Shining the light on activism

Jay Ruderman: Ready? Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman and welcome to the “All Inclusive Podcast:” stories of activism, change and courage.

‍Greta Thunberg: This is all wrong.

‍Simone Biles: I say put mental health first because…

‍John F. Kennedy: This generation of Americans has already had enough.

‍Leonardo DiCaprio: I stand before you, not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen.

‍Jay Ruderman: Each episode we bring you in-depth and intimate conversations with inspiring individuals trying to change the world.

‍Kevin Love:  I always had a place to escape or a place to go hide or a place to try and compartmentalize, but this was something that was unraveling in front of 23,000 people.

‍Jay Ruderman: And today on our show: Kevin Love.

‍Kevin Love: Basketball has always been my very healthy escape to combat any anxiety or dark periods or months within my life. And if that's taken away from me, what else do I have?

‍Jay Ruderman: Kevin Love is an American professional basketball player for the Cleveland Cavaliers. A five-time All-Star, he was an integral piece of the 2016 Cavaliers team that won the NBA championship against the favored Golden State Warriors. The son of a former NBA player, Stan Love, and the nephew of Mike Love from The Beach Boys, Kevin grew up in Lake Oswego, Oregon and became the first player in NBA history to record 2,000 points, 900 rebounds, and 100 3-pointers in a single season. But you may have heard of Kevin from an essay he wrote in “The Players’ Tribune” in March of 2018 about his struggles with mental health, detailing a recent experience of having a panic attack in the middle of a game.

‍Kevin Love: This was something that has been a constant I would say, since since really my early teens, and something that I never really looked in the mirror and said, Okay, this is something you have to deal with, until it happened at, you know, a very, public setting in front of, you know, tens of thousands of people.

‍Jay Ruderman: In the aftermath of that moment, Kevin became one of the leading figures in  America’s conversation about mental health among athletes. A few months after the publication of that essay, Kevin established “The Kevin Love Fund,” a nonprofit that aims to break the stigma around mental health and give young people the tools and support they need to thrive. In the past years, while still being an active NBA player for the Cavaliers, Kevin Love has been devoting much of his spare time and energy to helping others and promoting education and awareness in the field of mental health.

‍Kevin Love: Hey, you know, it could be you, it could be a family member, it could be, you know, your kid, brother, sister, whatever it may be, somebody very likely is going to go through a very, very tough time within their life, and you're going to be better equipped if, if you're educated on this stuff and continue to pay it forward.[music posts]

‍Jay Ruderman: Kevin Love, thank you so much for becoming our guest on “All inclusive,” and welcome. It's a pleasure to have you here.

‍Kevin Love: I appreciate you having me, Jay.

‍Jay Ruderman: So Kevin, take us back to that moment that you kind of famous for on November 5, in the middle of the game against the Hawks, when you disappeared in the locker room. Tell us what was going on at that time.

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, for me, it was a very public moment. You know, it's November 5 of 2017.

‍NBA Announcer: Miss by Love. Good pickup by Crowder.

‍Kevin Love: And, you know, there's just a number of things that weren’t truly going right within my life. And that's something that I had, you know, kind of dealt with away from the limelight and always had a place to go when I'd have these moments of panic or have these moments of depression. I always had a place to escape or a place to go hide or a place to try and compartmentalize. But this was something that was unraveling in front of 23,000 people.

‍NBA Announcer: Kevin Love, wide open, now they see him, and he scores!

‍Kevin Love: So it was a very public episode, where I had to remove myself from the game, after a timeout in the second half —

‍NBA Announcer: And a timeout…

‍Kevin Love: — and just ran into our locker room and thought I was having a cardiac type episode. And couldn't catch my breath, was running around trying to, you know, find something, didn't know what I was looking for, and ended up, you know, just out of breath and full panic attack on the floor of our head athletic trainer. And, you know, there was a couple of teammates, assistant coaches, training staff members that had seen me, you know, kind of go through this. So everything that transpired after the fact and everything that followed was really me trying to hide it, just live in the shadows and just under–trying to understand, wrap my head around what my teammates are gonna think if they were to find out or if other people were to find out. Would they be able to trust me, would it affect my livelihood? Basketball has always been my very healthy escape to combat any anxiety or dark periods or months within my life. And if that's taken away from me, what else do I have? So, yeah, the next several months were not too good to me. A lot got worse before it got better. But you know, it wasn't ‘till March of 2018, several months after the fact that I actually told my story on “The Players Tribune” of what had happened that day, and kind of what I've dealt with since my childhood.

‍Jay Ruderman: You know, it must have been terrifying for you. And I know, I've read, you know, that you said that you thought you were gonna die, and you put your hand down your throat, trying to be able to breathe. But one of the things you said was most helpful, is that your trainer like turned to you and said, “What do you need?” And, you know, what was it like? Because there's a lot of people that are going to listen to this, who've also gone through a panic attack in different ways. How did you get through it?

‍Kevin Love: You know, directly after when it happened, I had gone to the Cleveland Clinic here, right down the street, and had pretty much, you know, checked out, they ran all the tests, everything was all good. So I had thought to myself, “Well, what the hell just happened?” But I think the biggest thing that I did is, I looked in the mirror and said, “Okay, this can't happen again. And if it does, I have to be prepared. And the only way that this is going to work is if I started doing the work, actually on myself.” And I had put it so far off to the side for so long, seeing a therapist or even, you know, toying with the idea of speaking to somebody that, you know, could could really give me professional help and make me take steps in the right direction, and healthy steps in the right direction. You know, it’s a thing that happens to so many people and once I had shared my story on a national level and people got a hold of it, that there's just such a big community out there that deals with these type of things, whether it be you know, first person, or somebody I always say, within arm's distance, somebody is dealing with something that that you can't see. And I think that allowed me to continue to peel back the layers and expose more in order to not only help other people, but in a healthy, but yet selfish way, help myself.

‍Jay Ruderman: You talked about having depression in your past and anxiety, but never dealing with it. How did you know that you had it? I remember you talking about your brother saying you'd go into a room for a long period of time, and then you'd emerge, qnd he'd be like, “Okay, Kevin's back with us.” But how did you get to the point of being a celebrated player in the NBA, and yet, you know, this was in your background, and you hadn't dealt with it up to this point?

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, I mean, I think I always knew I had it. With the anxiety, it was always that, it's varying levels of it, but always constant, even now, a low level threat that, you know, anything or something could go wrong at any given moment. And there's certain things that trigger that, or there's experiences or, you know, being out in public that might, you know, take that to a level where, okay, I need to, you know, start putting together an exit plan here or understand, you know, how to get out of a situation that, you know, for me is going to really give me a lot of anxiety or is not fitting within my stress budget. But then with depression, there were just a lot of times wasn't that much, it wasn't that much that I could even do about it. I would just find myself in constant darkness, you know, for weeks at a time, in some cases when it was really bad, months at a time. I penned my second article in “The Players Tribune” during the pandemic, where I talked about, you know, a season where I'd actually broken my right hand, and I'd only played 18 games, and I kind of just shut myself into my apartment, and only left for obligations related to basketball and that was it. And became a recluse, didn't really talk to anybody, shut out my friends and family. And, you know, those are major moments in my mind that stick out. But this was something that has been a constant I would say, since really my early teens, and something that I never really looked in the mirror and said, “Okay, this is something you have to deal with,” until it happened at, you know, a very, like I said, public setting in front of, you know, tens of thousands of people.

‍Jay Ruderman: Yeah, and I know, you've talked about the passing of your grandmother, Carol, and how that was suppressed and yet weighing really heavily on you. I mean, I lost my grandmother years ago, Rose, and she was the closest person I was ever close to in my life. You know, did that lead to your panic attack or coming to a realization that, “Hey, there's something going on here that I haven't quite dealt with, fully?”

‍Kevin Love: For me, my grandma care was such a cornerstone, is, was the cornerstone of our family, like she is like the essence of what, you know, I would want my future family to be like, with my fiance. I mean, she was just so special, lived vicariously through each and every family member and just didn't need much. She just, you know, wanted to love, wanted to be loved, and just nurture and take care of people.

‍Carol Love: Happy birthday Kevin. You know, I miss you so much and I don’t get to see enough of you. You just make me happy and when you come home I’m such a proud grandma. So, happy birthday to the boy I love.

Kevin Love: But I never went through the grieving process until I started going to therapy. And I didn't realize how much that affected me in such a negative way, in such a poor way, until I started going to therapy and actually speaking about it with, you know, my therapist, and my friends and my family. Because it all just came so quick. We live such fast lives in professional sports, and in the NBA games come at you so fast. And when she passed, it was, you know, right around Thanksgiving. And, you know, we were just right into the next game, I didn't even get to see her get buried. I didn't get to go to the funeral. I didn't get to spend time with my family when all that process happened. It was just the next thing. So yeah, I was playing for her. And she always loved to come to my games. She thought, you know, we had this thing that she was, you know, kind of the, you know, the lucky charm or something, if you will, of my career. And every game that she came to she had a hell of a record out there with us. But I just never allowed myself to pinpoint and say, “Okay, this was so great, or this was so bad,” or anything in between, and just allow myself to feel in a way that that I should have, you know, over that course of time until I did in 2017 when I started going to therapy.

‍Jay Ruderman: Well, I'm really sorry for your loss because I know what it is to lose someone so close to you and I want to ask you, you mentioned you know, when you came out in the article in “The Players Tribune,” and you describe your panic attack and mental health struggles, what was your feeling right before you pressed send, and you decided to go out to the world and say, “Hey, this is who I am?”

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, it was scary to press send on that article, because not knowing, again, how my teammates or my friends, my family, my organization, how they were going to react, what they were going to think, you know, was my livelihood gonna be affected, you know, will I be able to play after this season next season, if others are going to look at me like, oh, he can't be trusted? Or is he going to be able to play in the fourth quarter? You know, long term, is he somebody that we can rely on? So, I think for me, it was, yeah, definitely very scary, and a super vulnerable moment. And, you know, in a hyper masculine type of sport, and, you know, growing up in that type of world my entire life, yeah, it was, it was definitely something that I couldn't wrap my mind around. But I just thought to myself, “I'm, you know, struggling in silence, I'm really suffering in a really bad way.” Like I said, it got a lot worse before it got better for me, even, you know, after, after I exposed this, it took me a while to really settle into myself and say, “Okay, this is just going to be a part of my life now, and people are going to know about it.” But I think it was, you know, being a part, like I said earlier, being a part of something bigger than myself, and you know, fighting for other people, and also paying it forward, always being a giver. For me, that allowed me to, to settle in, you know, to who I am, and be more comfortable in my own skin, and to just say, “Hey, listen, this is what you get. This is me, and I'm not perfect. But you know, I'm going to continue to work on myself. And I'm going to continue to try and make other people's lives better at the same time.”

‍Jay Ruderman: And despite your fears about how basketball was gonna react, can you talk about the reaction? Because from what I've read, it was fairly positive. The Cavaliers were there for you. The NBA was there for you. So what was the aftermath of releasing that letter like?

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, I would say, pretty much overwhelmingly positive, which really surprised me.

‍Female Newscaster: A surprise move by an NBA star today. Cleveland Cavaliers’ Kevin Love opened up about his mental health, sharing how a panic attack [fades under] Michelle Beadle: Your reaction to him opening up.

‍Jalen Rose: I applaud his courage, as well as DeMar DeRozan’s courage.

‍Steve Kerr: I read the article this morning. I thought what he said that was, that meant the most to me, was, “We’re all going through something.” It’s true.

‍Jalen Rose: I’m pretty sure it’s gonna give so many people the courage to come out and do the exact same thing.

‍Byron Scott: I agree with you Jalen. I applaud him as well and what it does is it humanizes us— [fades under]

‍Kevin Love: I think on top of that, I had no idea. Because I didn't even want to take that path, or go into that space to learn about all this. I didn't know what was real, I didn't know what I want— if or what or when, or how I wanted to find out certain things about anything mental health related, because I just thought if I just put it over there, it's not real. Thankfully, like I said, it was, it was definitely well received. I was able to be very authentic, use my voice, and just tell the  story up to that point of, you know, kind of what had happened that season, you know, within my life that year, how I was feeling what I was going through. There's so many people that have dealt with this within their families, whether it be themselves, whether it be a brother, a sister, a mom, or dad, grandmother, grandfather, I know certainly in my family that is the case. And just so many of my friends that I thought I knew what they were going through, but until we had, you know, some tough conversations, I had no idea. And for me that allowed me to feel more grounded and want to continue to work within this space, because it's become really fascinating for me, and again, it's been very therapeutic to understand that this is bigger than me, and yet I feel like I can have a major impact because the numbers, there's so much strength and numbers within all of this. It's a pretty amazing thing to see what we're capable of, if we all just, you know, bring ourselves together for a common cause.

