>>> WELCOME TO "NOON WEDNESDAY,"
I'M MARISA WOJCIK, MULTIMEDIA
JOURNALIST WITH "HERE & NOW" ON
PBS WISCONSIN, AND TODAY IS
JANUARY 12.
SO OVER THE LAST YEAR, DEBATE
OVER WHETHER AND HOW TO DISCUSS
RACE IN CLASSROOMS HAS TAKEN
OVER SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS AND
IS THREATENING TO UPEND COLLEGE
CURRICULA.
NOW REPUBLICAN BILLS BEFORE THE
WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE ARE
SEEKING TO PUT LIMITS ON HOW
RACE DISCUSSIONS HAPPEN IN
CLASSROOMS INTO LAW.
SO JOINING ME TO BET WITHER
UNDERSTAND WHAT -- BETTER
UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS COULD MEAN
ARE TWO PROFESSORS FROM THE
UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, STEPH TAI
ON THE FACULTY WITH UW
CROSSE, AND ANUJ DESAI FOCUSES
ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM, AND THANK
YOU, BOTH, FOR THE CONVERSATION
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
>> THANKS.
YEAH, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR
HAVING US.
WE'RE THRILLED TO BE HERE.
>> SO TO START OFF, THERE ARE
TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
ONE IS FOR K-12 PUBLIC AND
CHARTER SCHOOLS; THE OTHER
TARGETED AT UW SYSTEM AND
TECHNICAL COLLEGES.
THEY BOTH SAY THAT INSTRUCTION
OR TRAINING IS PROHIBITED TO
DISCUSS, QUOTE, THAT ONE SEX OR
RACE IS INHERENTLY SUPERIOR TO
ANOTHER SEX OR RACE, AND THAT BY
VIRTUAL OF THE INDIVIDUALS, RACE
OR SEX BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE ACTS COMMITTED IN THE PAST
BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME
RACE OR SEX.
SO THAT'S KIND OF A MEATY
STATEMENT.
ANUJ, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT
THAT IS SAYING AND WHY, IN YOUR
MIND, THIS IS A FREEDOM OF
SPEECH ISSUE?
>> YEAH.
WELL, LET ME JUST START BY
THANKING YOU FOR RAISING THESE
ISSUES BEFORE THE PUBLIC, AND I
JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, THANK
THE AUDIENCE FOR SHOWING
INTEREST IN THESE ISSUES.
SO THE FIRST THING, I GUESS I
WOULD SAY, IS, SO THE BILLS ARE
FRAMED IN A WAY THAT PROHIBITS
ALLOWING TEACHERS TO TEACH RACE
OR SEX STEREOTYPING.
SO THAT'S THE BIG PICTURE
CATEGORY THAT IS BEING
PROHIBITED, AND THEN IT SAYS,
INCLUDING CERTAIN ENUMERATED
CONCEPTS, AND THEN, YOU KNOW,
THE ONES YOU JUST LISTED OFF
THERE, ARE TWO OF THE EXAMPLES
IN THE SORT OF LIST OF SORT OF
PROHIBITED CONCEPTS.
SO WHY IS THIS A FREE SPEECH
ISSUE?
IT IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE IN
PART BECAUSE WHEN WE THINK
LARGELY ABOUT FREE SPEECH IN OUR
SOCIETY, WE HAVE INSTITUTIONS
THAT ARE DESIGNED TO FURTHER
BROADEN IDEAS ABOUT FREE SPEECH,
AND TWO OF THE BIG ONES ARE K-12
SCHOOLS AND THE UNIVERSITIES,
AND SO ANYTHING, REALLY, THAT
IMPLICATES THE CONTENT OF
DISCUSSION IN CLASSROOMS IS
GOING TO IMPLICATE OUR
CONCEPTION OF FREE SPEECH.
