 Welcome. Aloha. Thanks so much for joining us on Think Tech Hawaii, rule of law and the new abnormal. And today we have two exceptional women leaders to talk to us about women leadership, what it brings, why it's needed, especially in these times. We have Professor Neil Randall, Professor Emerita from the University of Dayton School of Law, and also with a historical background in a prior career in nursing. Amazing combination and Tina Patterson, mediator, arbitrator, business consultant and advisor. And also a person of many diverse experiences and awarenesses. Professor Tina, if someone were to ask you whether you believe that we need to see more women in leadership now and why. What thoughts might come to mind for you. Well, I, I, I would have a conflicted answer, as you can imagine. I think that we need more women in leadership in order to make sure that issues that are important to the communities that those women come from are on the table and address. However, I think that we have to remember that women leadership doesn't change the system. They are a part of the system. And so whatever they do, whether they're black progressives, they're going to do it within the context of the system itself. And if like me, you believe that the system is the fundamental problem, then advocating for more leadership without constantly reminding people that they can't change the system. And they can just kind of ease the pain that women in in systemic leadership can ease the pain. So that would be my response. Fantastic and it raises the question. Tina, do you have any sense as to whether women may be better in dealing with that tension that conflict that balance. And the male leaders, at least those we've had. I do think that women leaders, one their perspective because as what Professor Randall indicated, many women are juggling multiple demands competing demands and sometimes those comedic competing demands can be both hit on both a personal and a professional level. And as we see oftentimes in the media, there's no distinction made between the two. So I do think that women are both inherently in many ways able to do to both juggle, but also know when this is this is really personal. This is coming to the forefront in my professional life, but I'm making the choice to either not let that be my focus. I think there's also this idea of emotional intelligence, as well as intellectual intelligence. I'm not saying that men aren't both, but we see with women there's also this seems to be for many women, not all women. It's a part of the who they are in terms of engaging and negotiating and interacting with others and trying to be problem solvers instead of I'm going to take this hard tactic line and and not not consider the other. Now having said that and we see this in studies. Women are oftentimes less inclined to take that that lead role and some of it is as Professor Randall mentioned. It's systemic. You've been told for years, you know, you need to be quiet. You need to, you know, you can be at the table but you really shouldn't say anything and if somebody else takes credit, you know, just chin up take one for the team. While it, yes, I think there, there are aspects that are better. There's still the systemic, the unconscious bias the micro aggressions, and sometimes it's not micro it's just out and out presentation and and how someone is presented. One of the things you asked about was preparing for today's session. I thought about Fran Drescher and what she's going through as the president of SAG. I read an article written by the Washington Post I had to say it was highly disappointing. It focused on the fact that she had played in a sitcom over two decades ago as a nanny. That is not who she is today. And that story missed the fact that she brought that story to that station or to that channel and said you know here's a story they bought into it, knowing that she was going to highlight these aspects. But the article tended to focus on that versus here's an impact to our economy. If these people are on strike and how many other organizations will recognize the striking group and not engage in their work because they're now aligned with an alliance with. No, and that's a great insight because, as you indicate she brought them an opportunity to understand a really, really important imbalance tension conflict between workers and the people who hold power over workers over their lives and over the lives of lots of people, not just factories, but hairdressers, custodians, landscapers, everybody involved in the industry. It's a huge number and range and diversity of people. Instead of that, they scaled back and they focused on one small aspect, a stereotypical and actually fictional aspect of this person's life when they were offered the opportunity to say look how much truth there is here that you can help people understand. And they completely miss that. I got to think that almost has to have been a male reporter who did that. I can't imagine another woman doing that to her. I can imagine that. I can imagine a lot of it I don't I think that I think that there's the proof that we'd like to talk about women in roles of leadership which I think we need and women in more women in this in in lines of promotion whatever our jobs in doing, which is absolutely important. But my view is this that it may be which is the cat, you know chasing the tail which come first, but oftentimes women, they know how their bread is buttered. And so they are going to take some of the same positions and do some of the same things that that men in those positions to I have not experienced women in position of a power who do things against the system. They might be nicer. They may have more emotional intelligence. They may go about it in a way that makes me feel better. In fact, I have a student visit a student that hadn't seen for a long time was in Orlando and called me up to visit them. And we were sort of talking about this because she had requests under two different Dean. One was a man Dean and one was a woman Dean, and she was angry at the man Dean because of the way he had done something. But then when I but when I pointed out that the woman did the same thing that she didn't get a different result from the woman. She just got a woman he treated her nice. She got a person treated her nicer and made her feel her and I'm not saying that's important, not important. I'm just saying that if you're looking for results, and that women don't often give different results in situations like this, then men. You know, you make a very good point. Washington folks. I'm sorry, I hated that disappoint you check with the Washington Post article that I'm referring to is written by a woman. Sorry. So maybe for every Rachel