NewsPoliticsSociety & CultureGovernment

JUSTUS with Jack & Gonzo

Jack D’Aurora and John Gonzales

Social justice means applying the law equally to all people. But in practice, that doesn’t always happen. We’re business and trial lawyers with over 60 years experience of practice.

Together, we practice law, we seek social justice, and we reveal the conflict between the two. And in this podcast, we bring together guests from a variety of backgrounds to discuss the current issues surrounding social justice and the inequity between these issues and their relation to the legal system.

Join with us, so that it’s not Just Us.

Play

Open in

22 episodes
fortnightly
Avg 44 min
English

Episodes 22

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

#137
Yesterday · 42 min
137. Protecting the Vote
Jack and Gonzo are joined by retired Columbus trial lawyer Rick Topper, who now spends a significant amount of time testifying about and working to protect voting rights. Topper talks about in-person ID checks, the use of provisional ballots and the four-day deadline to cure them, and how absentee voting is verified through identifying information and bipartisan signature review. He makes clear that voting fraud is virtually nonexistent in Ohio. The conversation covers legislative efforts to require photo ID copies with mail ballots (vetoed by Governor Mike DeWine), reductions in absentee ballot grace periods and the new requirement that ballots be received by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day, and the end of “Golden Week” same-day registration/early voting. The three also voice their concerns about voter intimidation, such as the potential for federal officers, including ICE agents, being at voting sites. Credentialed poll observers will be at voting sites to report any problems or intimidation.
#136
September 14 · 42 min
136. The judiciary’s growing role in politics
Jack and Gonzo are joined by journalist Ray Marcano and examine the judiciary’s growing political role and the frequent litigation that occurred during Joe Biden’s and now in Donald Trump’s administration. They debate whether courts should consider real-world ramifications, contrasting the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Second Amendment expansion, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. All three see the need for greater diversity of background and thought among the justices and note how politics have overtaken Ohio judicial races and court decisions. Ray explains how anti-CRT and anti-DEI messaging was politically engineered to gain power by tapping into emotional and racial issues. The three also discuss negative campaigning in Ohio races. Marcano addresses concerns for freedom of the press, citing firings at Stars and Stripes and the threats he receives for his opinion writing.
#135
August 31 · 42 min
135. The U.S. Supreme Court continues to issue stunning decisions
Today we welcome constitutional law professor Mark Brown to review recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and their implications for social justice. Brown first discusses the close 5–4 birthright citizenship decision and criticizes the Court’s dissenters for adding an unsupported domicile requirement, while also noting limited historical exceptions for birthright citizenship. Brown next reviews the Court’s decision that allows states to ban transgender girls from girls’ sports and his own concerns about the Court ignoring the factual record in cases like voting rights. Brown argues the Court historically favors the wealthy and powerful, praises Justice Jackson’s dissents on the doctrine of standing, and suggests that restoring the filibuster for confirmation votes could curb radical appointments. Next is a discussion about the Court’s expansion of presidential removal power (the recent cases concerning the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve), ongoing litigation over a Trump mail-ballot executive order, the Court’s dismantling of the Voting Rights Act protections against racial gerrymandering, possible reforms like multi-member districts, and the Court allowing greater party-candidate fundraising coordination. Justice Roberts may say the Court is doing nothing more than calling balls and strikes, but the Court has gotten into the habit of changing the strike zone.
#134
August 17 · 36 min
134. The upheaval with the Trump administration ending temporary protected status for thousands
We talk with immigration lawyer Emmanuel Olawale about the consequences facing immigrants after the Trump administration abruptly ended the Temporary Protected Status program. TPS was designed to provide temporary protection for people from countries experiencing disaster, conflict or severe instability, but it did not create a direct path to permanent residency or citizenship. The shortcomings of TPS are confronting some 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants in the U.S. whose lawful status has abruptly ended, including about 20,000 to 30,000 Haitians who have lived, worked, built businesses, and raised children in Springfield, Ohio, for years and are now at risk of being deported The discussion highlights the tension between federal immigration policy and the reality of conditions in Haiti, where political instability, gang violence, limited public services, and safety concerns remain severe. As Olawale puts it, TPS is “a temporary solution to a permanent problem,” emphasizing that Congress failed to create a durable legal pathway for long-term TPS holders. The conversation also explores the difference between TPS, asylum, refugee status, and family-based immigration relief. Olawale explains how immigration enforcement is unfolding locally, including ICE reporting requirements, ankle monitoring, expedited immigration court procedures, and pressure on immigration judges. He argues that shifting policies and administrative practices have made immigration law more difficult and unpredictable for attorneys and clients alike. The episode addresses the role of political rhetoric and misinformation in shaping public attitudes toward immigrant communities. The administration’s use of dehumanizing language for immigrants attempts to make harsh enforcement policies easier to justify. The situation in Springfield is an example of how a temporary immigration policy like TPS leaves families vulnerable when political winds change.