>> AND WE'LL GET TO THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN K-12 SCHOOLS
AND UNIVERSITIES IN A MINUTE,
BUT, FIRST, STEPH, SPECIFICALLY
IN THE SETTING OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, YOU ARE A PART OF A
GROUP CALLED UW THAT REPRESENTS
FACULTY IN FRONT OF LEGISLATIVE
BODIES AND THE BOARD OF REGIONS,
SO WHY DOES YOUR GROUP TAKE
ISSUE WITH THIS LEGISLATION
BANNING THE DISCUSSION OF RACE
AND SEX ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES IN
THIS WAY?
>> WELL, WE REPRESENT THE UW
FACULTY MEMBERS, AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE REPRESENT IS THE
ACADEMIC FREEDOM OF VARIOUS
PROFESSORS THROUGHOUT THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THREATS TO
ACADEMIC FREEDOM POSED BY THE
BILLS IN THAT THE BILLS ARE
STRUCTURED, SEEMS FINE IN
GENERAL, BUT THEY COULD HAVE A
CHILLING EFFECT ON DISCUSSIONS,
RIGHT?
SO THE CONCERN IS ONE MIGHT BE
TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THAT MIGHT
LEAD TO STUDENTS FEELING BACK,
RIGHT, ABOUT THEIR PARTICULAR
KIND OF HISTORIES.
NOW, THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY
BE THE INTENT OF THE PROFESSOR,
BUT THE MERE FACT A STUDENT
MIGHT FEEL BAD MEANS THEY COULD
MAYBE RAISE A LAWSUIT AGAINST
THE UNIVERSITY, AND THUS,
OVERALL, CREATES A CHILLING
EFFECT ON WHAT FACULTY MEMBERS
MIGHT FEEL FREE TO SAY.
FOR EXAMPLE, I MIGHT TALK IN MY
PRE-LAW CLASS ABOUT THE HISTORY
OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE USDA,
AND THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
USDA IN A LAWSUIT WHICH IT
SETTLED AGAINST BLACK FARMERS.
THEY HAD HAD A WHOLE HISTORY OF
ACTUAL INTENTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION THAT THE USDA
ACKNOWLEDGED.
THIS MIGHT LEAD STUDENTS TO FEEL
BAD, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR HISTORY, AND WOULD
THIS FALL OVER THE LINE OF THIS
BILL?
IT'S HARD TO KNOW, AND IT MIGHT
LEAD TO SORT OF FRIVOLOUS
POTENTIAL LAWSUITS, BUT STILL
LAWSUITS THAT CREATE A CHILLING
EFFECT.
MOREOVER, IT HAS -- IT HAS AN
EFFECT ON THE RECRUITMENT OF
BOTH FACULTY MEMBERS AND
GRADUATE STUDENTS WHO MIGHT --
ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO HAVE TO
TEACH IN CLASSROOMS.
THEY MIGHT BE CONCERNED ABOUT
BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THE
KINDS OF TEACHING THAT THEY WANT
TO BE ABLE TO DO BECAUSE, AGAIN,
OF THE CHILLING EFFECT, AND THAT
MEANS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO RECRUIT AS A UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM FROM A SMALLER POOL OF
FACULTY, AND THUS LEAD US TO BE
LESS COMPETITIVE AS A
UNIVERSITY.
>> AND THAT'S INTERESTING THAT
YOU BRING UP EVEN JUST TEACHING
ABOUT THE HISTORY, SO IT COULD
HAVE THE CHILLING EFFECT AND
STIFLE INSTRUCTORS' ABILITY TO
TEACH ABOUT THE UNITED STATES'
HISTORY, WHICH INCLUDES
DISCRIMINATION.
ANUJ, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE OF
PROHIBITING THIS IN K-12 SCHOOLS
VERSUS IN A HIGHER EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY SETTING?
>> YES.
SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS
ABSOLUTELY, YES.
