 Thanks for showing up. And we have with us, we're down to a basic trio today. We have Dean Camille Nelson of the William L. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii, former dean at Washington University, Washington School of Law at American University and at Suffolk in Boston. And Bill Harrison, one of our senior criminal defense attorneys and long, well-versed both of these scholars in civil rights areas. So my self-all startup question for today is, now that we're 26 days from the election, what makes this one different? What's unique and different about this election and the season? I'd like to start off Camille. Oh, so is it 26 days? Who's counting? So I think there's always an elevated level of debate and discourse leading up to elections. But this go-around, it seems particularly polarized. And the debates yesterday were more civil. But still, I think there's been a, I bemoan anyway, the sort of lack of civility over the course of how we've engaged along political and ideological lines. I think that is important for us as a democracy. I think this election, there is so much at stake. And I think maybe that's why there's an elevated, frankly, lack of civility or polarization. I think, certainly that concerns around the Supreme Court, criminal legal system, healthcare, education, immigration, I mean, there are so many intersecting and really important areas of our democracy that seem to be, let alone the environment and climate justice, right? I mean, our world. So there seems to be an urgency that seems palpable. Those are my few thoughts for now. I look forward to hearing what my friend thinks. Similarly, I also agree with you. We're having these debates and hopefully, well, I'm going to back up a little bit. I was going to say, hopefully our young people are watching these debates. But I back up a little bit because as growing up, as you remember watching debates, you saw, as Camille talked about, the civility of debates and people actually following the rules and regulations and no name calling and that the grace and the respect that was shown generally on these kinds of campaign debates. And that has just gone way down and there is just infighting and his name calling and everything else. And you wonder how this is affecting our young people who are watching these leaders, our leaders, debate about important national and world problems. And you wonder if the message coming across to them is feeding into what's going on in the world today. And so that's my concern. This is a strange time for us, not only through the politics of it, but because of the world events surrounding the politics of it and the things that we're going through with this pandemic and other issues in the world. So I guess the best way to put it, I'm very concerned, and that's a nice word to put it, concerned about these debates and really how they portray our leaders, not only to the young people of this country, but the world in general. I'm just wondering what the world's thinking about these folks seeing these debates. Well, as a friend buddy, he said, you know, when you have a vice presidential political debate in which the only calm, cool and collected and composed party is an insect, you know that you have it. I knew the fly was going to get in there sometime. It's too easy. Hopefully all of the late commentators have exhausted all the fly jokes. Lord of the flies and the need for Babe Ruth to come in and help out as the Sultan of Swat or something like that. But there's a serious aspect to that. My question is, what do you think people who do watch those debates who really want to find out something? I mean, not just see their person win or lose or whatever. What do you think they want to see, want to hear, want to get? Well, you know, from my perspective, as I believe most people's perspectives are, you want to find out where the candidate stands. Okay. And one of the things you want from your candidate is the truth. That's most important because you're going to make a decision, you know, select the candidate based on that candidate's views and that those views more closely relate to what you stand for. And the problem with these debates is that we don't know what they stand for, really. At the conclusion of the debates, you ask yourself, you know, I thought I heard that person tell me something differently before. I thought that person stand was, you know, as to this matter this way. And I'm getting a different idea and, you know, an opinion and a stand at this point in time. And so, are they catering to what they think we want to hear? You know, they want, you know, we want as the voters to hear. And if that's the case, then, you know, it really troubles me that they take that position and responding to my questions. But really, I think we all want to know the truth. Where do you stand truthfully on certain issues? And what will you do when you take office? And I've come away with the decision that or the belief that I don't know what anyone will do in this situation. So what do I do? Do I go and decide this based on the closest moral and ethical and principled person that I could glean from these individuals, people closest to me and what I think they stand for? Or do I go with what they tell me they stand for? You know, that's the difficult question I have. I mean, I agree that the content and the substance of what's being shared along sort of ideological lines with respect to certain areas of our society. So where do they stand on health care? Where do they stand on education? All of that is crucial. Where do they stand on, you know, the racial reckoning that we're experiencing? Absolutely important. And primary, I also think there is at least speaking for myself and, you know, maybe a few others. You know, you're looking at how they demonstrate leadership, thoughtfulness, some level of contemplation, dignity, a respect, some diplomacy. I mean, I hope I'm not sounding old fashioned in having some expectations in terms of how one walks through this world as demonstrative of a sort of