#133
August 3 · 35 min
133. How Should We be Judging Political Candidates?
Today we discuss the tension between social justice and politics by examining whether voters expect too much honesty from politicians or tolerate too much dishonesty. When we hear that a candidate hasn’t accurately presented his background, are we hearing a simple mistake as to the facts or an intentional misrepresentation? And if it was an intentional misrepresentation, what do we do about it? Balance that misrepresentation with the candidate’s qualities? Reject him outright? How much of a misrepresentation is required before we reject a candidate? Maryland Governor Wes Moore claimed in 2006 to have received the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan, when he actually received the less prestigious Army Commendation Medal. Other questions arose about how much combat time he had. Oddly, a Bronze Star was awarded in 2024, well after he resigned from the Army. Do these inconsistencies evidence a character flaw and lack of fitness for higher office, or should they be overlooked? U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner, who was very popular with those who saw him as a way to help counter President Trump, was able to attribute to PTSD his offensive social media posts and ignorance about a prominent tattoo being a Nazi symbol. Platner’s story seemed to make sense until it didn’t—when credible allegations about sexual assault hit the news. Now that Platner is out of the picture, the Democratic Party has to examine how virtue, or lack of it, should be balanced against electability, as well the risk that comes with inadequate vetting, and the notion that the “ends justify the means” politics.
#132
July 20 · 49 min
132. The Ohio statehouse has limited academic freedom
Based on the law it passed in 2025, the statehouse seems to believe that college professors have the power to indoctrinate students, and so SB 1 limits what college professors can teach. The reality is, students’ views are shaped largely by peers and broader experiences. Our guest today is Pranav Jani, an Ohio State University Associate Professor of English and the producer of the podcast “Together We Rise: Solidarity Stories from Central Ohio.” Jani disagrees with the view espoused by the law’s sponsors. As Jani sees it, students seldom adopt wholesale what they hear from their professors. If anything, students are more inclined to challenge whatever they are told. Jani tries to create a democratic, collaborative classroom to education, and while he discloses his views to his students, his grading is based on how they argue their positions and the research they use to support those positions. Contrary to what Ohio Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, and the other supporters of SB 1 may think, the goal of professors is not to indoctrinate students but to promote critical thinking. Jani discusses with his students, among other things, controversies around activism, Palestine, and shifting definitions of “controversial.” In contrast, SB1 promotes an agenda-driven syllabus that restricts academic freedom. Free speech, Jani explains, differs from academic freedom. Free speech is the right to say anything. Academic freedom is the idea that professors have the right to follow the research wherever it may lead, meaning professors should be allowed to teach the truth, even if it’s unpopular.