Maddow there's a Maria Bartiroma or for every Nancy Pelosi there's a Marjorie Taylor green or Lauren that's a scary talk. Yeah. But then when you even when you look at Rachel Maddow, Rachel Maddow has consistently worked within the STEM system. If you look at how she tailored her. She doesn't go far to the left. She doesn't. She's real. I love Rachel Maddow when she first got on and I was really excited. But then I began to see the pattern of how these left, but she's not far away. And she's not advocating for changes in the system that would undermine the system she's advocating for a better functioning system and and and and I'm not saying that's not needed. And I think that's what we can expect from women. I've been to tell you the truth, but because I ragged on so bad I must admit how surprised I have been by judge Brown. I'm surprised because she's come up with some. She's been aggressive in her questioning, which in the context of law, that's essential silence. If you, especially if you don't have, you can change how not to vote, but how people think about things by the questions you ask. And she's been aggressive in her questioning. She's been questioned question and her, her response, writing dissents, which is, is kind of unheard of the number of dissents she actually write from a young judge. And she's come up with some novel theories. I think the whole concept of original progressiveness, which is a concept she doesn't articulate it that way but that's what she's arguing that the Constitution and the amendments were progressive. And we, and if you want to adopt the original language, then you have to adopt a progressive view of the world. I, and she did that she's done that with the equal protection, which I think she's exactly right. So I've been a real surprise, a real surprise. So, again, she's working within the system, but she's doing a good job. So that's a great example. Are there other women who are examples of the kind of leaders that can actually bring about change and how people see and think about things that may impact the system and its evolution. So, for example, last week, thinking about the NATO public forum, I was very much impressed with the Prime Minister, Estonia, small nation, but she is an active player, and what is happening in NATO, and what is happening in that region. And she, I know she didn't do it singlehandedly, she has others working with her, but to make Estonia a place where this, the tactical games and tactical work could be done. And for her to hold this conversation was one both impressive, but also shifted the conversation from just having the military representatives present and having really this male dominated conversation. She knows what she's talking about, but she also recognizes she's not a force of one. On a slightly different note, another person who got my attention and I would think of in terms of leadership. Christine, and I'm going to, I may mispronounce her last name but it's Mahwanda. I'm going to correspond it with that she'll well it. She is African descent, but she was the moderate. And in this verified space, we very rarely see, I'm going to say, African and black women. The fact that she's probably under the age of 45 also was a significant factor. She held her own. She kept the attention of the panel, but she also kept the attention of the audience. And because of her age, she was able to balance the online participation with those who are in the room. I see her as a rising star. I don't know what form I'll see her in again but I was very much impressed because it's easy enough in those spaces for her to either be overlooked or treat it in such a way that she's considered not to bring value to the table and she definitely hit the nail on the head in both regards. Those are great examples. And one of the things I especially love about those especially the Estonian Prime Minister is she brought home in ways no one else did or could that she was speaking, not just for herself in Estonia, but for all of the small central European country who are next, if we don't stand up to Putin and his very World War two like very Nazi criminal invasion of a sovereign country. I'm impressed I don't want to keep on this, but I also want to talk about the president of the Native American Bar Association that when we talk about sovereignty. And this is something in the US that we still struggle with, whether we're talking about nations, First Nations on the West Coast East Coast or in the Midwest. And one acknowledging the sovereignty but also recognizing that those who serve in the legal capacity, what rule of law really means we can't, it can't be a roll of dice well today we're going to follow this law know there are 33 federally recognized nations. They have a right, and we, we determine when it's comfortable which which right we want to acknowledge. I applaud her because she is bringing to the forefront things such as we need portable water. Oh, diabetes is on the rise. It's because we have food deserts. Oh, you can't. People can't get in contact with one another. It's because we don't have the telecommunications necessary for us to have basic conversations with the person in the next community. We're from the refusal of the United States to really recognize their obligation under the treaties that that that if the United States, the United States has never taking their treaty obligation. Very seriously. And, and because of that, they suffer from that and I agree with you. Her advocacy for the sovereign nations is in has been exceptional. I apologize. I don't remember her name right now, but she's me neither. That's just that she's she's doing an outstanding job and bringing the awareness I know at the American Bar Association annual conference, one of the awardees of the Thurgood Marshall Award is from one of the first nations. And I hope this isn't just, oh, we're going to do this for 2023. This needs to be an ongoing conversation because we see parallels when we talk about what's happening in terms of sovereignty with our first nations, in terms of sovereignty for the United States and other countries abroad, and it's not a, it's not a singular effort, it's not a singular activity, the geopolitical instability that we see abroad is reflected here and vice versa. Absolutely right. And that points to another example, maybe another good one of why we need women leadership and what that can bring is Deb Haaland as the Secretary of the Interior. Absolutely. Not only the first indigenous American to hold that position, but she's the first one to actually focus it on trying to understand and live up to obligations that are not just conceptual, like, yeah, the US and the DOJ said, we protect your water rights, but we're not going to