‍Jay Ruderman: You know, you mentioned your friends and and you've said, you know, if it hadn't been for a couple of your closest friends, I don't know if I'd be here today telling my story. So maybe you can talk about you know, your friends a little bit and and what they, what they were able to do for you.

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, I mean, I think just more than anything that it's that support group. Within my friends, in my closest friends, some of them didn't actually know everything that was going on, but the very, select couple or a few that did, I'm more than thankful for, I feel like I'm indebted to. Because, you know, there's one in particular that we were able to get through high school having each other, and together, because we were able to be sounding boards and almost like therapists for each other in that way, where if we didn't have each other, we look at each other now and said, “Man, going through that time was really hard.” Like high school is hard. Like that 15 ,16-year old, freshmen and sophomore year, with all the stress, with all the expectation, you know, coming from every which way, as well as just having to show up and show your face in high school five days a week is something in itself. But again, if it weren't for a select few, I truly believe that I don't know if I'd be sitting here having this conversation today. I'm sure he'll be watching this, he definitely knows that, you know, we see eye to eye on this, that we helped each other through a lot of tough times and still do.

‍Jay Ruderman: Right, and you continued in another article in “Players FM,” and you talked about, you know, being in a dark place where everyone around you wants to see you doing better and do what you love and being happy and being the old you. And sometimes it feels like the world is saying, “Come on, man. Just get it over with.” What do you say to people who say, “Hey, listen, you're successful, you have a lot of money. How did you become depressed?”

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, I mean, I think that was kind of what I would say to myself. People that didn't understand it, or who’ve never gone through these types of things that they would just, “Oh, just get over it or just change your way of thinking.” It's like, oh, yeah, I guess I didn't think of that one before. But, you know, for me, it was not an easy thing to accept, especially at this level. I think, you know, one of the biggest moments in my life and my story too was that year, actually, at the end of 2018. Anthony Bourdain was somebody who I really loved and admired, and, you know, you felt like he had the coolest job in the world and great TV show. Traveled the world, felt like I traveled the world with him, and had cool friends, the coolest job, whatever. And in Game four of the 2018 finals, I woke up and saw a number of text messages and, you know, things that had come through my phone that Anthony Bourdain had taken his life and had passed away. And I just started backtracking and thinking to myself, like, you know, “There's Robin Williams, there's him, there's Kate Spade,” like all these names, all these, you know, very public eye, famous people, wealthy people, well-off, well-liked, well-received. And I think it was Bryan Cranston, actually, that said it and he said, “It just goes to show you that success is not immune to depression.” And he's so right by that, you know. It doesn't discriminate. You don't get to choose. Yeah, there's certain ways that you can kind of tackle things within your way of thinking or you can alleviate stress or anxiety but, you know, sometimes there's things in your brain that aren't quite adding up. There's chemical indifferences and things going on in there that you can't just say, “Hey, listen, just change your way of thinking,” or “Hey, just don't be like that,” or “Hey, just, you know, find energy where you can't find it somewhere–.” It just doesn't work like that. And I wish people, I think that's where, you know, educating people and understanding research and eliminating – is a big way to continue to eliminate the stigma is having conversations like this. Because I feel like people that have never gone through something of this caliber, of this size, or of this, you know, just weight that, you know, they wouldn't be able to understand it. So I think that having these conversations is a unique way to, you know, pay it forward to those people as well. To just educate them and have them understand that, hey, you know, it could be you could be a family member, it could be, you know, your kid, brother, sister, whatever it may be, somebody very likely is going to go through a very, very tough time within their life, and you're going to be better equipped if, if you're educated on this stuff and continue to pay forward.

‍Jay Ruderman: Sure. I mean, Anthony Bourdain was one of my favorites, and it was a shock. Let me ask you, since you are a famous person, do you think fame is natural? Is it a natural condition that humans are set up to deal with? And how do you deal with it day-to-day?

‍Kevin Love: That's a great question. It’s funny, I've never been asked that before. I don't, you know, there's obviously levels to fame and everything, but in terms of like, playing in Cleveland, living in Cleveland, it being such a town where you live through your sports teams, like, you are somebody that is in the public eye. But I don't know, especially with somebody that has, you know, acute anxiety or somebody that has, maybe, agoraphobia, which I certainly did in my early 20s just going out and thinking something's gonna go wrong, I'm gonna get publicly embarrassed, so on and so forth. Like I don't think that it is a natural thing. And there is no real way to, you know, whether it be expose yourself to it, or grow accustomed to it in a fast way. I mean, I don't think it's, maybe, the healthiest way to live your life and have to, you know, have a stress response or consider these type of things when you just get in your car, and you drive to wherever you need to be. So yeah, I have a little bit of trouble answering that, but that's very thought provoking. I'm gonna have to give some more thought to that for sure.

‍Jay Ruderman: I want to talk about another athlete who took a lot of grief.

‍Simone Biles: No injury, thankfully. [fades under].Simone Biles. When she pulled out of the Olympics, a lot of people said, “Hey, you're a quitter,” and I think that they really missed, you know, what she was going through. She talked about, you know, the twistees that she's, you know, jumping high up over a bar and doesn't know where she's gonna land, whether it's on her head or on her feet.

‍Simone Biles: And it’s been really stressful this Olympic games. I think, just as a whole, it’s been a long Olympic process, it’s been a long year [fades under].

‍Jay Ruderman: And she was going through something really serious, but people were giving her a lot of grief and you really spoke up about her. Maybe you want to talk about that. And like, you know, your connection to other athletes who have gone through some of the same similar things.

‍Kevin Love: I applaud Simone, who is the greatest female gymnast of all time, and yet she's like, “No, I choose myself.” And the fact that she was more than willing to do that and understanding, “Hey, I'm budgeting this for myself, for my stress, for my health, for my family, for my teammates, for my country, and allowing myself to take a step back in order to be better in the future?” I mean, full up, I mean, complete standing O, applause to her, to be able to do that, because that took a lot of strength and a lot of courage, and I don't think we've seen the impact that she has  truly had on everybody, because it's gonna be, you know, years and years and years and years of positive impact coming from just that moment alone. So, for her to do that, I just think it was, I mean, it’s just a beautiful thing and it adds to that strength in numbers and that army that we have, as, at the very least, athletes within this mental health space that are stepping up and, you know, being, I mean, just amazing leaders.

‍Jay Ruderman: Yeah, I want to thank you for that leadership, because you're sticking by other athletes who are going through similar things, But maybe Kevin, you can talk a little bit about all the things that you've done with COA and “The Kevin Love Fund” to help people. Because, you know, you're taking an active role in trying to make our society better and help people who are going through different mental health issues.

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, I mean, we, as I mentioned, like after, in 2018, in March of 2018, I penned that first article. And then in September, we started “The Kevin Love Fund.” And, you know, it still feels like it's in its infancy, yet we've been able to do so many cool things and work with so many great people. And we just have a unique blend of education, research, grant making and advocacy. It's been really special to see our curriculum come into place these last couple years and getting through our pilot program and continuing to learn, you know, where to best serve. I mentioned those 15 and 16 year olds within high school that, you know, are really going through a tough time. Their bodies are changing, their minds are changing, they're asked so much, trying to make the sports team, trying to make the drama club or whatever it may be, there's so much coming at them, that we felt that was a sweet spot. And having teachers being able to model vulnerability for these kids within the curriculum, with these 14 lesson plans that they're able to share through different mediums, not unlike, you know, me penning in “The Player's Tribune,” that article. But you have, you know, playlists that you can make as well where you can explain kind of, you know, what these songs mean to you and express yourself in that way. It could be photography, it could be poetry, I mentioned journaling, I mean, there's so many different ways to express yourselves within that that is, you know, incredibly important. So we've had over a thousand students, hundreds of teachers as well gone through the curriculum and there's going to be a lot of more updates this summer coming, but it's going to be free and nationwide to everybody this summer. So we're super excited about that. But just continuing to pay it forward, like I said, and, you know, our idea is that we want to impact a billion people worldwide within the next five years. But like I mentioned, that ripple effect, and just changing that one person's life is, you know, so momentous in itself, and we just want to continue to keep doing that.

‍Jay Ruderman: Thank you so much. I want to ask you, you grew up in a really successful family. I mean, your dad, Stan Love, was a successful NBA player.

‍NBA Announcer: Stan Love is in the ballgame for Baltimore, number thirteen.

‍Jay Ruderman: Mike Love, an Uncle, formed the Beach Boys with his cousins. [music from a Beach Boys concert plays] What was it like growing up in a family of such high achievers? And did you feel like you were chasing some really high expectations as as a kid?

‍Kevin Love: Yeah, no, and I definitely had a father that was tough on me, and maybe even harder on my older brother, as well. So yeah, I do think that there was some expectation there, especially having a father who had played in the NBA and then having a very high-achieving uncle on the same Love side of the family. And then there was just, you know, between, you know, the Love family and the Wilson family, there was always turmoil. I mean, that's just the truth of the matter. And I think we, as kids, didn't truly understand that, or understand why things that were, you know, why can't we see this part of the family or haven't we seen, you know, grandma or grandpa for a while. I mean, it's just those types of things kind of stick out in your head and you're able to connect the dots looking backwards. And I think you pair that with the expectation, you know, as well as just having a brain that you feel it doesn't work right, I think all of that is, you know, in some ways, a recipe for some, some pretty ugly moments, but I'm thankful for those at the same time. And in some ways, I talk about trying to achieve my way out of depression as welL. I think, “Oh, if I just get that accolade..” or “If I just make this many three point shots in the NBA…” or “If I just make this much money…” or “If I have this many friends, like it's all gonna go away.” But come to find out  if you don't do the work on yourself, you can't make it seem, you know, over there, you just put it away. And what I've realized is it never truly goes away, you just change your relationship with it.

‍Jay Ruderman: So do you think that your view of masculinity has really changed over the years?

‍Kevin Love: Yeah. I think the view of myself has changed as well. I think I'm a happier person because I understand that I don't have to be perfect. And I'm just a very flawed person. I've had minor mistakes in my life that have accumulated, and some, you know, a few major mistakes that accumulate as well. But understanding that, hey, listen, so long as I'm trying to make steps to improve myself both physically and mentally, and at the end of the day, had the intention to be a good person and help others and be my most authentic self, that I will be happier and better off and hopefully live longer because of it.

‍Jay Ruderman: Right. So, so important. Kevin, if you'd indulge me for a second, my son is a huge basketball fan, plays on a JV team. He recorded a couple questions for you. Okay, if you don't mind, my producer is gonna cue them up.

‍Kevin Love: No problem.

‍Jay’s Son: From the time you started playing basketball as a child until today, as a veteran  NBA player, at what period of time did you most enjoy playing basketball?

‍Kevin Love: You know, it's a funny question to get actually right now, because this season, we, you know, we're only expected to win maybe 27 games. You know, Vegas and like these two other places, they kind of set that number. I think was like 26 and a half or 27 wins on the season. And right now we're sitting at 33.

‍NBA Announcer #2: Now he picks the pocket of Christopher, behind the back, Davis, puts it in!

‍NBA Announcer #3: The game is over. Cleveland has come to Charlotte and stolen one.

‍Kevin Love: And we just have such a group of amazing young players, savvy veterans, and a great coaching staff, front office, it just feels like a college type of atmosphere. I would say, my senior year of high school, my one year at UCLA, and maybe even this year, I mean, this year, and the run that we had in 2016, where we won the Finals, were my favorite times playing basketball. But just living for now? I love going to work every single day. I love, you know, pivoting where I'm at in my 14th season in my career, coming off the bench in a sixth man role and being able to lead the guys and kind of show them the way and watch their growth within what we're doing. It's been an amazing season and a beautiful thing to watch these guys grow, and then they like to call me uncle or grandpa Kevin. You know, try to lead them and show these guys what it takes to make the next step as a team. So I think this year has given back, you know, really a lot, and I think sacrifice has a way of, if you just just dive into it, it has a way of giving back truly a lot more than it costs.

‍Jay Ruderman: Yeah, well, you're still young because Tom Brady just retired at 44.

‍Kevin Love: That’s right. He might come back too, who knows.