#131
July 6 · 39 min
131. Noncompete Agreements are hurting health care in rural Ohio
Health care systems can tie up their physicians for years though noncompete agreements which preclude them from moving to a competitor. For rural health care systems where there are not enough physicians to begin with, this is a big recruiting problem. Our guest today is Paul Westbrook, Vice President and General Legal Counsel for Memorial Health System. Paul explains that physicians who sign noncompete agreements and want to relocate—for whatever reason—are stuck. A noncompete agreement will generally preclude them from working for another system for a year or two and within a certain radius of their current employer. So, it’s either stay put, stop practicing medicine or hire an attorney and challenge the noncompete agreement in court. In Paul’s view, there’s no justification for any of this. Trade secrets or intellectual property are seldom at risk, even though health care systems might argue otherwise. The reality is, health care systems—most of which are non-profits—want to control their physicians. Memorial Health System is unique in Ohio for not utilizing noncompete agreements. Years back, Paul reviewed the physician employment contracts MHS used and questioned whether the noncompete provisions should be retained. Paul was concerned about the fact that rural healthcare systems like MHS struggle to retain primary care physicians and that noncompete agreements disproportionately impact these systems0. MHS’s CEO at the time agreed. MHS stopped using noncompete agreements and focused, instead, on treating its physicians as true partners and with professional courtesy. The result: MHS physicians rarely leave for competitors. But physicians seeking employment with MHS are often unable because of noncompete agreements, and so MHS has challenged those agreements in court. One of those lawsuits involves OhioHealth. Perhaps the legislature will take note. Other states have already prohibited noncompete agreements. MHS just might help change the legal landscape for physicians. Listen to the conversation.
#130
June 17 · 51 min
130. How did DEI get such a bad rap?
How did the phrase, “diversity, equity and inclusion”—DEI—which sounds like a positive thing, get such a bad rap? The answer lies in how the concept has often been introduced. Our guest, Dr. Melissa Crum, explains that most people aren’t reacting to the actual idea of DEI; they’re reacting to how the idea was introduced. Instead of hearing, “Let’s look at systems that create problems,” people hear, “Oh, I’m the problem?!” And once that happens, people shut down. Dr. Crum helps people separate themselves as individuals from the systems they live in. She’s not telling her listeners they’re bad people. She tells them there are larger patterns in which we all operate. When people hear that distinction, meaningful conversation happens. Dr. Crum reflects on power in everyday moments. Even something as simple as how you talk to server in a restaurant can reflect a power dynamic. It’s about being aware that not everyone you deal with has the same ability, or relative power, to respond or push back in those moments. Context matters. A word or phrase that feels harmless—or even friendly—to one person might carry a completely different meaning for someone else based on their experiences. Instead of assuming everyone hears things the same way, Dr. Crum encourages us to be a little more curious and flexible in how we communicate. Promoting inclusion doesn’t come with one training session. This is a marathon, not a sprint. You can’t expect people to completely rethink years—or decades—of assumptions in a couple hours. That’s part of why some of those past trainings backfired. People were overwhelmed, and nothing really stuck. Promoting DEI means examining how an organization actually functions. Just saying, “We value inclusion,” does nothing, but defining what inclusion means in real situations—like hiring, promotions, meetings, decision-making—brings meaningful change. And what does a business get in return? Employees who feel valued are engaged in their work. Turnover decreases, and productivity increases. DEI is good for business.
#129
June 6 · 48 min
129. We've overlooked terrorism from the far-right
What has caused the rise in political violence in the United States that culminated with the January 6 insurrection? In part, our government’s uneven and counterproductive responses to jihad terrorism. After 9/11, U.S. policy was disproportionately harsh toward Muslims while being comparatively lenient toward violence committed by far-right actors. This imbalance, according to our guest, Laura Dugan, Ph.D., professor of sociology at The Ohio State University, created both backlash and blind spots. On one hand, aggressive policies—mass detentions and heightened surveillance—fueled resentment and contributed to the global spread of extremist movements. On the other, the failure to consistently label as “terrorism” acts of violence committed by white perpetrators and punish them signaled a degree of tolerance, or at least inconsistency, in law enforcement. This disparity helped normalize far-right extremism and allowed it to grow largely unchecked. Terrorism should be defined by behavior, not identity. Using a widely accepted definition—violence or the threat of violence for political purposes—Dr. Dugan argues that parts of the January 6 attack clearly meet the threshold for terrorism, particularly the organized efforts to disrupt the certification of a presidential election. At the same time, she distinguishes between the planners of the event and the individuals who may have been swept up in the moment without intent to commit terrorism. Far-right extremism has deep historical roots, dating back decades through movements like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-government militias. These groups have long promoted an “us versus them” worldview, often fueled by perceived existential threats. Political rhetoric that reinforces these fears—especially language that “others” specific groups—can amplify and legitimize extremist beliefs. Focusing only on behavior, without understanding underlying grievances and ideologies, limits the ability to intervene early. Effective policy requires proportional responses, consistent accountability, and leadership that avoids dehumanizing language and instead encourages dialogue across divisions.
