeguards from a coast guard cutter or from a boat can zoom it out and get five to eight people can hang on and give the lifeguards time to deal with say the other 30 or 40 or 50 people that may be in more immediate danger and that they need to jump in the water to help with and deal with. Well that sounds like a good use of AI, having a robot that's smarter, that's easier to control, but then you discover that the robots, they like the two-way audio because they need to talk to the people on board to see if anybody's injured or has hypothermia, but they don't all speak Syrian. Everybody's speaking English, it's kind of an intermediate language and then there's people from Afghanistan and Libya and other countries and now you're going into we really need to start using AI to help sort out the languages and to generate and to explain things and get things there. And then you're realizing that it's not just the Hellenic Coast Guard, there's a group of NGOs, not just the Hellenic American Red Cross but these professional lifeguard teams from Spain and Portugal and around the world who are helping and can we coordinate with them and then who needs to know about the information if you know that you've got eight boats of refugees with about 50 in each and it's a set of families, highly family oriented, the people on land who are preparing the housing and the transportation. Now they can start preparing and knowing in advance and then how do you use machine learning to start projecting oh well it's it's a dark night but a full moon and the winds down so we should expect eight to nine boats versus two to three. What are the things that we can start using AI for? There's so many possibilities. For me I go to these AI and ethics workshops all the time and it's always like oh we don't recognize robots, AI is bad, you know it's like oh we must make AI good. You know what I think that in the cases of disaster response it's unethical not to use robots, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned ground vehicles, underwater vehicles can radically change the way we respond to disasters, the way we prevent disasters, the way that we accelerate economic recovery, the way that we prevent people from being displaced or having long-term injuries and it's to the point where it's unethical not to use it. So I'd like to see that on the ethics table.