‍Jay Ruderman: Right. All right, next question.

‍Jay’s Son: How did it feel to be part of the 2016 Cavaliers team that brought Cleveland their first ever NBA championship?

‍Kevin Love: We had  a 52-year drought. And the city let us know. And in the fashion that we won, I don't think any team had more fun than we did, winning. Even going down 3-1 to the Warriors, a team that had won 73 games that year, our belief system was never toyed with, never messed with. We never lost sight of what was – who we were, who we are and what our identity was. And I think that taught me a really valuable lesson in that belief system, not only within myself, but within the team and within our organization as well, is that that can go really far and it can also, you know, be a major, major agent for growth moving forward in the future. So that 2016 run was, and is, still truly special within my heart and changed my life forever. Probably the biggest moment in my career was, yeah, winning that championship for sure.

‍Mike Breen: Taken by Speights, final seconds… [buzzer rings]. It’s over! It’s over! Cleveland is a city of champions once again!

‍Female Newscaster 2: This is how Cleveland rocks.

‍Fan on the street: Anything is possible!

‍Jay Ruderman:  You're engaged to be married to Kate Bock and you've called her, “the happiness of my life.” Has love changed your life?

‍Kevin Love: 100%. We got set up on a blind date, and she's seen me through maybe my darkest, maybe the darkest time of my life, and also my happiest. So for that, I'm extremely thankful. When you want to build a life with someone, having gone through that and, you know, put equity in with each other, it's an amazing thing to just grow within those moments and understand that you have somebody that's going to be with you ride-or-die for the rest of your life. So, Kate is truly my best friend, and you know, somebody who, again, will always be by my side.

‍Jay Ruderman: Can you tell us the blind date story or is that too private?

‍Kevin Love: No, we just, we had shot with the same photographer, and she wasn't dating at the time and I was newly single and I had just shot with the gentleman and he said, “You know what, there's somebody that I think you would like,” and I said, “I've never done a blind date before but okay, sure.” Like why not? Let's do it. So we got a cup of coffee, which turned into about nine cups of coffee and a lot of caffeine in midtown, New York, at the St. Regis, and you know, she became my girlfriend soon thereafter that and several years later, my fiance, and here we are. Now we're getting married this summer.

‍Jay Ruderman: Well, congratulations. I wish you many, many years of happiness together.

‍Kevin Love: Appreciate it.

‍Jay Ruderman: Any thoughts about retiring? Is it too soon for that?

‍Kevin Love: No, I think my gray hair is misleading, and in my 14th season, I feel great within this team and really happy in Cleveland with what we've been able to do: our three core players having unbelievable years this year, other guys having really breakout years within this team. It's been special in that way. So, yeah, that really hasn't even factored into my mind other than what we talked about earlier with Brady retiring after 22 seasons. I think even LeBron said it. He goes, “A part of me kind of left with Tom Brady when he left,” and I still think ‘Bron has a number of years left. But I do think everybody's kind of considering their mortality when Tom Brady decides to retire. But, for me, I still feel I have a lot left to give.

‍Jay Ruderman: Well you look good. I saw the recent behind the back pass, so you look great out there.

‍NBA Announcer #4: Love, steps inside the line. Steps behind the line, and props it through.

‍NBA Announcer #5: Love finds an opening. He knocks it down.

‍NBA Announcer #6: It is electric! Behind the back, Osman’s open, huh-ho, yeah!

‍Jay Ruderman: Well, Kevin, you're wise beyond your years. I learn so much from you. And thank you so much for being my guest on “All Inclusive,” and I wish you a successful season and congratulations on your upcoming marriage.

‍Kevin Love: I appreciate it, Jay. Thanks a lot.

‍Jay Ruderman: Take care.

‍Kevin Love: Appreciate you.[outro music plays]

‍Jay Ruderman: On March 13th, 2022, just forty days after retiring, and a few weeks after my conversation with Kevin, Tom Brady announced he would return to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for the 2022 season. “All Inclusive” is a production of The Ruderman Family Foundation. This show is produced by Yochai Maital, Jackie Schwartz, and Matt Litman. If you enjoyed this episode, please check out all of our previous conversations. Look up, “All Inclusive,” wherever you get your podcasts. As always, if you have an idea for a guest or just want to share your thoughts, I’d love to hear from you. You can tweet me - @jayruderman, or email us at: allinclusive@rudermanfamilyfoundation.orgIf you enjoy our show, please help us spread the word. Tell a friend or family member, or consider writing a review on your favorite podcasting app. That really goes a long way. I’m Jay Ruderman and I'll catch you the next time on “All Inclusive.”[outro music fades]

Jay Ruderman: Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman and welcome to the “All Inclusive” podcast: stories of activism, change and courage.

‍Greta Thunberg: This is all wrong.

‍Simone Biles: I say put mental health first because…

‍John F. Kennedy: This generation of Americans has already had enough.

‍Leonardo DiCaprio: I stand before you, not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen.

‍Jay Ruderman: Each episode we bring you in-depth and intimate conversations with inspiring individuals trying to change the world.Zelensky: I am almost 45 years old. Today my age stopped when the hearts of more than 100 children stopped beating. I see no sense in life if it cannot stop the deaths.

‍Jay Ruderman: We are devoting a special episode today to what's happening in Ukraine[media and sound of war from Ukraine]

‍Jay Ruderman: A terrible war that is devastating the country, killing thousands, displacing millions.

‍Sergiy Gamaliy/Translator: we all realize that this was not only with the Russian Federation, that's actually the war of good and evil.

‍Jay Ruderman: Today I’m going to talk with Sergey Gamaliy - The governor of  Khmelnytskyi Oblast.​​Overnight, Gamaliy went from governing a sleepy agricultural region in western Ukraine, to hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming in from the east and orchestrating dangerous rescue missions to cities under siege. He is doing this, while trying to keep the schools running and the tractors harvesting. The Khmelnytskyi Oblast region which Gamaliy governs has become a distribution hub for humanitarian aid that is vital to other parts of Ukraine facing the worst conditions. What can we do to help? I asked him. “Share the information about the war as much as you can,” was his response. So, today we will try to do just that.

‍Governor Sergiy Gamaliy: Hello Hello Hello everyone.

‍Jay Ruderman: Hello Governor, thank you for making the time.

‍Governor Sergiy Gamaliy: Nice to meet you. I can speak yes? Because my English is not so good for the speaking.. I will be speaking in Ukrainian, and I have translator here, and she speak in English, it will be better for your ears.

‍Translator: Hello

‍Jay  Ruderman: I want to jump right in. Because I know that your time is valuable. I want to welcome you to All Inclusive. During this time of war, and tragedy in your country and your region. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes to talk about the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and in your area. I wanted to start off by asking you today in The New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed, in which he said that the objective of Russia is to create 5 to 10 million refugees and force them out of the country. What has been your experience in your region, in terms of refugees fleeing from eastern part of Ukraine, through your region, to the countries bordering on the west?

‍Translator: At this point, we don't have a Russian military troops in our region. Because the Ukrainian army is protecting the Khmelnytskyi region, and the Ukrainian army in the other region, like Mikolaj and Kiev are not enabling the Russian troops to get into our region at the moment. And the main goal for us for now is to have a humanitarian front in here in our region. Our region is ready to welcome all the refugees from the east that are coming, and that need some help. And we are ready to give them homes and food and supply and everything they will need.

‍Translator: The Russian troops at the moment are trying to block those refugees in their cities, and enabling them to receive food and health supply, medication, and everything they need. And our goal is to get those people out of those cities like Mikolaj and Kiev and other cities. Our main goal is to let those people come out of those cities and arrive here, we could give them all the help we can. For this moment, we are planning to provide our West regions of Ukraine with the food supply, because the other regions won't be able to start the agriculture season and to plant all needed like seeds and bread and everything. So that's going to be our plan to help the rest of the Ukraine, and this month. We believe we're gonna win. And we believe in our Ukrainian army, we're sure we'll win this war. But at this point, we need to like our region - the main goal for our region is that we need to help all the refugees from the rest of the regions that are in need now. We have to help them and to help all those people who are like desperate, desperate at the moment. Before the beginning of war, the Ukrainian population was somewhere about 40 million people. And after the big cities like Kharkiv, and Mikolaj  were hit. And after all those people have lost their homes, we realized that all those people will be coming into our region and we are ready to provide them with homes and places to live and work and to stay here. And our region is the population of Khmelnytskyi region is about 1,270,000 people. And at this point the Western regions are expecting to give homes for 10 million people from the Eastern part of the Ukraine, because we are the only region that could help them.

‍Jay Ruderman: So Governor, let me ask you, with so many refugees coming through, how do you handle so many people coming in and passing through either staying, or passing through your region?

‍Translator 7:15We using all kinds of housing, which is possible at this moment to give those people places to live, like schools and kindergartens. And for this moment, we have provided even less than 10% of the homes for the refugees that we are able to help. So out of the hundreds, even less than 10%. The most common people are taking other people from even from trains directly to their homes, trying to help. And a lot of families are welcoming all the refugees. Like everyone who can help, they're trying to help and to provide homes for those people.. But also since March 14, we started the educational process for the kids that came from the Eastern part for the refugees. And now there are about 5000 kids, and they are coming, coming more. So we're providing them with education. But also we have field hospital for the animals, we’re actually the only region who has that, because there were a lot of families or refugees who came with their like dogs and cats and other animals who took them here. And they also were hurt during the bombs and the invasion. So we also tried to help them we have already made 137 operations on those animals in order to help them as well, so they could go back later and the families they came with.

‍Jay Ruderman: So Governor, I want to commend you for a time of war, trying to bring a sense of normalcy to your region to people in need, who are coming from eastern Ukraine, to children to provide them schools to provide for your population. And even for, you know, animals that are being brought, you've done a tremendous amount of work, and I'm sure you're working 24 hours a day. I wonder if you could talk for a few minutes about your morale and the morale of the Ukrainian people during such a difficult time.

‍Translator: The more we are at war, the more we get united, all the Ukrainians get united and we all realize that this was not only with the Russian Federation, that that's actually the war of good and evil. And we are representing the rest of the world, the good things and world, the democracy, the kindness, the happiness, the prosperity, everything good in the modern world, where Ukraine is represented now, and we are fighting the evil that is represented in Russia, in the name of the whole world. And we are sure that we will win this war in the name of the world and all the Ukrainians. And Ukraine is very peaceful country, we have never invaded any other countries or any other territories. But when some other people come to invade us, we are going to protect our land, we're not going to give a piece of our land to anyone else. And this war is uniting all the Ukrainians all together. We're gonna show the rest of the world that we will win this war. We have a big lines now of several people to join the Ukrainian military. No one's hiding and no one's running. We have big lines of people who want to go and fight for Ukraine.

‍Jay Ruderman: So Governor, I'm wondering if you could tell us what was going through your head the moment you heard that Russia invaded Ukraine.

‍Translator: First day, I couldn't believe in it. I thought it was something not real. Having War in the middle of the Europe, in the heart of the Europe, having a war that will kill several people was hard to believe. So first in the first days, it was kind of hard for me to believe that this thing is really happen.

‍Jay Ruderman: Governor can you tell us one story that gave you hope? One thing that happened that you witnessed that you said you know this gives me hope in what's happening and what my people are going through?

‍Translator: I have those stories mostly every day when I see those men are waiting in line to go to military to Ukrainian Army. Or when I see the old people who don't have money at all, they come and give and are trying to give - our army guys are not taking that, but they're trying to give their last money to the Ukrainian army in case they just might need something, or when people are calling us from all the parts of the world and trying to give us some help. So those stories are like happening all the time and every day. But I'm gonna tell you one story, if you want to know. We had this one case, when we needed to bring some humaritarian help to one of the cities that was bombed at that moment. As a matter of fact, we have already sent more than 300 tons of those help to different cities. But at that point, we really needed a track and the person who could take that stuff to that city. The track was supposed to go through the hotspot of Ukraine to the city that was bombed continuously. So basically, it was very dangerous for that person to go. So I called to a lot of owners on the transport companies who own those tracks and who have drivers and ask them whether any of the drivers were willing to go to that city. I'm not naming the city because I don't want to say that out loud. But actually, the owner of the company said, “Okay, I will go myself.” He just asked for that address, and for the machine gun. And I gave him mine, and went to that hotspot. And he brought everything they needed and came back alive.

‍Jay Ruderman: Very emotional. Governor, President Zelensky has become a worldwide figure standing for freedom against tyranny and authoritarianism. Have you had a chance to speak with President Zelensky during the war?