#128
May 16 · 44 min
128. Ben Shapiro—disregarding facts and promoting fiction
Today, we look into the world of conservative political commentary and focus on Ben Shapiro. At the heart of Shapiro’s approach to messaging is a bent for spouting more fiction than fact and more emotion than reason. We listened to a Shapiro podcast in which he explains why he doesn’t regret voting for President Donald Trump. After hearing Shapiro, we have to wonder if he aligned himself with Trump, not out of conviction, but because doing so yields financial or other rewards. There’s a big difference between fact‑based analysis and persuasive advocacy, and much of today’s political commentary—like Shapiro’s—prioritizes emotion, identity and culture‑war framing over evidence and nuance. His fast‑paced delivery, confident tone and simplified “either/or” narratives create the appearance of logic, but he often leaves out crucial context, competing facts or constitutional concerns. Shapiro unapologetically defends Trump, particularly on issues like immigration, Iran and foreign policy. Shapiro avoids serious issues, such as human rights abuses, government overreach and the long‑term consequences the nation will suffer because of the Trump administration. He also employs fear‑based rhetoric—nuclear weapons and the border chaos—in place of thoughtful debate. That fact that Shapiro has a large audience shows that many people accept political narratives without questioning them. Shapiro capitalizes on human nature. As we see it, many people—on both sides of the aisle—suffer from confirmation bias, emotional attachment, identity protection and prefer “comfortable untruths” over “uncomfortable truths.” And once you capture peoples’ attention based on some emotional tug, it’s hard for them to change their attitudes. Shapiro and those like him rely on an absence of critical thinking and the reluctance by many to challenge what they hear. Of course, to challenge what you hear requires curiosity and effort, and that requires time and effort, and that’s not where many Americans are.
#127
April 27 · 47 min
127. Promoting social justice from the pulpit
We’re joined by Reverend Derrick Holmes, pastor of the Union Grove Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, to explore the intersection of faith, justice and civic responsibility in one of the most divided moments in modern American life. Reverend Holmes compares today’s political and social climate with the civil rights era of the 1960s, arguing that the moral urgency of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s time is very much alive today. Drawing on the Black prophetic tradition, he challenges the idea that pastors should remain silent on political or civic issues, insisting that Christianity—when studied seriously—demands engaging with difficult subjects like oppression, equity and truth‑telling. Our conversation with Reverend Holmes dives into themes of Christian nationalism, the misuse of scripture for political power, and the difference between partisan politics and civic accountability. Reverend Holmes explains why he does not endorse candidates yet feels a deep obligation to hold leaders accountable through community forums, town halls and public dialogue. For him, the role of the church is not to chase popularity but to stand firmly on what is “right before God.” We also explore liberation theology, the importance of reading the Bible from the perspective of the oppressed rather than the empire, and the dangers of shallow interpretations in an era of intellectual decline. Reverend Holmes reflects on his own journey—from growing up in liberation‑oriented churches in Harlem and the Bronx, to pastoring in rural Ohio—and how those experiences shaped a ministry rooted in activism, community organizing, and moral courage. The episode closes with a moving discussion of “revolutionary love”—a disruptive, transformative love that refuses fear, confronts injustice, and believes deeply in the power of faith to change communities and lives. Thought‑provoking, challenging, and deeply human, this episode invites listeners to reconsider what it truly means to live out faith in public life.