SO I DO -- BEFORE I ANSWER IT
DIRECTLY, I JUST DO WANT TO, YOU
KNOW, PICK UP ON ONE THEME THAT
PROFESSOR TAI RAISED, AND THAT
IS THIS QUESTION OF WHAT WE, YOU
KNOW, FIRST AMENDMENT LAWYERS
REFER TO AS THE CHILLING EFFECT.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT
THE LAW MIGHT PROHIBIT THAT WE
ACTUALLY MIGHT ALL AGREE IT
OUGHT TO PROHIBIT PEOPLE FROM
SAYING, WHETHER IN K-12 OR IN
UNIVERSITIES, AND, YOU KNOW, AS
PROFESSOR TAI POINTED OUT, THE
BIG QUESTION HERE, I THINK, IS,
YOU KNOW, WELL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN,
LAWYERS CALL AN "INTERPRETIVE
QUESTION."
WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT, AND, YOU
KNOW, AS SHE WAS INDICATING, THE
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
CERTAIN THINGS, CERTAIN
DISCUSSIONS MIGHT FALL INTO THE
STATUTE.
I THINK IF WE, YOU KNOW, STEP
BACK FOR A SECOND, I THINK, YOU
KNOW, OVERALL, IF YOU LOOK AT
THE WAY THE LEGISLATION HAS COME
THROUGH, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU WERE INCLINED, ACCUSE THOSE
WHO HAVE INTRODUCED IT OF TRYING
TO DO JUST THAT.
THAT IS SUPPRESS DISCUSSION
ABOUT RACE IN GENERAL, BUT IF
WE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF WE TAKE
THOSE LEGISLATORS AT THEIR WORD,
WE CAN IMAGINE A SORT OF
NARROWING INTERPRETATION THAT
SORT OF GOES BACK TO SORT OF
WHERE YOU STARTED US WITH THE
BILL, AND THAT IT'S PROHIBITING
THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, TEACHING
THAT ONE RACE IS INHERENTLY
SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER RACE, RIGHT?
AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT, YOU
KNOW, IF THOUGHT OF IN, YOU
KNOW, SORT OF, YOU KNOW, IN
THEIR LITERAL WAY SEEM
UNOBJECTIONABLE, RIGHT?
SO I THINK ONE THING TO BE
THINKING ABOUT IN THIS WHOLE
DISCUSSION IS HOW MUCH OF A
CHILL ARE LAWS LIKE THIS
ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE?
LET ME GO NOW TO YOUR, YOU KNOW,
DIRECTLY TO YOUR QUESTION
WITHOUT ABOUT K-12 VERSUS
COLLEGES.
SO, THE SHORT ANSWER IS IN THE
K-12 CONTEXT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS
ALMOST SORT OF COMPLETE
DISCRETION TO SET THE TERMS OF
EDUCATION UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
THERE ARE SOME LIMITS, AND SO
ONE THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT HERE
IS, YOU KNOW, THE COURTS HAVE
INDICATED THAT IF EDUCATION
CURRICULUM IS DONE IN A NAKEDLY
PARTISAN WAY, THAT THAT MIGHT --
THAT MIGHT VIOLATE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE
COURTS HAVE NEVER FOUND THIS, SO
THAT SORT OF INDICATED THAT
WOULD BE THE CASE, BUT HAVE
NEVER ACTUALLY HELD SOMETHING TO
BE NAKEDLY PARTISAN WHEREAS, YOU
KNOW, AS PROFESSOR TAI WAS
MENTIONING, IN THE COLLEGE AND
UNIVERSITY PERSPECTIVE, YOU
KNOW, AREAS, TEACHERS HAVE JUST
A LOT MORE LEEWAY, I GUESS IS
WHAT I WOULD SAY, TO EXPRESS
THEIR OWN VIEWS ABOUT THINGS,
AND THAT IS THAT CONCEPT OF
ACADEMIC FREEDOM, WHICH
INTERTWINES WITH FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND IS PART AND PARCEL TO
IT IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
>> AND, STEPH, THERE IS A LONG
LIST OF WORDS AND PHRASES LISTED
IN ADDENDUM TO THIS LEGISLATION
THAT WAS AUTHORED BY
REPRESENTATIVE WICKERS, AND HE
ADDS THAT PROHIBITING CERTAIN
WORDS LIKE "SOCIAL JUSTICE,"
"EQUITY," "ANTIRACISM," "WOKE,"
"INTERSECTIONALTY" JUST TO NAME
A FEW, BUT IT IS A VERY, VERY
LONG LIST.