‍Translator: We are speaking constantly, either with him or with his deputies. And all the governors like me are speaking to him like most everyday. And because he's an example for us. He's staying at his place and doing what he's got to do. And we're doing our job in the regions as well.

‍Jay Ruderman: So Governor, you and your region are going through the largest humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II, with 1000s, 10s of 1000s, perhaps hundreds of 1000s of people traveling through your region. What can we do? What can people outside of Ukraine do to help Ukraine in this most dire situation?

‍Translator: Well, first of all, we really believe that economical sanctions against Russia will help a lot stopping their economy. With economical sanctions, we will be sure that less money will be spent on war against Ukraine. Besides that, we really need any humanitarian help, because a lot of cities have lost their provisions and places to stay. And like closing everything, people need any kind of help like that. Besides that, we're gonna need to build new homes, so anything that could help with buildings, and building infrastructure and building our economics as well. Besides, we will need any kind of financial help that you could do, because we will give that to the refugees and put it into our economy, and close the skies. If you close the sky, we could find out all our enemies out of the Ukraine so they won't have a chance. Also, we need you to share the information about war as much as you can, because the information is very important. Everyone should know that we are in war now. That's not any kind of a military operation like Putin is trying to say. It’s real war, people are dying here. And the more people know about everything's happening in Ukraine, about all the people who get hurt, dying, about destroyed cities, all the information that is shared, the more people know about that, the more help out of it, we will have.

‍Jay Ruderman: Well Governor, I want to thank you for your time. I know this is a terribly difficult time with war and humanitarian crisis. I want to commend you for your courage and bravery and for the bravery of the Ukrainian people. for what you're going through and fighting for freedom, not only for your country, but for the West. Thank you so much for your time and joining us on All Inclusive today.

‍Governor Sergiy Gamaliy 17:20Thank you very much. Thank you, for you, for you're helping and everything will be good and Ukraine will be the best country in the world. Oh, thank you very much. Thank you. Bye

‍Jay Ruderman: “All Inclusive” is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. I’m your host Jay Ruderman. Our show is produced by Yochai Maital, Jackie Schwartz and Matt Litman.

Jay Ruderman: Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman and welcome to the “All Inclusive” podcast: stories of activism, change and courage.

‍Greta Thunberg: This is all wrong.

‍Simone Biles: I say put mental health first because…

‍John F. Kennedy: This generation of Americans has already had enough.

‍Leonardo DiCaprio: I stand before you, not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen.

‍Jay Ruderman: Each episode we bring you in-depth and intimate conversations with inspiring individuals trying to change the world.

‍Dara Horn:  That discomfort–it wasn't sorrow. It’s rage.

‍Jay Ruderman: And today on our show: Dara Horn.

‍Dara Horn: Anne Frank wrote this line about people being truly good at heart, 3 weeks before she met people who weren't.

‍Jay Ruderman: Dara Horn is an award-winning author of six books and the recently published collection of essays, “People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present.”

‍Dara Horn:  People love dead Jews. Living Jews, not so much.

‍Jay Ruderman: From Harbin, China, to Monsey, New York, from Anne Frank to Shakespeare, Dara examines the ways in which Jewish history and culture have been memorialized and presented.

‍Dara Horn:  What I've found is I’ve now become, like, this sort of receptacle for all of this pain in the Jewish community that I really didn't know about.

‍Jay Ruderman: It constitutes an effort, she claims, to both minimize Jewish suffering and to whitewash the atrocities and antisemitism, both past and present. Today, the consequences are clear: antisemitic attacks in America are on the rise, and Holocaust education has shown to be ineffective, at best. This is a timely and important conversion.[music posts]

‍Jay Ruderman: Dara Horn, thank you so much for joining me on “All Inclusive.” It's such a pleasure to welcome you to the broadcast.

‍Dara Horn: Thanks so much for having me.

‍Jay Ruderman: So Dara, you gave your book, “People love Dead Jews,” a very provocative title. And by implication, they don't like living ones. Can you explain the title and the argument for having such a provocative title?

‍Dara Horn: Sure. Well, all I can say is for readers who are uncomfortable with the title, you will be even more uncomfortable with what is inside the book. Because it only gets worse after you make it past the cover. This is actually a topic that I avoided for most of my career, and I would say that I spent 20 years not writing this book. I really, just, never wanted to write a book where Jewish identity was defined from the outside, and this changed for me about 4 years ago.  In 2018, I was asked by Smithsonian Magazine to write an essay for them about Anne Frank. And I got that request and I was overwhelmed with dread, because I thought, “Wow, I really don't want to write an essay about Anne Frank.” And this goes to your question about the title. You know, the normal response to an assignment like that would be to, “I should turn it down.” But, you know, I'm, that would be logical, but I'm a writer so I'm not a very logical person. And, I also sort of feel that what I've learned in my 20 years of writing, in publishing books, is that the uncomfortable moments are where the story is. And so ultimately, by choosing this title, and making the reader uncomfortable, I'm sort of inviting the reader into that moment. And the reason I– the source of this title comes from what I ultimately did write for Smithsonian Magazine about Anne Frank.

Because in that moment, when I got that request, I just thought, instead of thinking, “This is uncomfortable, I'm going to turn away from it,”  I thought, “This is uncomfortable, that's interesting, why do I want to, why do I feel so uncomfortable with this?” And in that moment, I remembered a news story that I had seen about something that had happened at the Anne Frank museum earlier that year. This was, again, in 2018. This was a news item that described how there was a young Jewish man who worked at the Anne Frank Museum, and the museum would not allow him to wear his yarmulke to work. They made him hide it under a baseball hat. He appealed this decision to the board of the museum, and the board of the museum, then deliberated for 4 months, and then finally relented and let this young man wear his yarmulke to work. Four months is a very long time for the Anne Frank Museum to ponder whether or not it was a good idea to force a Jew into hiding. And, at that point, I realized the source of my discomfort, and I made it the first line of that piece, which now is, of course, the title of the book. “People love dead Jews. Living Jews, not so much.” And, you know, I really wanted to draw readers into that uncomfortable moment, because I think that there's a lot that we have suppressed about the way we react to those kinds of situations.

‍Jay Ruderman: Do you think the book was written for Jews or for non Jews?

‍Dara Horn: Well, so I will tell you that when I write my books, I am never thinking about the reader. I've made that mistake in the past. With my very first book, I remember thinking that, if anybody's gonna read this other than my mother, it's gonna probably be a Jewish audience, because that book, like all my books, was very deep into Jewish themes. And the editor who bought the book was not Jewish, and she told me, you know, “I was reading your book, and I felt like I was reading about my own life and my own family.” And, since this is, as I said, my sixth book, I sort of have since discovered that I've underestimated my readers. Literature is about communication. But with this book, in particular, you're correct that there's something a little bit strange about it in terms of the way audiences react to it. What I've discovered and what sort of really impacted me about the reception of the book are two things, which are, one very negative, and one very positive.

One is that I've discovered, from my Jewish readers, that there's — that there's something about this book that activates something in them. And what I mean by that is, when I wrote this book, it was a very, for me, a very intellectual exercise. But now that I've published this book, I'm now inundated with messages from Jewish readers. Old people, young people, secular people, religious people, people from many different countries, and they're all sending me the very same message. And the message says, “I felt uncomfortable my whole life, I never understood why. This book articulated this for me. Thank you.” Then it says, “I never told anyone this, but,” dot, dot, dot, and then they tell me some horrible story about some degrading experience they've had in their own life. And then they say, “Thank you for writing this book.” And so what I found is, I've now become, like, this sort of receptacle for all of this pain in the Jewish community that I really didn't know about. And that's been very disturbing to me. So that's sort of like one response I've gotten from readers. But then the sort of more heartening thing is, I have a whole lot of non-Jewish readers. And what I hear from my non-Jewish readers is like this moment of enlightenment, where my non-Jewish readers basically read this book and say, “I had no idea.” You know? “I can't believe that people have been carrying this around with them for all these years,” you know, “I learned so much, I want to be a good ally, and now I'm starting to understand how.”

‍Jay Ruderman: So I'm a strong believer in allyship. And I think in activism, allyship is very important. But we're going through this period of time where we're seeing more and more anti-semitism. And we're seeing things that people are taking in different ways, and I'll give you an example. Whoopi Goldberg, on the view recently made some comments that that were really she was taken to task for.

‍Whoopi Goldberg: The Holocaust isn’t about race. It’s not about race.

‍Co-Host: What is it about?

‍Whoopi Goldberg: It’s about man’s inhumanity to man.

‍Jay Ruderman: I mean, this is after you wrote the book, but I'm just wondering, because it's coming up, you know, weekly, in our lives in America, what are your thoughts of what's going on?

Dara Horn: I mean, I have a lot of thoughts about a lot of different things going on. But I mean, yes, it seems like there's this attempt to reenact my book in real time, which I did not engineer. But what I think is, the thing about the Whoopi Goldberg's comments is that it just reflects this deep ignorance of the, really, the non Jewish American public in general, about Jewish history, and about Jewish identity. And I honestly do think that what's interesting about it is that it reflects the way that Holocaust education has been taught in this country, There's been this attempt to sort of teach Holocaust education as if that's a substitute for teaching people about anti-semitism. It is not. It is not. And there's also been a very long standing attempt in the past 30 years to universalize the Holocaust. So, what's often done when the Holocaust is taught in schools or in other public education settings, it's taught as like what Whoopi Goldberg said, “Oh, it's about man's inhumanity to man,” right? I mean, that sort of, what she's saying does come from an, you know, what's often used as an approach to teaching the Holocaust, rather than sort of making it about what it actually was about, which was the destruction of Jewish civilization. Of course, to be interested in the destruction of Jewish civilization, you'd have to know what the content of Jewish civilization was, and that's what nobody is interested in learning as the title of my book proclaims.

‍Jay Ruderman: Can you talk about visiting the Anne Frank Museum, a museum that's really about a Jewish family that is wiped out in the Holocaust, but has been taken in by the non-Jewish community?

‍Dara Horn: One of the things that's so celebrated about Anne Frank, and the line from her diary that's on the wall of the museum, and it's on the book jacket, is the line where she says, “I still believe in spite of everything—”Winona Ryder: I still believe in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I see the world being slowly  [fades under] …

‍Dara Horn: You know, and we say this line inspires us, by which we mean, it flatters us, right? It makes us feel forgiven for lapses of our civilization that lead to piles of murdered girls. It's like, and this is something that's very deep in non-Jewish Christian civilization, right, is this idea that a murdered Jew has, like, offered us absolution from our sins. The reality though is so much simpler. Anne Frank wrote this line about people being truly good at heart, three weeks before she met people who weren't, but you have to sort of dump that reality in order to tell this feel good story. And that really comes to the sort of, those central points in my book are twofold. The first is people tell stories about dead Jews that make them feel better about themselves. And the other is, living Jews have to erase themselves in order for that story to be told.

‍Jay Ruderman: You wrote a sort of, an op ed, as if Anne Frank had lived, and I found it to be very powerful. I'm wondering if you would read it on page seven of your book.

‍Dara Horn: Sure. So for context, this is, this op-ed, it's, it's not an op-ed, I'm sorry, it's an obituary, sort of a pretend obituary for an Anne Frank who was not murdered in the Holocaust. And what I'm sort of getting at is maybe she would have had something else to tell us if she had lived to describe her experiences. [Music comes up in the clear] Anne Frank, noted Dutch novelist and essayist, died this past Wednesday at her home in Amsterdam. She was 92. A survivor of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, Frank's acclaim was hard won. In her 20s, Frank struggled to find a publisher for her first book, “The House Behind,” a memoir of her experiences in hiding and in Nazi concentration camps. Disfigured by a brutal beating, Frank rarely granted interviews. Her later work, “The Return,” describes how her father did not recognize her upon their reunion in 1945. Frank supported herself as a journalist and in 1961, she earned notoriety for her fierce reporting on the Israeli capture of Nazi henchmen Adolf Eichmann, an extradition via kidnapping that the European elite condemned. After covering Eichmann's Jerusalem trial for the Dutch press, Frank found the traction to publish “Margot,” a novel that imagined her sister living the life she once dreamed of, as a midwife in the Galilee. A surreal work that breaks the boundaries between novel and memoir and leaves ambiguous which of its characters are dead or alive, the Hebrew translation of “Margot” became a runaway bestseller, while an English language edition eventually found a small but appreciative audience in the United States. Frank's subsequent books and essays brought her renown as a clear-eyed prophet carefully attuned to hypocrisy. Her reputation for relentless conscience built on her many investigative articles on subjects ranging from Soviet oppression to Arab-Israeli wars, was cemented by her internationally acclaimed 1984 book, “Every House Behind,” written after her father's death. Beginning with an homage to her father's unconditional devotion, the book progresses into a searing and accusatory work that reimagines her childhood hiding place as a metaphor for Western civilization, whose facade of high culture concealed a demonic evil. “Every flat, every house, every office building in every city,” she wrote, “they all have a house behind.” Her readers will long remember the words from her first book, quoted from a diary she kept at 15: “I don't believe that the big men are guilty of the war. Oh, no, the little man is just as guilty. Otherwise, the peoples of the world would have risen in revolt long ago. There is in people simply an urge to destroy, an urge to kill, to murder and rage, and until all mankind without exception undergoes a great change, wars will be waged, everything that has been built up, cultivated, and grown will be cut down and disfigured, and mankind will have to begin all over again.” Her last book, a memoir, was titled “To Begin Again.”[Music ends]

‍Jay Ruderman: So powerful, and puts her perspective on living through this experience in a very different way than the world is consuming her perspective right now. I'd like to shift and talk about Harbin, China. First of all, what brought you to Harbin, China? I was fascinated about you walking around there with layers and layers of clothing. But what was it like to be there?