#126
April 10 · 36 min
126. Changing lives in Kenya
Some years back, Connie Cherin was a guest on our podcast and talked about the non-profit she started, Partners for Care. Having supported PFC since then, I thought it was time to travel to Kenya and see firsthand the work PFC does. Connie arranged for the Kenya staff to take me to various locations where PFC provides services. While most of our trips were centered in Nairobi, PFC's presence extends to other counties across Kenya. The trip made me reflect on a comment by NYU professor Scott Galloway, who said the best decision he ever made was to be born in the United States. For me, growing up in a well-resourced neighborhood with supportive parents meant the path to success was always clear; all I had to do was apply myself. In contrast, life in Nairobi's informal settlements, or slums (a word used by Kenyans), is a daily struggle, almost beyond words. Despite the hardships, the people served by PFC are genuinely grateful and do not take anything for granted. On our first stop, we visited individuals who rely on mobility carts to get around. These are three-wheeled carts, powered by handles connected to the front wheel that the owner rotates. Kenyans face significant challenges with polio and cerebral palsy and collisions that result in a higher percentage of mobility-impaired people than in the US. These simple, U.S.-built wooden carts allow people who cannot walk to move about and earn a living—for example, by selling candies and ice treats. One cart recipient told me he earns about 7,000 shillings per month (approximately $55 US), enough to cover his expenses. We also visited a preschool. Over 300 youngsters, all in uniform and smiling, greeted us. What joy! We visited the school to see that it uses WaterSafe packs PFC distributes. Most water in Kenya is undrinkable, and even when people have access to safe water, they often don’t have a safe way to transport it. The WaterSafe packs solve the problem. We visited a remote village to see how PFC is helping mothers treat their children for parasitic fleas and how mosquito nets provide protection at night. After that, we visited a PFC computer school and visited with women who have learned to sew and earn a living by making clothes.
#125
March 17 · 42 min
125. Social media puts kids at risk
Chris Vineis, founder of Unite for Safe Social Media, talks with us about the risks that social media presents for kids. The philosophy at Unite for Safe Social Media centers on collaborative action among parents in limiting their children’s access to social media. The group provides a wealth of free resources, focuses on the risks associated with artificial intelligence, and advocates for political action to challenge media influences. Excessive use of social media can lead to changes in behavior, such as withdrawal from family and friends, poor academic performance, and increased anxiety when devices are removed. The American Psychological Association recommends limiting screen time to three and a half hours per day; exceeding this limit doubles the risk of mental health issues. Early and frequent use of digital devices, even for toddlers, can interfere with the development of emotional regulation and problem-solving skills. Additionally, eye and ear strain are becoming more prevalent. Former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has emphasized the need for regulatory action for social media platforms because of the harm they present. Author Jonathan Haidt discusses in his book, “The Anxious Generation, the mental illness epidemic caused by social media. Social media can be used for cyberbullying, which can be relentless and overwhelming, with some teens receiving hundreds of harmful messages daily. A particularly concerning trend is “sextortion,” where teens are manipulated into sending explicit images and then blackmailed for money. Unlike traditional bullying, which might have involved a few individuals, social media can amplify the number of bullies to hundreds, making it difficult for teens to cope and seek help. Cyberbullying and sextortion have led to children committing suicide. Families should openly discuss the role of technology and set clear parameters for its use. Pediatric psychologists recommend that parents only provide smartphones when they are prepared to actively participate in and monitor their child’s online life. This means staying curious, engaging in regular conversations about online activities, and respecting the importance of these devices to children’s social lives. This business model for social media is likened to the addictive qualities of tobacco, with young people specifically targeted for their vulnerability. Legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act seeks to impose a “duty of care” on social media companies, requiring them to prevent harm rather than simply acting as neutral platforms. Listen to the conversation.