IF THOSE WORDS ARE USED IN THE
CONTEXT OF THIS LEGISLATION,
THOSE WOULD ALSO BE PROHIBITED.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
>> WELL, THIS ACTUALLY GOES TO
SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED.
THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE UP TO
THE INTERPRETATION OF COURTS,
AND THE EFFECT OF THIS IS GOING
TO BE THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT
IN THE LEGISLATION, ITSELF, IT
IS AN INTERPRETIVE TOOL.
SO ONE OF THE RULES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION IS THAT SOME OF
THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATE AND
AUTHORS' INTENT GOES INTO THE
INTERPRETATION OF THAT, AND SO
WHILE NOT ACTUALLY IN THE
STATUTE, ITSELF, THESE WORDS
WOULD BE USED BY JUDGES TO
FIGURE OUT THE SCOPE OF THE
BILL, RIGHT?
WHETHER IT IS INTERPRETED
BROADLY TO INCLUDE MANY
DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS, THUS
COVERING A LARGER SET OF THINGS,
VERSUS INTERPRETED NARROWLY.
I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE
THING THAT WAS MENTIONED THAT
WHILE COURTS HAVE NOT HELD
THAT -- THAT REJECTED BILL THAT
LIMITED THE SCOPE OF CURRICULUM
DUE TO ENTIRELY PARTISAN
REASONS, THERE WAS A CASE IN
ARIZONA WHERE GONZALEZ V.
DOUGLAS, DID OVERTURN A BAN ON
ETHIC STUDIES IN ARIZONA
REACHING K-12 TO COLLEGES
BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON RACIALLY
DISCRIMINATED -- RACIALLY AN
MOUSE, AND THEY LEARNED THAT IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND SO
THERE'S SMALL EXCEPTIONS, AND A
LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO DEPEND
ON WHAT THE LEGISLATORS SAY AND
DO AND ALL OF THIS KIND OF
INTERPRETATIONAL STUFF.
>> AND PROFESSOR DESAI, THERE'S
LAWSUITS ABOUT THE LEGISLATION
PENDING.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU KNOW
ABOUT THOSE LAWSUITS?
>> SURE, YEAH.
SO, LET ME BACK UP.
SO, THIS IS, RIGHT KNOW, IN
WISCONSIN AT LEAST, THESE ARE
JUST BILLS.
THEY ARE NOT LAWS.
THERE'S NO LAWSUITS ABOUT THEM
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE LAW,
AND MAYBE WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS
LATER.
IT DOESN'T SEEM HIGHLY LIKELY
THAT THEY WILL BECOME LAW
BECAUSE I THINK THE GOVERNOR
ALSO IS, YOU KNOW, A FORMER
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION HERE HAS EFFECTIVELY
INDICATED THAT HE WILL VETO THEM
IF THEY COME BEFORE HIM.
BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF SIMILAR
LAWS THAT OTHER STATES HAVE
PASSED AT THIS POINT, AND SO
SOME OF THOSE LAWS HAVE BEEN
CHALLENGED.
ONE IN OKLAHOMA I KNOW OF, ONE
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE I KNOW OF, AND
THERE MAY BE OTHERS.
I'M AFRAID I'M NOT UP ON ALL THE
LATEST, BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY
ABOUT, I WOULD SAY, ABOUT A
DOZEN OTHER STATES THAT HAVE
PASSED LAWS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO
THIS.