‍Dara Horn: Sure, so, for context, Harbin is this city in northeastern China. It’s south of Siberia, north of North Korea, which is, you know, as awesome as it sounds, and it's kind of known in, sort of like, tourist circles because it has this world-renowned ice festival. Every winter, they have like 10,000 workers come and build this, like, entire city out of ice. So, that's sort of the draw for tourists to go to Harbin. And I remember considering whether I wanted to go to Harbin and thinking like, “Well, you know, is it really worth going halfway around the world just to see an ice city? I wonder if there's anything else to see in Harbin?” And, just looking on travel websites, and it's like, “Top 10 Things to See in Harbin,” and it's like “ice festival, ice festival, ice festival, synagogue, synagogue, Jewish cemetery, museum, Jewish, you know, Jewish Museum, Jewish cemetery, ice festival.” And I thought, like, “Huh, that's weird.” And I started looking into this. And what I discovered is that the city of Harbin was essentially built by Jews. This was something that happened in the early late 19th, early 20th century, the Russians had gotten a concession from the Chinese to build a branch of the Trans-Siberian railroad into China. They needed educated Russian-speaking entrepreneurs to build this railroad junction for them, like they basically needed a town in this extremely underpopulated region. And 20,000 Jews, Russian Jews, moved to Manchuria and built this city, built all the infrastructure of this city. And then what eventually happened is that, you know, as I put it in the book, you already know this story has to end badly. There's various regimes that make life more and more impossible for the Jews until the last Jewish family is evacuated by the Israelis in 1962. Today, there's one Jew who lives in Harbin, and your listeners, I don't say this in the book, but your listeners will appreciate, this place is so remote that they don't even have a Chabad. So, no Chabad, one Jew.

But what's interesting about it is this, the city government, about 10-or-15-years ago, decided to spend $30 million restoring Jewish heritage sites. But what was amazing to me was going to Harbin so and, to your point about sort of how it feels to be there, it is very, very strange. Because you're in this entirely Chinese city at this point, I mean, there's really, there's certainly no Jewish community anymore, there's one person who, actually is an Israeli, who settled there 20-years ago for an academic position, and he's involved in restoring these sites. But what's amazing about it is that you walk through these sites, and the way they're restored is so bizarre, because there's, for example, there’s this Jewish Museum there, it's in the building of what used to be the synagogue, one of the two synagogues in Harbin, and they have part of their exhibit where you walk into a room, and there's like a life-sized plaster sculpture of a man sitting at a desk with a typewriter on it, and then the caption says, “Real Jewish Businessman in Harbin.” And then you go to the next room, and there's like, you know, two life-size, plaster kids playing with blocks, and there's a caption that's like, “Real Jewish Children in Harbin.” You walk through this whole Jewish museum that tells you all about all these wonderful, rich Jews, notice they're all rich, which was in fact not true in Harbin. “Look at these wonderful, rich Jews who built all these great businesses in Harbin.” Nothing in this museum tells you why this wonderful community no longer exists. They don't tell you! And you know, you're walking through these places, and, you’re like, they weren't so crazy about the Jews when they lived here, because that's why there are no more Jews here anymore.

To your question about, like, how do you feel to be there, you know, as a Jewish traveler, you feel deeply uncomfortable in these places, or at least I do. There’s this deep discomfort. And, as I said before, the uncomfortable moments to me are where the story is, because then I'm thinking, “Why do I feel so uncomfortable?” And what I realized is that every time I've been to one of these places in my life, I have buried the reason for my discomfort. I have told myself that it's sorrow, right? Like, oh, it's just so sad that this community that used to be here isn't here anymore, and don't I feel grateful to these non-Jewish people here who are so nice and restored this synagogue or made this museum or whatever it is. And what I realized is that I was lying to myself, because that discomfort, it wasn't sorrow. It’s rage. And I realized that my whole life, I'm burying this rage. And, in Harbin, it just sort of became so clear to me, I just felt this, this anger.

‍Jay Ruderman: You know one of the passages that sort of stuck with me is that, when you were in the museum and going through it, and you're looking at Jewish artifacts, and you see a Seder plate. And the Seder plate you're looking at it and you're like, “Oh, this must be an old Seder plate.” And you're like, “Wait a second. This is a modern Seder plate. I have the same Seder plate in my house.”

‍Dara Horn: Right. It was done, it wasn't even done that well. There's this exhibit where it's like, you know, “These are the real, authentic Judaica of this family.” And, yes, a Seder plate under glass in this exhibit, and I'm like, why are there English words all over this Seder plate? Like they're literally like, it's like an American Jewish Seder plate where it says like, “bitter herbs,” right. I'm like, “Why would this Russian Jewish family in China have a Seder plate with English words on it?” And the answer, of course, is that they didn't. They bought the Seder plate like on eBay. Like it was so transparent, like, there was no attempt to even, like, pretend. But the reality is, like, that level of ignorance,  you see it everywhere, right? You see it everywhere. I mean, you know, you mentioned Whoopi Goldberg's comments, like, people don't know anything about Jewish culture. They know that Jews got murdered in the Holocaust and that's kind of it. And so, what I find is, like, in the Jewish community, we have this need to sort of defer to these non-Jewish, you know, these non-Jewish institutions that are like, that we feel like are doing us some kind of favor. That's not really what's happening in a lot of these cases. And that's really what I'm calling out in the book.

‍Jay Ruderman: I want to talk about something that you write in your book, about a project. I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly. The Diarna project?

‍Dara Horn: Yes, well, so Diarna, and I encourage your listeners to investigate this, it's very available online, it's D-I-A-R-N-A.org. If you go to their website, this is an online museum of Jewish historical sites mostly in the Islamic world, although they've now expanded it beyond that.

‍Man 1 [archival sound]: This place was full of haystack. So, I start to clean up the hay, and I saw all this Hebrew writing that you can see here. And then I found the hechal, you can see … [fades]

‍Dara Horn: This was really an attempt to preserve these sites for future generations, because, we were just talking just now about Jewish heritage sites in Europe and other places where they've, like, you know, local communities have invested money and effort in making this into a tourist attraction. You have the opposite thing happening in places like Tunisia, where these places really have just like, are going to seed or are threatened with destruction. And what Diarna does is they send photographers to these places to document these sites, and they also then collect oral histories from Jews who lived in these places before these communities were decimated.[archival sound of A mazrou manrecounting Jewish prayer]

‍Dara Horn: I found it incredibly moving.[archival sound of torah reading in Fez, Morocco, 1950s ]

‍Dara Horn: And what's astonishing is you learn about how old and large and vibrant these countries' communities were. Like, did you know that Tripoli was 25% Jewish in 1940? Right, Tripoli in Libya? How many Jews are in Libya today? Zero. What I found really moving was that these are places where, you know, for the most part, Western tourists can't go. In a lot of these cases you can't go to Libya, you know, today, because there's so much political instability in some of these places. Syria. There was a woman, Christie Sherman, who's a photographer, she went on an expedition for them in 2009 and she documented this 500-year old synagogue in Damascus for them.

‍Man 2: So, again, this is the entrance of the synagogue, the sanctuary itself.

Dara Horn: She was the last person to step into that synagogue with a camera, and it was destroyed during the civil war in Syria about two years later. So you know, that's sort of like the kind of work these people are doing, is really racing the clock before these sites are destroyed.

‍Jay Ruderman: So, I mean, it's so important, and we're gonna put a link to the website, because I think people should check it out and understand that in many different countries around the world, there were vibrant Jewish communities that, as you said, don't exist at all. I want to talk about literature, and specifically Shakespeare. You have a very moving part in your book with your son who wanted to listen to a recording of “The Merchant of Venice.” And I'm wondering if you could start off by reading on the bottom of page 207, where it starts with the trial scene.[Music comes up in the clear]

‍Dara Horn: The trial scene was agonizing. We listened together as Shylock went to court to extract his pound of flesh, as the heroine, chirping about the quality of Mercy forbade him to spill the Christians blood as he so desperately desired.

‍Joan Plowright: Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh. But in the cutting it, if thou dost shed one drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods are by the laws of Venice confiscate unto the state of Venice.

‍Dara Horn: As the Court confiscated his property, along with his soul through force conversion conversion, as the play’s most cherished characters used his own words to taunt and demean him, relishing their vanquishing of the bloodthirsty Jew,  my son stopped asking me to explain. 20-minutes of congratulatory hijinks followed Shylock’s final exit, as the cast reveled in their victory and his seized assets. At last it was over. The minivan fell silent. Then my son announced, “I never want to hear that again.”  “You will definitely hear that again,” I said.

‍Jay Ruderman: So you obviously exposed your 10-year old son to “The Merchant of Venice,” which, as you said, is one of the most read pieces of literature. How should we as Jews approach this? I mean, should we do what you did, or should we try to hide our children from the xenophobia and anti-semitism as long as we can?

‍Dara Horn: Well, I mean, you're not going to succeed in hiding it. So you know, why try? But what I talked about in the book, the reason I sort of share this with my son was because, in a sense, I had been gaslit. And what I mean by that is, you know, I read this play in school, like a lot of people did, and I sort of had been told by all the teachers the way that all of us were, that, you know, “Oh, this play is not really anti-semitic, it's just a product of its time.” And, you know, there’s, the proof is that, you know, it's so much better than other contemporary works and look, Shakespeare gives Shylock this monologue where he talks about how he's really just another human, right? He says, “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes…” [fades]

‍Laurence Olivier: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions. If you prick us, do we not bleed?

‍Dara Horn: My son heard this, 10-years old, and says, “Mom, this is the evil supervillain monologue that every evil supervillain does in every Marvel movie.” My son was like, “What idiot would fall for the evil supervillain monologue?” And I'm like, “Well, I guess me.” I have a PhD in comparative literature. Yep, I fell for the evil supervillain monologue. It was that obvious to a child. And, you know, what I would say is, like,, how do we respond to this? As I said in that passage, like, the answer isn't like to cancel Shakespeare, right? I mean, because, I mean, then you would have to basically cancel all of Western civilization. Right? I mean, we're living in this. This is what we're living in. I think that the answer is to, to not fall for it. Right? To Be aware of it, to understand it and not to fall for it.

‍Jay Ruderman: Well, it sounds like your son was ahead of his time, or mature, that he really got what was going on there.

‍Dara Horn: He's watched a lot of Marvel movies.

‍Jay Ruderman: He has. All of our kids have. I want to talk about, I think, what was for me the most impactful part of the book because it just felt so real. You know, we're going through this period of time when there are very troubling, violent hate crimes committed against Jews: the Pittsburgh Temple of Life massacre, the hostage situation recently at a synagogue in Texas, these made big national news, but there were some incidents that didn't make so much news. And let's talk about what happened in several attacks in New Jersey, some of which were very close to where you lived. And, I'm wondering if you could talk about what happened there and how it impacted you.

‍Dara Horn: Yes, so there was an attack, this was just before the pandemic, in December of 2019. This one was on a kosher grocery store in Jersey City that was part of the Satmar community, Satmar Hasidic community there. And this was a gun battle: five people died, two of whom are assailants and three were people in the store.