#124
March 5 · 33 min
124. President Trump has abused the presidential pardon
Article II allows the president to grant pardons for any offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. The presidential pardon power is among the most absolute authorities granted in the Constitution, and President Donald Trump has abused it. The pardons Trump issued to the 1500 people who took part in the January 6th insurrection have rightfully generated outrage. Those pardons are unprecedented and deeply troubling—particularly in light of the injuries suffered by more than 140 Capitol Hill police officers during the insurrection. Some have argued the pardons were warranted due to supposed unfair prosecution by the Biden administration. But the Department of Justice handled the cases appropriately: charges were brought, trials were held before judges and juries, and juries found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence federal prosecutors fabricated or suppressed evidence or lied; claims of unfair treatment have not been substantiated. Even though the videos we have all seen of the insurrection show lawless violence, the White House has stated the insurrectionists were actually “peaceful patriotic protesters.”By pardoning the insurrectionists, Trump shamelessly abandoned and showed no concern for the Capitol police officers. Beyond the January 6th cases, over half of the other pardons granted were for white-collar crimes committed by business executives, politicians, and a few billionaires. Court-ordered restitution to victims was wiped out, leaving the victims to pursue civil action on their own. Examples include Trevor Milton, who defrauded investors of $675 million but contributed $1.8 million to Trump's campaign, and Paul Waze, who failed to pay millions in taxes and was pardoned, erasing court-ordered restitution. Other pardons involved individuals connected to Trump's business interests or political allies, raising concerns about the integrity of the process. The pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández, the former President of Honduras convicted of drug smuggling, is particularly perplexing given its contrast with U.S. actions against other foreign leaders. The underlying motivations remain unclear, and the transparency of the process is lacking. While questionable pardons are not new, what sets President Trump apart is the sheer volume. President Biden granted 80 pardons, Trump 144 in his first term, Barack Obama 212 over two terms, George W. Bush 189 over two terms, and Bill Clinton 396 over two terms. Trump surpassed all by granting 1500 pardons on his first day in office in his second term. Other presidents have also issued controversial pardons. Clinton pardoned Mark Rich, whose ex-wife donated sizable sums to Democratic causes, and George W. Bush commuted the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Liz Oyer of the Department of Justice, who oversaw the pardon process, resigned in protest over controversial Trump’s decisions and is now an outspoken critic of Trump
#123
February 23 · 49 min
123. Successful policing requires the right training and accountability
Today, we are joined by Jeff Wenninger, a retired LAPD Lieutenant, a nationally recognized law enforcement expert and author of “On Thin Ice,” an analysis of how poor leadership and entrenched mindsets have eroded public trust in police. Good policing requires standardization and training. The lack of standardized training nationwide is evident. Police academies across the nation vary significantly in required training hours, with the national average being about 800 hours. For context, a cosmetology license requires 1,500 hours of training. In contrast, Nordic countries train their police for two to three years and continuously monitor candidates to ensure they possess the necessary characteristics for success. Often a department’s culture may not align with its standards. Law enforcement policies are only as effective as the culture that enforces them. Training must be assessed, and officers must be held accountable for their actions. Proper police response requires self-awareness, both of the situation and how an officer’s actions can escalate or de-escalate an incident. Officers must ensure that any force used is proportional to the threat and the severity of the crime. Alternatives to force should always be considered, and training should instill this mindset rather than defaulting to force as the first solution. But there is often a disconnect between policy, practice, and culture—what Jeff refers to as the "policy-practice divide." Many officers are not fully aware of the legal standards by which their use of force will be judged. Organizations should be responsible for ensuring their officers are not just trained, but competent and able to justify their decisions under stress. Despite clear guidelines, the culture within some departments may foster a mentality where disobedience is met with excessive force—a “contempt of cop” attitude. This underscores the need for good judgment and accountability, both at the individual and organizational levels. Agencies must hold officers to high standards and not simply defend their actions because they are found to be legally justified. Post-incident debriefs, modeled after those used by the Blue Angels, are critical for learning and improvement. These debriefs should happen soon after incidents and involve honest self-assessment and peer feedback. Unfortunately, some leaders undermine trust by publicly defending officers before investigations are complete. True professionalism in law enforcement requires transparency, honest evaluation of incidents, and accountability at every level.