higher calling if one is going to be, you know, the leader of this country or leaders of this country. So the world is watching. And I do think, you know, having a representative of this country also in the world stage that speaks content and character. And, you know, I think people are judging both. Exactly. I totally agree with you, Camille. You know, and that's a really interesting point to bring up because just over a week ago, the former governor of Montana, former head of the Republican National Committee, came out and publicly said, I'm not going to vote for Trump, I can't vote for Trump. And that means I'm going to vote for Biden. I don't agree with a good bit of his stuff. And I'm sure there are going to be discussions and differences. But ultimately, it comes down to the character of the person. And I think that's part of what I'm hearing. Let me ask another question. I'm, I'm mediated for a living have done that now for 35 years. So managing conversations to promote civil dialogue to build respect and understanding hopefully mutually is is critical to effective communications in my experience. Have we seen that from the conversation managers in these two debates? You want to tackle that first Camille? And I'll jump in. Are you speaking specifically, Chuck, about the moderators? Are you speaking about the, yeah, you know, I, you know, I, I think they have a really hard job. And so I don't want to be, you know, perceived as being overly critical. I think, you know, if you go back to sort of like debate 101 and what we impress upon as an educator, I return to what do we try to impress upon students on debate club and such, I think, you know, there are ways in which one might, you know, at the end of the day say, well, did they or didn't they? But I also think the participants in any engagement like that, whether it's a sporting event or a debate or some other type of, you know, lab or something, also have to understand the rules of the of the road as they were and agree to abide by them to get your points as you will. So I think it takes, in this case, it takes more than one actor to and, you know, when they come to your to your space and you're mediating, presumably you've laid out the rules and you expect them to to abide by that and, you know, and hopefully they buy into that as part of their desire to mediate. So I think it's, it's, you know, it's, it's, there's a sort of rule adherence question more generally. Yeah, I think that's a really good point because at the beginning of every mediation I do, we have a short joint session where we go over the ground rules and as the moderator of the conversation, I go over those to make sure everybody understands them. But I also let them know what measures may be invoked in order to adhere to those and to enforce those. And I'm almost wondering as a media, I don't know if it could have effectively been done with the president is who he is. But at least when you lay that out in the beginning, these are the ground rules that we're going to enforce those. And this is what we're going to do to enforce those, even if it means cutting off mics or things like that. Because I think the most frequent comment I saw after the debate from people was, turn off this mic already for both debates. Yeah. And, you know, you really feel sorry for these moderators. And, you know, they try to rein in the participants, you know, much like a referee, I guess, and they don't listen. And so you have to start taking a hard line position. And it's really difficult because you don't want to be the person that the public says, Hey, you know, why are you getting that way? Or why are you being so aggressive? Or why are you taking that position? But as you say, at some point, you have to say, okay, we're going to turn off your mic if you choose not to follow the rules. And you know that both parties knew the rules going in. I'm sure they were told several times and their people, their handlers were told this is the way this debate is going to go. Yet they chose to take over and ignore the moderator in this instance. So I would have totally cut them off and made it clear that they were not going to get the microphone and they can continue to talk without any sound. But I would go to the other party at that point and say, you know, you have your two minutes. So what have you? You know, the other question that comes up, I read a short article by a very experienced speech pathologist who said, if you look at what the president did in that debate, the yelling, the interrupting, the bullying, the lying, the threatening, he said, if you pick six or seven triggers to try and trigger stuttering in someone who is subject to that, those would be at the top of the list. Interesting. Maybe it's not entirely an accident. Maybe it's not just who he is. It doesn't seem to have been very successful in the sense of breaking down Vice President Biden's ability to be able to get words out. But as a strategy, it adds another dimension to this. But I think it goes back, Dean, to your point. We expect a kind of conduct. And I'll ask you folks, is it old fashion to believe in and expect our leaders to exemplify the beliefs and values that we have been raised with and most honor? You know, I'll be candid in saying that I think it's a question that is sort of, we're seeing in multiple areas, even outside of the political discourse. And I don't want to yearn for the old days when they were frankly less equitable and go back to some sort of bygone era where like women and people of color were disenfranchised and we had no same-sex marriage. Like I don't yearn for some sense of a bygone era that was good for everybody because I don't think it was. But I do think we should speak seriously about expectations of leaders in leadership generally as modeling a type of engagement around difficult questions and difficult conversations. And I think sometimes that's really hard for people and it's really easy to just sort of cancel and quit people. And you know, and I think that's a real lost opportunity. One, I