I WILL SAY ONE THING THAT -- I'M
NOT 100% SURE THE LAWSUITS HAVE
DONE, BUT MAY BE CONTRIBUTING TS
HAPPENED SINCE THESE BILLS WERE
INTRODUCED, AND YOU REFERRED
EARLIER TO THAT LIST OF WORDS
THAT WAS ATTACHED, YOU KNOW,
INITIALLY BACK IN JULY OR AUGUST
OF 2021, BUT SINCE THEN, THERE
HAVE BEEN AMENDMENTS, AND THE
AMENDMENTINGS HAVE, YOU KNOW,
PASSED IN THE COMMITTEE, AND
THOSE AMENDMENTS REALLY HAVE
NARROWED THE WISCONSIN BILLS
KIND OF SIGNIFICANTLY COMPARED
WITH A BUNCH OF THE OTHER STATES
THAT HAVE PASSED LEGISLATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN THINK, YOU
KNOW, FOR THOSE OF US WHO CARE
ABOUT THE KIND OF LEGISLATIVE
AND BROADER LEGAL PROCESS, YOU
CAN THINK OF THIS ALL AS PART OF
KIND OF NATIONAL DISCUSSIONS
THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE, AS A
COUNTRY, ARE HAVING ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, THE ROLE OF K-12 SCHOOLS
AND COLLEGES IN KIND OF RACE
RELATED EDUCATION.
>> AND, PROFESSOR TAI, ALONG
THOSE LINES, I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU
THINK THESE BILLS ARE ACTUALLY
SAYING?
THEY'RE LARGELY, AS PROFESSOR
DESAI JUST SAID, PART OF THIS
BIG POLITICAL MOVEMENT, AND
THERE'S SOME CONSERVATIVES
SAYING THIS IS -- THAT THERE'S
NOW REVERSE DISCRIMINATION
HAPPENING, AND IT IS GETTING
TWISTED.
YOU KNOW, THEY ARE TRYING TO BAN
CRITICAL RACE THEORY
SPECIFICALLY, SOMETHING THAT'S
NOT EVEN TAUGHT IN K-12 SCHOOLS.
WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO KIND OF
ALL OF THIS DISCOURSE SWIRLING
AROUND THAT'S NOW CREATING REAL
PROPOSED LEGISLATION?
>> I THINK PART OF IT IS JUST --
I DON'T WANT TO USE A HARSH A
WORD AS THIS, BUT FEAR
MONGERING, RIGHT?
IT IS USING SOME SORT OF SPECTER
TO DRIVE OUT VOTES IN PARTICULAR
DIRECTION.
AGAIN, I USE THIS WORD "FEAR
MONGERING," EVEN THOUGH RIGHT
NOW, THERE SHOULD BE A BETTER
WORD FOR THIS, BECAUSE CRITICAL
RACE THEORY IS NOT TAUGHT IN
K-12.
IT IS NOT EVEN TAUGHT IN
COLLEGES.
IT IS KIND OF BEING TAUGHT AS A
VERY THIN SLICE OF LAW SCHOOL,
BUT THAT'S IT.
IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL THING THAT
PEOPLE ARE TEACHING, ALTHOUGH,
IN THE PROPOSED BILL THEY WERE
TALKING ABOUT THIS AS A SORT OF
GENERALIZED TERM, IT IS ACTUALLY
A VERY SPECIFIC TERM WITH A
CONCRETE LEGAL HISTORY, AND SO I
THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THIS
IS COMING FROM.
ANOTHER PART OF THIS IS ALSO
POTENTIAL FOR LAWSUITS.
SO, THERE ARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT
MAKE -- GET SIZABLE ATTORNEYS'
FEES FROM SUITS LIKE THIS
BECAUSE THIS BILL, EVEN THOUGH
IT'S NOT PASSED YET, THIS BILL
WOULD GRANT ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR
ANYONE REPRESENTING COMPLAINTS
ABOUT THIS TEACHING.
THEY ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE
CLASS.
THEY ARE ANY STUDENT OR STAFF
MEMBER OF A UNIVERSITY.