‍News 4 Now Newscaster: Turning now to the news, and we are getting our first look at yesterday’s attack in Jersey City that left a police officer dead, two suspects… [fades under]

‍Dara Horn: And what was amazing to me was the way this attack was portrayed in the media. Always, it was always basically some way of saying that it was the fault of the victims.

‍News 4 Now Newscaster: Investigators are not yet saying Tuesday’s violence was a hate crime.

‍Dara Horn: Basically, I couldn't find a news article that didn't say something derogatory about the community being attacked while reporting the attack. And in the Jersey City case, it was usually, the way that they were portraying it was that these Hasidic Jews were gentrifying a minority neighborhood. Which to me is very interesting, because, I mean, first of all, these people were fleeing gentrification. They were in Jersey City, because they were priced out of Brooklyn, right? Second of all,  these people are highly visible members of the, according to the FBI, the biggest hate crime target in the country. Like these aren't, you know, white hipsters. And the last, you know, is there this murderous rage against gentrification where people are walking into cool coffee shops with AK-47s and, you know, like blowing away people with man buns? Because like, I haven't seen that happening. What I realized, like, why are we pretending that this is about gentrification? And the answer is that these articles are all sending a signal. The signal is that these people deserve it. Right? This is victim blaming. It would be very similar to if you were writing a news story about a woman who was sexually assaulted, and you spend most of the article being like, “Just for context, here's what she was wearing.” And that's what's sort of most astonishing to me. I spoke at the beginning of our conversation about this idea we have in anti-bigotry education in this country where you teach people not to be bigoted by saying like, “Oh, look at this group over here, you shouldn't be prejudiced against them because they're just like you and me. They're just like everyone else.” But of course, when you teach that, what you're sending, the message you're sending is, if somebody isn't like you and me, then it's fine to hack them with a machete, and that's exactly what we see happening here. And what was so devastating to me was that realization, was that actually, there was zero sympathy for the victims of this hate crime, zero. And the reason there's zero sympathy is because, you know, these people don't look like you and me, they have weird hairstyles, and therefore, it's totally fine to blow them away with automatic weapons, and that–that message came loud and clear.

‍Jay Ruderman: I'll tell you a very short story that, when I was a very young child, well, way before you were born, I was at a place called Great Adventure in New Jersey.

‍Dara Horn: We go there all the time.

‍Jay Ruderman: I don't know, on that day, there were many, many 1000s of Hasidic Jews, and we were in line for a ride. And the person behind us said, “Uch, these people, they're the cause of all the problems here.” And my mother turned around, and she said, “You know, we're Jewish, also.” And the person's response was, “Oh, yeah, but you're not like them.” So I think what I took away from that is, anti-semitism could be focused on people that look Jewish, but it's actually against everyone that's Jewish. There's a lot of attention on on talking about the Holocaust and expecting that that will have an impact on anti-semitism. And I think your point that you make throughout the book is that it doesn't go together, that you can teach about the Holocaust and people still can be anti-semitic.

‍Dara Horn: Absolutely. And you know, what, what those people said, like, “Oh, you're not like them.” This is part of what I talked about at the beginning of our conversation. I said, you know, the message of the book is people love to tell stories about dead Jews that make them feel good about themselves. The other piece in that is that Jews have to erase themselves in order to make that story possible. And when that person behind you in line says, “Oh, you're not like them.” What they're saying is, “Jews are fine as long as they're not Jewish.” That goes to that example in the Anne Frank museum where that young man has to hide his yarmulke under a baseball hat. What they're basically sending the messages is like, you know, “Jews are great. We love Jews, as long as they're not Jewish,” right? Like, we want to celebrate the Jews, humanity, the nice Jews, right? Like the dead ones, not the Jews who are doing yucky things like I don't know, living in Israel or practicing Judaism? Right? Like, Jews are fine, as long as they're not Jewish. It's really the message of that. It's this requirement that Jews erase themselves. And yeah, I mean, that's really what you're seeing with that comment of like, “Oh, you're not like those Hasidic Jews.” Like, well, what's your problem with the Hasidic Jews? Is it that they're Jewish? Because it sure seems like that's your problem.Jay: Dara, I really want to thank you for being my guest today on “All Inclusive.” I know that you've said in the past that anti-semitism is not a Jewish problem, it's a problem for everyone. I do want to encourage anyone who has not read your book, wherever they buy books, to pick up a copy of, “People Love Dead Jews: Reports From a Haunted Present.” It's a powerful book. It's a book that should be read by everyone. And thank you so much for being with me and spending time with me today.

‍Dara Horn: Thanks so much for having me.

‍All Inclusive -  Outro:

Jay Ruderman: “All Inclusive” is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. This show is produced by Yochai Maital and Jackie Schwartz. It was edited by Matt Litman. If you enjoyed this episode, please check out all of our previous conversations. Look up, “All Inclusive,” wherever you get your podcasts. As always, if you have an idea for a guest or just want to share your thoughts, I’d love to hear from you. You can tweet me - @jayruderman, or email us at: allinclusive@rudermanfamilyfoundation.orgIf you enjoy our show, please help us spread the word. Tell a friend or family member, or consider writing a review on your favorite podcasting app. That really goes a long way.I’m Jay Ruderman and join me for the next installment of “All Inclusive.” I’ll be talking with Niambe Tosh,  daughter of the world-famous reggae musician, Peter Tosh, founder of The Wailers, along with Bob Marley and Bunny Wailer, for a conversation about inequality, legalization of marijuana, and how a family tragedy spurred her into action.

Speaker 1:

All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman:

Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice.

Jay Ruderman:

Ron Suskind is a Pulitzer winning journalist, New York Times bestselling author and award-winning producer who has spent most of his career uncovering America's social, historical and political injustices.

Ron Suskind:

He gives me 19,000 internal documents of the United States government, which is the largest download unauthorized since the Pentagon Papers.

Jay Ruderman:

Most recently, he co-produced Adam McKay's film, Don't Look Up, about climate change and the social spread of misinformation.

Ron Suskind:

They look to each other. They're like, Well, Leo's in it, now Jen Lawrence is in it and then Meryl Streep, Jonah Hill, Tyler Perry, Cate Blanchett, Timothée Chalamet. I mean, it's kind of everyone you'd want all together.

Jay Ruderman:

His sixth book, Life, Animated, explores his most personal subject matter yet, his son Owen's autism and how he learned to communicate through Disney movies.

Ron Suskind:

He changed and went to a different place, a place where we could not engage with him and our life changed. We're still living in the world as it was reconstructed at that moment for us.

Jay Ruderman:

The book was also the subject of an Emmy Award winning and Academy Award nominated documentary of the same name. Ron often appears on network television and has been a contributor for The New York Times Magazine and Esquire. He was The Wall Street Journal's senior national affairs reporter for seven years. Ron, it's a pleasure to welcome you All Inclusive.

Ron Suskind:

It's great to see you, Jay. Great to be here.

Jay Ruderman:

So, Ron, you've spent your career as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist writing about politics and Washington and now you produced a Netflix hit, Don't Look Up. How'd you get involved in this film?

Ron Suskind:

Interestingly, I first met Adam McKay, who was the producer, director and quite a character. He was the former head writer for Saturday Night Live, you may know. And he and Will Ferrell then matched up. Will is a Saturday Night Live alum, to do all those movies that everyone knows, Anchorman, Talladega Nights, The Other Guys. And then Adam took a pivot and he did The Big Short, drawn at it from Michael Lewis's book of the financial crash. And after that, he continued down that path trying to bring all of his skills, comedic, cinematic, narrative skills, to more events of the day, which he did Vice, the Dick Cheney movie. Now I'm considered one of the leading experts on Dick Cheney. And I hooked up with Adam there. I was out at Sony and helping him with Vice. And it was more than just being the kind of expert consultant on the life of Dick Cheney and his influence.

Ron Suskind:

I also got involved with the movie, looking at some scenes and thinking about story. The difference for me is, as McKay said in our first encounter, he's like, you're interesting and different. You dig up these huge historically consequential disclosures and then you weave them together in books that are very cinematic. That's what McKay said. And McKay and I kind of bonded up and we started to talk about the great issues of the day and how to bring a new kind of cinematic energy and framing and expression to the fault line issues that are defining us. And interestingly, the subtext and the context of that is that so many other ways to communicate have collapsed. Public dialogue and the way journalism gets embraced and adopted far and wide. And then all of those things that we relied upon when I'm a younger man and I'm a kid.

Ron Suskind:

So many of them have collapsed that it's my belief, that cinema ends up being a significant cross border lingua franca, shared language, upon which I think more pressure falls and more can be done to carry forward these big ideas and help us see the moment in which we live in new ways. As with new eyes, as [inaudible 00:04:57] would say. And that's where we were. 2018, the Dick Cheney movie, Vice, comes out. And right around that time, he talked to another interesting character journalist friend, a guy named David Sirota, who has written for a bunch of different places and ends up being a speech writer for Bernie Sanders. So he is a bit more of a partisan journalistic character, obviously, than I am. But Sirota in a rant said to McKay, this climate's amazing. It's like, there's a meteor, a comet, coming straight for earth and no one cares.

Ron Suskind:

And McKay said, ah, aha, there it is. That's the way to do the climate movie. He got right back on the phone with me. He says, I think I got it. An asteroid headed toward earth. And all of the issues in and around our inability to deal with climate, to look at it clearly, to act accordingly, to activate, to support our own survival and the survival of the planet. All those things we can do, Ron, through this motif, the asteroid coming. And then Adam went off and wrote the script at the end of 2019, right before COVID hit. And he got back and I got the first copies of the script before COVID, I think it was January of that year. And then whammo, almost everything in the movie is occurring around everyone. Not just in terms of climate, but in terms of COVID.

Jay Ruderman:

So you were kind enough to invite Sheer and I to a screening of Vice in Cambridge. And Christian Bale, I thought he was excellent in that film. But you've spent your career as an activist journalist and climate change is the big focus of Don't Look Up, but there's also this focus on misinformation ... Did you have an input on that? And did you make sure that that was part of the direction of the movie?

Ron Suskind:

For sure. That's my thing, as you say, Jay. I've been in on the dis and misinformation nightmare for 20 years. I wrote that piece in the New York Times in the lead up to the '04 presidential election, which put out powerfully in public the phrase, reality based community. Was the New York Times piece that was spoken to me first by an advisor to George W. Bush. It was the time at which they had taken the country to war under false pretenses. I was reporting that, remember I had in the first of the big three books during that period, the kind of source that you live your whole life as a journalist praying for Paul O'Neill, who was the treasury secretary under George W. Bush for the first two years of that administration. O'Neill was a famous truth teller, had been his whole life. Actually served Nixon and Ford, then went off to run big companies like Alcoa.

Ron Suskind:

Then came back. It was kind of Rip Van Winkle from a time, way, way back when there was more of a respect for truth in the nation's capital. O'Neill saw that almost everything was subordinated to the political mandate. And, in fact, disinformation was a part of the arsenal of tools that presidents, essentially, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were using. He gives me 19,000 internal documents of the United States government, which is the largest download unauthorized since the Pentagon Papers. I use that to write the big number one best selling book called, The Price of Loyalty. O'Neill was the main protagonist, but of course there are dozens, hundred plus sources in that book. The thing is, when you have a document with someone's name at the top, and I had 19,000 of them, it's amazing how forthcoming they could be. And that really defined the Bush-Cheney era, that whole terrible first ought decade of this century.

Ron Suskind:

But in that Times piece, that advisor to the president saying, Ron, you're a member of what we call the reality based community. I'm like, really? I'm a member of it. What is it? He says, well, you believe solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. I'm like, yeah, of course. Look, I got a history behind me and Pierce is a major reason. The Greeks are behind me, I think too. Yeah. Yeah. We know, but that's not the way the world works anymore. You see, we're an empire now. And when we act, we create our own reality. It circles, go 20 times before you get up for breakfast. It shapes behavior. It shapes action. See, that's the way the world works now. We will act and you'll study us, you little reality based communitarian, patting me on the head and we'll act again and act again and you'll be left to study what we do. We're history's actors, we'll do the important things that need be done.

Ron Suskind:

And I'm like, wow, let me just be very frank with you, advisor who must remain nameless. This person has a guarantee of off the record, not for attribution from me and I will never violate such an important agreement. But I said, other people have believed in this idea of creating reality and they end up in history's dustbin. Let me just say something about this, Jay, is that a big part of what I wrote in the 1% doctrine about the aftermath to 9/11 and what it did to America, is that I looked at the origins of the debate over whether we should even have a CIA or intelligence services. Because we had them during World War II, OSS and whatnot, but there was real debate in 1945 and six and seven as to whether we should have one permanently in a democracy that asked to prize and rely on informed consent and on truth.