think there are teaching moments in there and I have, I do believe that in my heart, but as an educator, I think that's right. But I also think, I mean, if we can't, if we can't talk to each other, I mean, I don't know what hope there is for coalition building or consensus building or allyship or actually changing people's minds if there's even that possibility anymore. But I would hope that we could at least agree to disagree a lot better than we seem capable of in some spaces right now. And it doesn't have to be personal, right? I mean, we could disagree on the questions before us without descending into some vile pit of like personal attacking, you know, and attacking each other and each other's families or each other's backgrounds. I mean, I just think at that point, there's very little good that can come of that, but maybe that's not the aspiration is for good to come of it. Because I think that's when people shut down and become defensive and it's hard to make any progress. Yeah, and I, I'm sorry. Great Charles. I just wanted to thank you for getting those values. And we have a recent very vivid example of that in the late Justice Ginsburg and the late Justice Scalia. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And I truly agree. You know, civility and respect, that's not old fashioned. That is the baseline that we should be operating on in our life, generally. And everything that we do, we should always be civil. We should always show respect. I think those and people in may suggest that those are old fashioned. I don't think so. I really don't. I just think that that's what makes a society and, you know, a correct balanced society, that civility and respect. And not only do those connect us, but let me throw another question out. Taking two really important elements that Camille brought up and that is the behaviors that honor those traditional values, the dignity, the respect, and the expectation and the desire that the communications and conduct, especially of our leaders, will reflect those beliefs and values. What role does that play in this culture of inequality that has been unfortunately growing pervasively and dangerously and destructively in this country? Is there a connection? I totally see a connection in this respect. And I say respect, and that's the key here, is that we as an individual should respect one another. I think, and you don't have to come from a background of Christianity, income from any background, any religion, but you will note clearly that in the Christian ethos is that you were to treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself. I mean, that's a basic premise, a biblical premise and a Christian premise. And I think that that is pervasive through any kind of religion is that you want to treat another individual much like you'd want to treat yourself or be treated from someone else. So clearly when we talk about this term, respect is right there at the top of the list. And if we cannot respect one another, I think that's really a root of all of these problems that we have with ego, with discrimination. It's a belief that we are somehow above someone else, some group of people, some beliefs, and we don't have to adhere to those beliefs. And I think that's really my belief that that's the problem that really is germane to discrimination, racial strife, the things that we're talking about, the conversations we're having now. Yeah, I think those are great points. And can I just add just a quick point? When I was growing up the talk around sort of back home, we used to say, not so much the melting pot, but the mosaic, growing up in Canada, the cultural mosaic and multiculturalism. But the language was often centered around tolerance. And I don't think that's the right way to think about it as opposed to respect and appreciation. Because to me, if you're tolerating something, you're sort of putting up with an irritation or you're putting up with something, it's not like an embrace. It's not an appreciation and a sort of willingness to maybe even get to affection for someone who you think is not like you. And I think part of your question, Chuck, I don't want to sort of buy into the notion of sort of respectability politics, because I think there's an implication around sort of assimilationism. We have to all look and dress and act a certain way. And there's only one sort of normative way to be appropriate. But I do think it's upon us if we really care about diversity, inclusion and access and empowerment, to sort of listen across perceived difference, like listen across accent, understand across backgrounds and sort of be willing to spend the time and the energy to learn. And I always keep, I say, listen to learn, not listen to respond to each other. And that requires the person who is trying to learn from another to have some patience, but also to have some willingness to understand that we don't all have to be alike to appreciate each other and to work well together. Right? We don't all have to put on the same uniform or dress, act, look, come from the same place to be able to do something powerful and positive together. But it takes sometimes it takes work. No, absolutely. Critically important. Now we know why you're the dean and the teacher and we're not only anticipated my question, you anticipated the whole direction of it. And that is that the way that people are treated is an element of that discrimination of that inequality. And the people who have been subjected subjected to the treatment without those values of dignity, respect, understanding have been identifiable, marginalized categories and continues. And if anything, we may be farther backward on that track than we were. What's your sense of that? I'm sorry, did you ask me? Yeah, we're okay. Okay, you know, this is an interesting discussion because I just finished a conversation, a virtual conference with regard to implicit bias. And this is really what was discussed throughout this whole conference is this implicit bias. And we had panelists who were from these are