#122
February 13 · 45 min
122. One woman's effort to reduce the number of incarcerated Blacks
While only about 13% of the nation’s population is Black, the percentage of incarcerated Blacks can be as high as 50 %. The proportion of Black men on death row is significantly higher than that of whites. Our guest, Courtney Teasley, a criminal defense lawyer, emphasizes the responsibility that defense attorneys have in contributing to incarceration rates. Some lawyers fail to communicate with clients, push plea deals without proper consultation, and neglect to use available court resources or file necessary motions. This lack of diligence can result in missed opportunities for discovering evidence that could change the outcome of a trial. Courtney stresses that defense lawyers should fight for their clients and not simply “go along to get along,” especially in smaller counties where maintaining good relationships with judges is common practice. Courtney described the DAMM community—Disproportionately Affected Marginalized Minority—as the primary demographic impacted by incarceration. Systemic factors such as inadequate education in financial literacy, criminal justice literacy, and civics contribute to this problem. Many individuals are not taught their rights or how to hold government officials accountable, nor are they given the tools to pursue financial stability beyond low-wage jobs. These gaps leave people vulnerable to crimes of poverty and ill-equipped to navigate the legal system if accused. Having financial means, legal knowledge, and civic understanding provides leverage and empowerment, but these advantages are often unavailable in marginalized communities. Courtney’s initiatives focus on legal literacy, financial literacy, and civics. She teaches these subjects through mock trial programs at high-priority schools and at HBCUs, aiming to address the lack of foundational legal knowledge. Her business, MFN, stands for Mindset, Finesse, and Non-Negotiable Boundaries, and is dedicated to advocacy training and lawyer coaching. Courtney also discussed the school-to-prison pipeline, which refers to the disproportionate punishment of Black students in schools, which leads to higher rates of suspension and disciplinary actions that can lead to the juvenile justice system. She advocates for empowering students through education in legal literacy, civics, and financial skills, noting that access to such knowledge and opportunities is often limited. Programs and curricula she develops aim to bridge these gaps and provide students with tools for legal and financial empowerment. Ultimately, the need for competent, passionate lawyers in criminal defense is critical. The goal is not necessarily to achieve acquittals for all clients, but to ensure the state proves its case and to minimize negative impacts on individuals’ records and communities. Creative solutions, rehabilitation, and strategic partnerships are encouraged to address root causes of crime and support long-term positive outcomes.
#121
February 3 · 51 min
121. A comparison of Brazilian and American education systems
As part of a reciprocal exchange sponsored by the Columbus Rotary Club, educators from São Paulo, Brazil, were welcomed to Ohio. This group included college professors and English teachers at both primary and secondary levels. Their itinerary included visits to several public and private schools. We talk with two of the educators, Amanda Piovezani and Elaine Berges. Tracy Najera, a previous podcast guest and Rotarian, joined us. Amanda and Elaine observed that while multilingualism is common in Europe due to proximity to various countries, it is less prevalent in the United States. They were impressed by several aspects of American education, particularly in career schools where hands-on learning and partnerships with community organizations and companies are emphasized. One standout observation was the prevalence and integration of the arts in American schools. Amanda admired how art is used to cultivate critical thinking and emotional intelligence, especially among younger students. Both Amanda and Elaine discussed how engaging in art allows students to think creatively and empathetically, fostering essential soft skills such as teamwork and communication. In both countries, there are legal requirements to provide support for students with special needs. In Brazil, an assistant is assigned to any student with a diagnosed disorder, particularly in public schools, to ensure personalized support. The Brazilian visitors were struck by the smaller class sizes in American public schools compared to Brazil, particularly at the elementary level. Both countries face challenges with student distractions, particularly regarding cell phone use. Recent legislation in Brazil has prohibited cell phones in primary and high schools, with exceptions for health-related needs. This change was credited with improving students’ social and motor skills, as they engaged more in physical activities and social interactions during breaks. While it is common in Ohio for schools to have uniformed police officers present, this is not the practice in Brazil. There, police may patrol school neighborhoods but do not typically enter schools unless there is an emergency. The Brazilian educators expressed surprise at the American practice of arming teachers and the prevalence of discussions around gun violence in schools. The educators discussed how American schools are funded primarily through property taxes, a system that often results in wealthier areas having more resources. In contrast, Brazilian elementary and high schools are funded by municipal governments, while colleges are supported by state or federal funding. Public education in Brazil, including universities, is entirely free.