THIS PROVIDES A BROAD POOL OF
PROBABLY CLAIMANTS WHO MIGHT GET
ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION BY
ATTORNEYS WHO WANT TO SEEK
ATTORNEYS' FEES IN SOME WAY.
WHAT THIS MEANS, THOUGH, IS THAT
THIS IS ACTUALLY A HIDDEN TAX ON
WISCONSIN VOTERS.
THE TAXES ARE NOT PAID OUT OF
THE UNIVERSITY'S SYSTEM OR THE
K-12 SYSTEM.
THEY ARE PAID BY US.
OUR INCOME TAXES.
THIS IS A HIDDEN PART OF THE
AGENDA, I THINK, THAT IS NOT
REALLY DISCUSSED VERY MUCH.
>> AND THIS LAST QUESTION IS FOR
BOTH OF YOU, AND, PROFESSOR
DESAI, I'LL ASK YOU FIRST.
EVEN IF THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
PASS THIS LEGISLATION, WHICH IS
LIKELY, IT'LL BE SENT TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK, AND AS YOU
ALREADY MENTIONED, HE'S LIKELY
TO VETO IT ALL TOGETHER, SO WHAT
DOES THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION
IMPLICATE, EVEN IF IT WON'T BE
ASSIGNED INTO LAW.
>> YEAH.
IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IMPLICATES,
YOU KNOW, BROADLY POLITICAL
DISCOURSINGS RIGHT?
AS PROFESSOR TAI WAS MENTIONING,
THESE ARE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE
REALLY CARE ABOUT, AND ALL
ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM,
RIGHT?
PEOPLE REALLY, REALLY CARE ABOUT
IT, AND AS PROFESSOR TAI POINTED
OUT, PEOPLE VOTE ON THE BASIS OF
THESE THING, AND SO JUST BECAUSE
A BILL DOESN'T PASS, DOESN'T
MEAN IT DOESN'T HAVE A POLITICAL
IMPACT.
IF YOU DON'T MINE, I JUST WANT
TO -- I WILL SORT OF
RESPECTFULLY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF
DISAGREE SLIGHTLY WITH WHAT
PROFESSOR TAI HAD SAID EARLIER.
I DON'T THINK THE PROPONENTS OF
THESE BILLS -- AND, YOU KNOW, BY
THE WAY, NONE OF OUR BILLS, AT
LEAST, USE THE TERM "CRITICAL
RACE THEORY" IN THE LEGISLATION,
ITSELF, RIGHT?
I DON'T THINK THEY -- IT MATTERS
TOO MUCH THAT THE THING THAT IS
OFFICIALLY CRITICAL RACE THEORY
IS TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS.
I MEAN, I THINK WHAT THEY ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW,
THAT LIST OF THINGS, YOU KNOW,
THAT SOMEBODY'S BEING TAUGHT
THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THEIR
RACE, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THINGS IN THE PAST THAT PEOPLE
OF THEIR RACE DID OR THINGS OF
THAT ILK, SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS
I HAVE A SLIGHT, YOU KNOW,
DISAGREEMENT THERE, AND, YOU
KNOW, JUST ON THE QUESTION OF
THE ATTORNEYS' FEES, IT IS
IMPORTANT TO REALIZE, YOU ONLY
GET ATTORNEYS' FEES IF YOU ARE
SUCCESSFUL, RIGHT?
YOU DON'T GET ATTORNEYS' FEES IF
YOU LOSE THE CASE.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS
ALWAYS THE WORRY THAT PEOPLE
WILL BE INCENTIVIZED TO BRING
CASES, BUT THAT'S A SYSTEM WE
SET UP FOR LOTS OF THINGS.
I MEAN, ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS WE
HAVE ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR.
THERE'S A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THE LAW SAYS WE WANT TO
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO HELP ENFORCE
THE LAW BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S
NOT LIKELY TO BE ENFORCED AS
WELL.
SO, BUT I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH
THAT.