Ron Suskind:

And part of that debate ended up with the creation of intelligence services with the 1947 National Security Act. And they say specifically, it is illegal to run disinformation campaigns on the US population. Of course, that's what intelligence services do to foreign adversaries. We do that, we've done that for years as part of their menu. But what we're seeing now is disinformation campaigns run on the US population for political gain. And we're seeing exactly what that looks like and what happens in terms of the havoc that is wrought from that. And that's a big part of what Don't Look Up is about, but it's anti scenes, of course, are right there in Vice in the movie about Bush and Cheney and all the books that I wrote. We're just down the path now, many steps.

Jay Ruderman:

And you've been excellent at finding great sources and working them and getting the truth out there. And we'll get into this a little bit later, but I know you can draw a line between what happened during the Bush administration and what we've gone through and what we're still going through right now in terms of misinformation. But I want to jump back to the film. How were you able to attract such a star study cast like Leonard DiCaprio, Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence, Jonah Hill, just to name a few. What drew them to this film?

Ron Suskind:

Oh, well a whole bunch of things. They started to negotiate with Netflix and go to them in the fall, winter of 2019. DiCaprio was really the first of the big stars that said, yeah, I'm in. He loved the script. He's a big climate change activist and has done documentaries and has been quite forceful and ardent and public and creates contact. He said, I've been waiting for this film for 20 years. Everyone knows the effect that Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary had, but that's 2005, six. That's a long time ago. Leo was looking for a project like this that would go at climate change in a new and powerful way. He's first. Others then, when that happens, say, oh, well, Leo's in, I'll get in there too.

Ron Suskind:

There was an advantage that occurred in that during the negotiations, COVID hit and in their wisdom, the Don't Look Up team thought about creating a way to shoot the movie safely with this expensive, mind you, Netflix remembers paying the bill here, COVID safe environment. And they went right at constructing that or planning how that would be. And so all of a sudden everyone's projects got canceled because of COVID, but Don't Look Up was a safe and insurable place to shoot. And that helped in getting more and more of the stars in the tent. That's my understanding of how that all happened. They looked to each other, they're like, well, Leo's in it, now Jen Lawrence is in it. And then Meryl Streep, Jonah Hill, Tyler Perry, Cate Blanchett, Timothée Chalamet. It's kind of everyone you'd want all together.

Jay Ruderman:

Well, it sounds like a really smart investment for a Netflix since they've done really well and the film has broken all records on Netflix. Talk a little bit about Meryl Streep playing the president. To me it was very obvious who she was playing, but maybe you can give me your insights into that.

Ron Suskind:

Well, I think that there was always an attentiveness in the movie and the writing and the creation of the movie to not fall into partisan traps. So there are a couple clues there that take you away from a left-right axis there. There's a picture of Meryl street, hugging bill Clinton. So people are like, well, it's not necessarily a Republican. This is a model of power and the way it is with power, it'll be repeated until it's shown to be ineffective. And that goes to attitude. It goes to presentation. It goes to how people gain constituencies and rise to power. And so you're not sure what party she is in. She clearly has a lot of Trump features in her mix of character in her arsenal, but it's not exactly Trump. She's Trump-like. I think part of what's interesting is how the movie kind of plays off of, but doesn't own directly, the occurrences of the present day, which is getting more and more difficult to parody because it's becoming so extreme.

Ron Suskind:

And you see that here. She obviously has a family member who is the chief of staff. So again, plays off of the Jared Kushner thing and the Trump family. Meryl Streep owning it and doing lots of brilliant improv. That's another thing about Adam McKay. McKay is a real improv guy. And what he does is, we get the script. Everyone has to play through the script totally. That's part of the contract, actually, is part of what everyone guarantees. So they're going to basically, we're going to film everyone doing exactly what the script offers and then improv.

Ron Suskind:

And then people, they riff, they wing it, they play and exude new things as their characters. And that gets filmed again and again and again. And so by the end of each scene, Adam has got many, many offerings to work with. All on that properly array set of characters trying out lots of different things that he then gets to choose from. It's a little bit like when you write a book. You get zillions of people talking, lots and lots of tape. Often they're talking about the same set of things and you get to pick and choose and fit it together. And that's what Adam gets to do, which he's so, so good at. Some of the best lines in the movie are improv.

Jay Ruderman:

So Adam actually gave you a lot of credit for what he said was his favorite scene in the movie. And I know that there's been press that Timothée Chalamet was reluctant to sign on, but you gave the hook to get him on the movie. And maybe you can talk a little bit about what that was.

Ron Suskind:

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So while Adam and I are in our riffathon during 2019, I was saying to Adam, I said, you got to get a really strong cross border dialogue in this movie. Meaning you're going to have a faith based character that is fully drawn and realized because much of the country is faith based. We've got to have in this movie, the voices that represent the true breadth and diversity of what is now America. Hence the creation of the Timothée Chalamet character. And from that character, I was pressing the idea of the way you can bring God into this, through that character. That's part of why that character is here.

Ron Suskind:

We are our country of believers in our various religions. And I said, if you're going to end the world, you got to get God in there. And that yields that beautiful scene at the end of the movie where, as folks on the right have said and some of the columns that they've written, one of the most fully drawn characters in Don't Look Up is in fact Yule, which is the Timothée Chalamet character. The Christian punk skateboarding guy who enters into a final relationship with Jen Lawrence, who is the big scientist whistle blower on the oncoming comet. And it's a beautiful relationship. And at the end of the movie, when they're all sitting around the table and the earth is right there at its final moments, somebody says, what about a prayer? No one really at the table seems to be anyone who has spent a great deal of time in faith settings. And Timothée Chalamet says, I got this.

Timothée Chalamet:

I got this, I got it.

Ron Suskind:

And offers just a beautiful prayer about us.

Timothée Chalamet:

Dearest father and almighty creator. We ask for your grace tonight, despite our pride. Your forgiveness, despite our doubt.

Ron Suskind:

Which is what prayers are.

Jay Ruderman:

So I love Timothée Chalamet's character. And I thought it was a necessary part to the movie and really added something, as you said. I want to give you a chance to respond to people, some critics, that have said it's too heavy handed. It hits you over the head with climate change, misinformation. What do you say to that? I mean, is that what satire does

Ron Suskind:

Precisely what satire can do that almost nothing else can. Look, we all create any number of barriers, Jay, to hearing things that are discomforting. Denial, rejection, not me, as we all are complex beings and we hate being told that we are not worthy or that we have made grievous errors or that we maybe are not looking at something that is so hard to look at. Satire can get to all of those things because it makes you laugh and it allows you to see the exaggerations and extremists of behaviors that become part of your life norm. And that's being hit over the head, hell, what's wrong with that? That often gets results. It allows us to see ourselves in a mirror.

Ron Suskind:

Look, I've got a lovely little passage that's in my head and I used it at least in one book, where I talk about a moment where my mother was in an early stage of dementia, Alzheimer's but still quite compass. And I sat with her on a particular day and it was kind of all set up where I really was using it as a moment, an opportunity, to her about her end of life wishes and just being straight with her, leveling with her about the fact that she does have Alzheimer's dementia she's on her way down that path. And the discussion was a miserable failure. She just would not engage at all. She looked right through me like I barely was even sitting there. And I was just so frustrated by this. And I talked to a famous psychiatrist, as the father of a best buddy of mine, just a few weeks later.

Ron Suskind:

A guy named Max Putsky, and Max says to me, Ron, Ron, Ron. You're a big truth guy. You even do truth for a living. I said, yeah, yeah, yeah. But he says, let me explain to you, Ron. Respect denial. I said, what? He said, respect denial. And as soon as he said that, the combination of those words, just they seeped into my pores. It's such a beautiful construction. Don't celebrate, don't paint any banners to denial, respect it, though. He says, it's a key part of the human architecture that allows us to get up that next morning when we are in the way of an untenable future of things that we cannot face.

Jay Ruderman:

So powerful. And let's, on that vein of denial, you sort of predicted what was going to happen on January 6th. You had a very powerful op-ed in the New York Times, the end of October, which you had many sources within the Trump administration who were really, really worried about what was going to happen during the election and post-election, which you detailed quite accurately. Can you talk a little bit about how that came about and where we are now?

Ron Suskind:

So I got into a discussion with the New York Times in January, I think it was, of 2020. And the editors said, hey, we understand you don't have a book in the mix. Your old competitor friend, Bob Woodward. I said, no, no, I don't, I'm doing this media thing and I don't have a book going. And they're like, well, would you consider a writing kind of a big signature piece right before the election? Kind of a special event. And I said, yeah, I'll do that. I think it's a consequential moment. It's certainly a year that will go down in history, 2020. I realized what I would need to do for the big piece, which ends up being a big, giant 70,000 words, I'm sure around that amount, which runs on October 30th. The weekend of the election.

Ron Suskind:

So I got in there and I got two dozen plus senior officials of the government. These are senior officials who are at the highest reaches of the administration. What I wanted to do in the piece was to help people understand in a different way of how we got to this moment. A bit of a recasting of the Trump administration of his presidency to help the readers get a sense of what was so different about it that would have an impact on not only the election, but what happens after the election. And that was very, very much the moment which I map in the piece of midway through his presidency when Trump had an aha, which is that the public servants who were working for him. And people, in some cases, who were in senior positions in the White House, if they had a primary loyalty to the constitution, they were not going to do the things that he was needing them to do, plain and simple.

Ron Suskind:

They needed to be, in a central and primary way, loyal to him as an individual and to what he commanded them to do if they were to be people who were appropriate to serve him. That was quite a moment, actually. And you saw any folks who were traditional public servants, who took an oath on the constitution, starting to get excised out of the administration. They were [inaudible 00:27:37] and getting replaced quickly by people who would take a primary oath to Donald Trump and his dictates and his desires. That's who you have at the end of his administration. And what that meant was that he would be able to use the levers of power granted to him by article two in the constitution, in support of his own interest and in support of winning this election, by whatever means were necessary. You see that in his actions in the final months leading up to the election. You also see a map, which I laid out for the readers, of what would happen arguably after the election based on a variety scenarios.

Ron Suskind:

And one of the primary scenarios is Donald Trump loses, but loses by a margin that is narrow enough that he can claim victory and can begin to contest the outcome of the election. And here, as I wrote, is probably the ways he will do that. Now some of that I drew from terrific pieces that were already written. Bart Gelman wrote a great piece at the Atlantic. Bart's an amazing journalist. Others had written too, but I want to step further to say, look at what we have here. We have something that we've not seen in American history. We have an enormous array of Americans, really, an army of folks, who have signed on to personal loyalty to Donald Trump. Whether they're members of the political party is really a secondary issue. Many of the folks in the base that are Trump adherence are really loyal, in a way, to Trump himself.

Ron Suskind:

We haven't really had that in American politics and in the American political array. And they will move based on what his dictates are to them. He will, at some point, activate that army. How big are they? I make various estimates in the piece. But if he is in a position where various legal remedies and attempts to contest the election through the processes of government, both legislative and legal, are exhausted. He will activate that army and that army will move. That's where I predicted what would happen on the sixth and how he would basically claim that the election was stolen and claim and thereby instruct people loyal to him that they would have to basically take it back for him and on his behalf. And that's what we had.

Jay Ruderman:

So you were correct. I think I saw an interview in which you said, there could be as many as 15 million people who fall into that category as loyal to Trump. Trump's still around. He has control of the Republican party. What happens going forward? Are we in for more potential violence, conflict, in your opinion? How does this thing move forward?

Ron Suskind:

Yeah, well that 15 million estimate is based on what I call all concentric circles of folks who are most ardent and some of them willing to engage in violence, groups circled around them who also sign onto that. Now some of the poll show, an incredibly high number of folks who support Donald Trump, who said that if it takes that they will engage in violence or support violence. We are moving into a period, Jay, in which violence or the threat of violence will be a central factor in our self-governance in how we move forward in this unfinished experiment of democracy. What it means for us now is that we are further down a path in which liberal moves to illiberal, moves to autocracy. There are other countries that have taken this path. We feel exceptional in America. We're different, we're human beings trying to govern ourselves.