#120
January 25 · 42 min
120. Deploying the National Guard--not a long term solution for reducing crime
A visible law enforcement presence, like the National Guard, may deter crime, but Professor Laura Dugan, of the Ohio State University Department of Sociology, explains that deploying the Garud will not reduce crime in the long term. The first step in reducing crime is to understand the crime dynamics within a city and then make strategic decisions to address not only the crimes themselves but also their underlying causes. Research has shown that simply increasing patrols or random police presence does not effectively deter crime in the long term. While deploying military personnel with visible weapons might have some immediate effect, it fails to address the root causes of criminal activity. While some police departments have units dedicated to crime analysis and proactive strategies, most resources are devoted to reactive policing. Problem-solving policing targets the root causes of crime and focuses on small groups or specific neighborhoods responsible for a disproportionate share of criminal activity. Professor Dugan cites research indicating that providing healthcare, family planning, education, and providing support to low-income pregnant women reduces criminality in the long term. She advocates for meeting the basic needs of vulnerable populations, emphasizing that social services offer alternatives to criminal behavior and provide necessary safety nets. These approaches, however, are often viewed with skepticism by certain political groups, despite their past bipartisan support. Has President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard had any measurable effect on crime reduction? Professor Dugan is skeptical, noting that crime rates have been declining nationally, echoing patterns seen in the 1990s, and cautions against attributing recent declines to the deployment of the National Guard. She acknowledges that visible law enforcement may be useful for specific events like Mardi Gras but warns that deploying military personnel in communities with existing tensions can exacerbate problems. She underscores the importance of strategic use of resources and building relationships between law enforcement and communities. Listen to the conversation.
#119
January 15 · 47 min
119. Common Cause and the struggle for accountabilty
Neil Clark’s perspective as an Ohio lobbyist revealed the pervasive influence of money in politics. By wearing a “DeWine for Governor” t-shirt when he died by suicide, Clark appeared to question why lobbyists and others were being prosecuted for actions that were common throughout Ohio’s political system. The distinction between legitimate lobbying and illegal “pay-to-play” schemes is nearly indistinguishable, a point emphasized in Larry Householder’s appeals. Today, we talk with Catherine Turcer, executive director, and Mia Lewis, associate director, of Common Cause Ohio about dark money and its role in politics. Dark money refers to undisclosed or secret financial contributions, often routed through various nonprofits to obscure the funding source. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations and nonprofits were permitted to make campaign contributions under the rationale they were exercising their First Amendment rights. The result is that more money is now poured into campaigns. Though the Supreme Court recognized the public benefit of disclosure, both federal and state governments have been slow to implement effective transparency measures. The lack of disclosure allows unethical practices to thrive in secrecy, emphasizing the need to identify and reveal the true sources of campaign funds. Political action committees, also known as PACs, are required to file with governmental agencies like the Secretary of State or the Federal Election Commission and provide official records of their activities. In contrast, other nonprofits can be formed for short-term political advocacy and not register. Effective disclosure laws can reduce the amount of money in politics and ensure that political advertisements and campaigns are held to higher standards. Corporate donors, for example, might avoid contributing to contentious issues if their support is made public, which can influence the tone and integrity of political messaging. Disclosure empowers voters by revealing who is attempting to sway elections and why, fostering informed decision-making.
#118
January 3 · 45 min
118. Threats to freedom of speech and freedom of the press
The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and both are under attack. These protections apply universally, ensuring that anyone can express themselves without prior restraint, though certain limitations exist through laws addressing harm or falsehoods. Professional journalists adhere to a clear ethical code: never knowingly publish false information. This principle is at the core of responsible journalism and shapes the profession’s commitment to truth. Intellectual honesty and a commitment to factual reporting are key. We talk with Marty Schladen, a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal, about the challenges the press faces. With the reduction of local news outlets and mainstream newspapers, a void has emerged, filled by individuals who lack professional training and oversight. This “fog machine” of misinformation makes it challenging for the public to distinguish reliable news from opinion or falsehoods. In today’s media landscape, anyone can reach a large audience, making it difficult to discern professional journalists from amateurs. The lack of a regulatory body means that the honor system and personal credibility are vital for maintaining standards in reporting. Journalists must rely on their reputation and adherence to ethical guidelines to build trust with the public. The Trump administration seeks to suppress or delegitimize the press, such as restricting access and publicly shaming specific journalists and outlets. Personal attacks and refusal to answer questions have created barriers to information, both at the national and state levels. Reporters regularly face personal attacks and efforts to undermine their credibility. Despite these challenges, maintaining professionalism and composure is key, so that journalists can keep politicians and businesses accountable. Efforts to restrict journalists’ access to government information, such as requiring loyalty pledges or excluding major news organizations, are particularly concerning. These actions undermine the press's role as a public watchdog and threaten the decentralized power structure that is fundamental to American democracy.

Showing 1–20 of 22 episodes