>> I DO WANT --
>> PROFESSOR --
>> OH.
SORRY.
>> GO AHEAD.
I MEAN, YOU DID -- YOU DID SAY
THAT, YOU KNOW, IN REGARDS TO
WHAT PROFESSOR DESAI WAS SAYING
TO THE FACT THAT EVEN JUST
TEACHING HISTORY MIGHT SHOW
THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE ACTIONS OF MY ANCESTORS
IN AMERICAN HISTORY, AND YOU DID
MENTION EARLIER THAT THAT COULD
INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, A STUDENT
FEELING BAD, AN THEN THAT COULD
FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THIS
LEGISLATION, BUT DO YOU HAVE A
REACTION TO THAT, AND WHAT DO
YOU SAY THE IMPLICATIONS OF EVEN
JUST INTRODUCING THIS
LEGISLATION IS?
>> WELL, I THINK THE IMPLICATION
IS TO -- IF IT PASSES -- BUT
EVEN THE INTRODUCTION OF IT HAS
ALREADY CREATED SOME CAUSE OF
CONCERN AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS,
ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF
RECRUITMENT OF FACULTY MEMBERS
BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE
HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND
EVEN IF THE BILL DOES NOT PASS
NOW, WHO'S TO SAY AFTER A
GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION, THE BILL
WOULDN'T BE PASSED IN SOME
FUTURE, SO PEOPLE ARE MAKING
VERY LONG-TERM DECISIONS THAT
THEY MIGHT BE MORE HESITANT TO
MAKE IF THEY HAD AN OPTION TO GO
TO A DIFFERENT UNIVERSITY IN A
DIFFERENT STATE SO THERE'S THAT
KIND OF CONCERN.
I DO WANT TO GO BACK AND SAY
THAT I, PERHAPS, I WAS NOT
SUGGESTING THAT CRITICAL RACE
THEORY IS NOT TAUGHT IN K-12 AND
THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T MATTER.
MY SUGGESTION IS MOSTLY THAT
CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS USED AS
A SHORTHAND FOR A VERY LARGE
NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT
ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY DEFINED.
THEREFORE, THEY ARE MORE ABLE TO
USE THIS AS THIS SORT OF
GENERALIZED SPECTER THAT CAN
SORT OF SHAPE SHIFT AT WHATEVER
MOMENTS.
AS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, THE ONLY
REASON I MENTIONED THAT IS
BECAUSE THERE IS A PARTICULAR
ORGANIZATION IN WISCONSIN WHO
WITH IS ANNOUNCED THEIR MISSION
TO CHALLENGE CRITICAL RACE
THEORY, AND THIS IS
SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY
WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET
ATTORNEYS' FEES BEFORE THAT, AND
THEY NOW WOULD BE ABLE TO IF
THIS BILL WERE TO PASS, AND SO
THAT ORGANIZATION IS, MY
UNDERSTANDING, THEY CONTRIBUTED
TO THE LEGISLATION.
SO THERE'S A CERTAIN PARTICULAR
SELF-INTEREST INVOLVED.
AGAIN, THERE ARE ATTORNEYS' FEES
FOR SO MANY OTHER THINGS, BUT
THIS SEEMS DRIVEN BY A
PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION.
>> VERY COMPLEX ISSUE THAT I'M
SURE WE'LL BE COVERING, IF
THERE'S MORE ACTION ON THIS
LEGISLATION, BUT IN THE
MEANTIME, PROFESSOR STEPH TAI
AND PROFESSOR ANUJ DESAI, THANK
YOU, BOTH, VERY, VERY MUCH FOR
THE CONVERSATION TODAY.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, PROFESSOR TAI, TOO.
>> YEAH, THANK YOU, PROFESSOR
DESAI.
>>> FOR MORE FROM "HERE & NOW"
AND PBS WISCONSIN, VISIT
PBSWISCONSIN.ORG, AND THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR JOINING US ON "NOON
WEDNESDAY."