convert that into anything specific that actually gives you real water. It's just a conceptual obligation. But one of the things we need to be careful, and we can't put women in for women's sake. Correct. We can't put black people in for black people's sake. Because if their politics are no good, all you have is you, it's worse than no black person at all, or no woman at all. Because when a woman who Marjorie Taylor Smith or whatever the name is green or whatever, when a woman gets up and says racist sexist homophobic things, it endorses it. It says to people who don't know any better or who aren't willing to think any further that if a woman will do it, then it must be okay. And so I'm going to do it too. It pushes, it gives permission for other people in authority to walk on in a way that the in a more overt way that they might not do it. So I, I am not for women in leadership just to have them. I think that we have to always look at the politics we're promoting. There's a white male running for some office are doing something that in a leadership role that is politically better than a black woman, then I'm going to go with the white male, because I'm about results politically. And, and, and we have to do that. I think. Well, and I think it's exactly what Tina was alluding to, which is, if you look at the resources that are available in black women leadership in indigenous women leadership, there are more than enough. Truly outstanding individuals and resources. That's exactly correct. Outstanding. I concur with that. How do we open those doors. What part of what I did, we have to not be afraid of mentoring room and people below us. We have we, I think sometimes, and this may have changed, but sometimes there is a truism. There's only one that sometimes the system only once one woman, one white woman, one black woman, and we become fearful that we won't be the one. There may be justification for that sphere. Because, who often, when there's more than one sooner or later they find a reason to get rid of the extra one. And the older one may be fearful that they'll be the ones that they got gotten rid of. So we have to, we have to, we have to work on overcoming that fear and mentor people all the way down the line all the way. You know, from, from elementary school all the way up through the pipeline term that I hate. But, but we have to mentor people and get make sure that we get people. Even though there's justified fear of what those people may or may not do because, you know, people lie when they're interviewing for jobs, so you never know for sure whether you are getting what you think you're getting when you get when you but you got to, you've got to take that risk you've got to do the best you can. In promoting people up through the pipeline and but promoting people up through the pipeline. Like, this is my kids and I are going to read my 13 year olds and I are going to read. Howard's then people history they're going to be taking history in the eighth grade Florida history and I wanted to be sure that they didn't walk away with an idea that it was accurate history. So, we've got to mentor the young people we got to educate our own children our own daughters, we have to make sure that they have the political history and skills necessary to get promoted up so that when they get into the pipeline they can become a force for good instead of a force for maintaining system. And that reminds us that for this to happen the mentoring the cultivation in the development of these truly well qualified and appropriately gifted leaders, we need the groups we need the coalitions we need the teams. Where are those now that you see in our last couple of minutes here. I see them in the social organizations that we belong to I see them in churches I see them business owners. I agree with everything that Professor Randall said but I would also add knowing the difference between a mentor and a sponsor to sometimes get into these spaces. We need sponsors for younger people understanding that a sponsor is not a mentor and a mentor is not a sponsor a sponsor is going to use their social capital. They are going to make those those introductions, they are going to use their influence so that you can have a seat at the table. They may be the person who actually defends your being invited to have a seat at the table and nurturing those relationships, but also saying to you know in these groups in these spaces, it doesn't happen overnight and I can't emphasize that and it doesn't happen overnight. You have to nurture that relationship. So they're there, but it does take and it's not going to be a matter of Chuck, you know, I think you should be a sponsor. Observe, watch, what are you seeing what are you meeting where are you, where are you spending your time and energy and I realized we have one minute left so I'll leave the floor. Okay. That's okay we're going to run over, but, and you're right, and those sponsors those champions may also very well include allies. Yes. And those absolutely those parts of the coalition have to be productive. We're just around though you were going to add we're in our last minute so I just kind of read but unless you're very top of the pyramid. Everyone is working to try to get improved. The sponsor is being sponsored. But it is not a. Okay, I've gotten this. I'm a president in a in of a of a university. And so now I can just sponsor all these people below me know you are being sponsored by someone who helped you navigate into that position. And so we have to remember that as well. No, and that's critical those teams those groups those coalitions have to be effective parts of the system. Do you know last words you want to wrap us up. Oh my gosh. To be young gifted and black. That's where it's at. Yes, I concur with you, or as we used to say when I was a kid right on. And so yeah, it is some, it's a journey. It's a journey. And for those of you that want to take the course. Be encouraged. Be encouraged. There are a lot of people who will say no. Don't listen to them. Those who will say yes, we'll lift you up. We will push you forward. We will also pull your coat tails and tell you going down the right path. You need to course correct. Yeah, it's awesome. And maybe that's a good place to wrap up is to help everyone understand and remember. Choose to be part. Of those movements, those groups, those coalition. Choose. Learning. And your own richness of experience, as well as. What you can help make possible for those who can help bring about the kind of change. That's going to help that movement grow. Professor Randall, Tina, thanks so much for your time. Thanks all of you for joining us on think tech Hawaii. A couple of weeks we'll be back. Weekend all take care and all.