defense attorneys from all over the country and different races from Native American to Asian to black to white. And the main focus of the discussion with regard to implicit bias is that understanding that we have seen things and we put people in categories, and we don't really understand a lot of times don't even believe that we are putting people in categories. And a lot of it has to do with the inequality has gone on and has become, you know, systemic that we don't even understand that we're seeing these individuals in certain roles. And we can still get used to it that when we see them outside of those roles, we cannot see them as that person we talked about is as Camille says, we talked about how we don't want everyone to be all you know, dressing the same way, you know, we don't want that homogenization, you know, thought process to be there. Unfortunately, it goes on and we're not aware of it. And unfortunately, that then translates and how we treat people. And a lot of us have even, you know, there is these kind of tests you can take out there. I think Harvard has a test and basically that determines your sensitivity with regard to implicit bias. And when you take those tests, you know, most people will say, I don't have a bias bone in my body. I don't have a prejudicial bone in my body. And they take that test and they're shocked. Okay, because again, we, as we grow up, we get enculturated with certain concepts. And we don't even know we're enculturated those concepts until it really happened. So and so I'm getting back of kind of sort of digress a little bit from your question there. But getting back to that, that's really the concern here is how do we get people to realize that this is going on? And how do we address that? That's really the the real conversation that we should be having here. And, and being able to sensitize ourselves to this problem, first and foremost, and to educate and discuss this, this concept, so that people can grasp it, get a hold of it. And, and so that's really, I think, where we need to go first to get to the bigger question. That's a heart of the matter observation. And I'd like to go back, Camille, to your point, how do we extrapolate from bills? How do we get people to value diversity itself? So, you know, I would start with the self-awareness part. And I think, you know, hopefully people appreciate that with diversity and inclusion come benefits. And I think there is, you know, for people who actually study this, there are benefits to decision-making, benefits to having inclusive leadership structures in terms of outcomes, output, recruitment, retention, right? So, I think there is an abundant literature, social science literature, employment literature in a number of spaces that talk about the enhanced value and the decreased liability and other things in terms of costs, let alone the sort of what I would say is the doing the right thing. But I think if someone is interested in making a difference in these ways, it has to start with a sort of what, you know, Bill was saying around what is one's participation in making the situation or the circumstance better. And I think there are those implicit bias tests. But I also think when you sort of look around how we walk through this world and how we engage in our work environments, in our school environments, in our worship lives, in our personal lives, what does our circle look like? I mean, who is in it and who is not and why? Like, I mean, some places you have to work pretty hard to have a like a homogenous, right? You know, and then so like, how does that happen, right? You know, and you know, and so I think that sort of self interrogation is important as a starting point for transformation. Because I think if the starting point is, I'm okay, I don't have any work to do. It's everybody else, we're not going to get to where we we need to go. I think all of us have implicit biases, all of us have work to do along multiple identity, you know, quote unquote, vectors and intersectional spaces. And if I sort of go, well, I'm opting out because I see myself in this way. Like, I mean, I think we're, I think that's that's unfortunate and will lead to us not doing the good work and the having the positive outcomes that we could have. So it takes all of us. Like, I mean, that takes a village as I think it understatement. Exactly. And a salad bowl village. Yes. We have one of the leading experts anywhere on that, Josh Levenson, right up at Richardson School of Law. Maybe you can help us lure him down for the next. Yes, Professor Justin Levenson is exceptional and written a lot in this space. And yeah, I think he would be a valuable, valuable expert to speak with about this. Okay, so as we go into our last minute, we'll try and persuade Justin to come join us in the last thoughts. Camille. You know, I think it's it's important that, you know, we're having these conversations. I just want to thank you for including me. I think this is part of the work is engaging in these conversations in ways that we're brainstorming together with hopefully, you know, us all going forward and trying to sort of interrogate ourselves and to and to think about how we can do better. Yeah, absolutely. I totally agree. And this these kinds of conversations, not only stimulate discussions amongst one another, but it stimulates some introspection. We look at ourselves and say, Hey, you know, I got to start thinking about my role in this in this conversation and in this problem. And every one of us are part of the problem, so to speak. And so once we learn that, we understand that we, you know, we take it and own it, I think the conversation will start working and we'll start getting to where we want to be. Fantastic. I want to thank both of you. This has been fantastic. If there were one word that I would apply to what you both bring to the table, it would be illuminating. And on that note, thank you. The light shine for us on into November and so we can breathe in January. Yes. Thank you. It's good to see you folks. Okay, take care.