Ron Suskind:

The founding fathers wouldn't call us exceptional if they were sitting here in their powdered wigs. The reason they created this system is because they understood what people can do to each other and how they are swayed by will to power and how our self interest need to be counteracted against other self interest to form this sort of modest, manageable and hard, wrought set of virtues. That's the Madisonian genius of America. And it's also the genius of the way our democracy was constructed. Well, that democracy has been profoundly compromised and is now facing a real life threat. I think certainly in any of our lifetimes, I would say, for the first time, since the middle of the 19th century. What we're seeing now is a struggle and it's terrifying.

Ron Suskind:

Let's just map it out. January 6th occurs all sorts of things happen in the immediate aftermath. Did Donald Trump and his gang of supporters, of co-conspirators, did they essentially engage in a coup where they plotted it out letter in verse? I think what they're going to find is that Donald Trump and others encouraged it and then capitalized on it and pushed it along on the sixth. But there's no doubt that intent was there to subordinate and flip the Democrat process for Donald Trump to remain in power. So what happens after that? Everyone stands up and says, that's it. I'm out, as Lindsey Graham says. Donald Trump's responsible for this. He's responsible for a grievous crime. There's no crime above this. He basically tried to flip the democracy to stay in power and everybody was square in those first few days. And then the toxin of partisanship, again, started to assert itself.

Ron Suskind:

You see bit by bit the way the desires of will to power. Will we be able to remain in power if we're Republicans? What do we have to do? What are the calculations and rationales will embrace start to take shape. And by the time you get to the impeachment hearing in the middle of February, you have a tiny group of Republicans voted for impeachment. That was the opportunity. There's no doubt about it. That's where the congressional version of rule of law might have actually exercised itself. That would have meant Donald Trump can no longer be the president of the United States. Imagine how different that would be. Let's just think about that. He would have been off the political stage at that point. Now he would have been probably a mischief maker in all sorts of ways and he could have been out there as a king maker supporting someone else to replace him. But he's a unique actor. There's no one else like him on the stage, there really isn't.

Ron Suskind:

No one's going to replace Donald Trump. And he would have been somebody barred from running again to be of the United States, had they acted to convict. And as well, by virtue that conviction, it would have changed the dynamic, in terms of other prosecutions that might have unfolded. That didn't occur. So what do we have? What do we have? We have Trump then moving forward, deepening his hold on the Republican party, really moving down another powerful strategic pathway, where he is going to claim and rightfully claim responsibility for the election of many, many people. There's no doubt about it in this midterm election, his endorsement matters. His base has helped. In some ways they've grown in their art. And almost certainly you are going to have a Republican and Trump dominated Congress intact after 2022 and Donald Trump, if he is alive, he will run. And we will have probably a constitutional crisis in the early days of 2025. That is an American nightmare.

Jay Ruderman:

So it sounds like you're talking about a second civil war.

Ron Suskind:

There certainly is going to be probably years of significant havoc and potentially insurrection and violence on the American and political landscape. How do you allow people to see that this is an oncoming comet due to hit you and your life if you let events unfold, as they have been along the path they are already on. I mean, this is the dilemma.

Jay Ruderman:

I got to ask you, as a journalist, how do you function in an era where there's so much misinformation out there and there are actors that are foreign and domestic that are putting it out there on a minute by minute basis?

Ron Suskind:

Jay, I've been at this since we're young men, my friend. Saying, you can't say that. That's demonstrably false. Lying to the public, using disinformation. There's a reason there were built laws against that, but people got away with it and people grew to distrust government. And to start to default disinformation that looks true, but ain't. Or carried forward by people who claim to be journalists, but are anything but.

Ron Suskind:

Why is it that the press, journalists, are the only profession mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The founders got this. They had no great love for the journalists of their day. James Calendar and other members of the Yellow Press, but they understood that they are kind of a necessary element in the mix, or none of it works. Otherwise, consent of the population is not informed whereby they can make sound judgements. You can see how undermining the fourth estate and journalism and truth has led to havoc.

Jay Ruderman:

Well, there's so much truth there. I want to end with different type of conversation, which was your life. And you wrote about it in your book, Life, Animated. About the personal story of your son, Owen and his diagnosis with autism and how he communicated through Disney movies and Life, Animated became a film. Can you talk about that conversation and how that shaped you and your family and other families?

Ron Suskind:

It's something Cornelia, my wife, and I say to each other is that Owen, our son, who is a late onset autism guy. So he's chatting away at two, two and a half. I love you. Let's get ice cream. Where are my ninja turtles? He has regressive autism. So he regresses dramatically at around two and a half years old. And he loses all speech. And that's about a third of all cases of folks with autism. The regression's very dramatic, in his case. He basically is chatting away a few hundred words of a two and a half year old vocabulary. And then he loses all speech and we're thrown into a place of havoc.

Ron Suskind:

It's like he vanishes, we used to say, we were looking for clues to a kidnapping. Now what happened was he just changed. He changed and went to a different place. A place where we could not engage with him and our life changed. We're still living in the world as it was reconstructed at that moment for us. But something else happened, too, is that we started to change in how Cornelia and I were. We used to say, Owen is our best teacher. We started to see things with more depth, more clarity. What does Owen see? What can Owen feel? What does he feel? What can we learn from him? And we learned a great deal. In the famous twist that everyone now knows, Owen memorized dozens of Disney animated movies. He then created his own language using lyrics and dialogue.

Speaker 5:

What are you doing out of rags? Nevermind. How would you like to have our little boy lost and alone in the jungle?

Ron Suskind:

We learned to speak in Disney dialogue. We learned his language. That's the way we could communicate with him. That's the way, over years, he got speech back and it becomes this extraordinary character in the world that relies on what he can draw from content, especially from movies, to help him grow and learn and connect with others. What occurred there is, it changed me as a journalist, as a writer. I began to see things that I otherwise would miss. I started to look everywhere I could find them for left behind people in America. The most dramatic example of that living in my house, my own son, who was deemed uneducable. Was slated for an institution, according to what many of our specialists would tell us. And it changed me.

Ron Suskind:

And that led to all the work that mostly I get noted for. And from my book, A Hope in the Unseen, about the kid in a blighted inner city, hoping to find a home in America, to all of the books about the nature of truth. Owen would say, I'm different, not less. Though so much of what he encounters in the world, presses him to believe he is less and presses him to accept that. But he will not. And he has convinced others that he is right not to. That defines our life and it's defined my work. And sometimes it has made me ferocious and outraged at what I see in terms of the many, many people who live in the giant discard pile in America. And for what reason? Why is that? How is it that we grow better as a people when we understand that diversity is our strength, that we essentially grow larger through the enormous variety and expression of equality and the justice that flows from that idea of equality.

Jay Ruderman:

Well, Ron, you are in many ways a national treasure and you have changed our society and continue to change our society in so many ways. One takeaway, and I think was Cornelia that said this, that who determines what a meaningful life is. And I think it's such important message for us all to take away because we're all different. We live in a society that judges constantly, but we all have meaningful lives and I think we have to pay attention to that.

Ron Suskind:

Jay, may I just say, thank you for mentioning that the signature concept, your insights into this, of course, are own deeply from your own life. That idea though, who decides what the meaningful life is, that's something Cornelia and I would say to each other, as we were educated, as we learned from living with and through our son. And I think it is a question that as we are confronted with it and answer it, allows us to see, all lives are lives of meaning.

Ron Suskind:

And the way we often judge meaning is something that is, in many cases, put upon us by the society or by the circumstances of life in the country in which we live. And there is a deeper understanding who decides with the meaningful life as each of us do and each life has meaning. The key is to discover it. And if you happen to be in a line of work like me, to Trump, but the way meaning lives in people's lives far wide. So I love doing that. I love doing it here in the show with you. That's kind of what we've been talking about from the beginning of our time together.

Jay Ruderman:

Thank you so much. And Ron, may you go from strength to strength. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1:

All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to RudermanFoundation.Org/AllInclusive. Have an idea for a podcast? Be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman: Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice.

Geena Davis is an Academy Award-winning actor and activist, who’s best known for her groundbreaking roles in the 1990s films, Thelma and Louise, and A League of Their Own. For the next three decades, she would go on to further establish herself as a feminist icon playing the first female president of the United States in ABC’s hit show, Commander in Chief, and nearly making it to the Olympics at 41 years old as an archer.

Today, Geena Davis has taken on a different type of role fighting for gender equality and representation in Hollywood. In 2004, she founded the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. For the past 17 years, the Institute has worked collaboratively with the entertainment industry to dramatically increase the presence of female characters and other underrepresented groups in media. Geena, it’s a pleasure to welcome you to All Inclusive.

Geena Davis: Thank You, Jay. I’m happy to be here.

Jay Ruderman: Geena, you’ve been such a successful actress. At which point in your career did you realize that there was a problem in gender equity in the business?

Geena Davis: I think it was when Thelma and Louise came out. I mean, look, I knew that there were fewer parts for women than men, just in general. I mean, it’s so obvious. I knew that, but when it became clear that it was a big problem was the reaction that women had to Thelma and Louise when they ran into me and it was different than anything before. Somebody might say, “Hey, I liked Beetlejuice,” or whatever, but now if it was from Thelma and Louise, they recognized me, they were like, “Oh my God, I have to tell you what this movie meant to me. This is how it changed my life. How many times I saw it. My friend and I acted out your trip.” And I was always like, “Hmm, which part?”

But it made me realize that we give women so few opportunities to come out of a movie having identified with a female character and feeling inspired by a female character. That’s when I decided that I was going to keep that in mind for every decision I made about what roles to play, like what are the women in the audience going to think about this character?

Jay Ruderman: You landed, early in your career, two very iconic roles where the women were out there out front, both in Thelma and Louise and A League of Their Own. How were you able to land those roles so early in your career?

Geena Davis: I know. For a little while I thought I was hogging all the good parts. Thelma and Louise, I waged a year-long campaign to get in that movie. By the time I read the script, it had already been cast. Well, I had my manager. He was just going to produce it at that time. Called Ridley Scott’s office once a week to say, “Geena’s still interested, Geena’s still interested if anything happens and,” blah, blah, blah. There were three sets of Thelma and Louise before it was Susan and I. All these different iterations over the course of a year and then finally Ridley decided, “You know what? I’m just going to direct this myself.” And because I’ve been so persistent, I guess, he took a meeting with me and I convinced him at that meeting.

I was actually lobbying for the part of Louise. And when he said, “You mean you wouldn’t play Thelma?” I immediately switched to Thelma and started pitching why I absolutely had to be Thelma.

Jay Ruderman: Obviously these roles transform the way people see women in film. What did Thelma and Louise and A League Of Their Own teach you about the impact these kinds of roles can have on women in society? And how did it shape your identity as a woman in the business?

Geena Davis: I’ll tell you what, the biggest impact on my life was Susan Sarandon, working with her. Because, unbelievably, I had never met a woman who was like her. And what I mean is, she spoke what she thought and she didn’t put… I don’t know if you think this is a stupid idea. And that was my life, trying to be as inoffensive and nice as possible. And it was like every day was a lesson from her about how to operate in the world.

I mean, everybody loved her. Everybody respected her utterly, but she didn’t feel compelled to not state her opinion. I know it might sound strange, but I’d never seen that before. And it truly changed my life.

Jay Ruderman: Well, the chemistry you have with Susan Sarandon is amazing and one of the many reasons it’s a classic. But you’ve also acted next to other greats, like Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, and Bill Hurt in The Accidental Tourist.

Geena Davis: Yes.

Jay Ruderman: What do you take away from these experiences and do you keep in touch with any of them?

Geena Davis: Right. Let’s see. Oh, and include Jeff Goldblum in that, because he was brilliant in The Fly.

Jay Ruderman: Of course.

Geena Davis: Yeah. So, I’m not really in touch with, like in close friendship with any of my past actor friends, women, or men, but we had incredibly friendly relationships and they were fantastic. I mean, each of those people you mentioned were unbelievably supportive and generous and just a pleasure to work with.

Jay Ruderman: I’m glad you were surrounded by so many supportive relationships, especially so early in your career, which leads me to the next question. What was it like to win an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress so early on?

Geena Davis: That was crazy. I mean, I couldn’t believe it, that I got nominated and then to win and I’ll tell you what my reaction was. I was like, “Well, got that out of the way.”

Jay Ruderman: It was a great accomplishment.

Geena Davis: Doesn’t really matter what else happens because I did get that out of the way.

Jay Ruderman: Let’s go back to before you won the Academy Award. Who were the female role models you looked up to?

Geena Davis: I think my aunt, my aunt Gloria was my biggest role model. I mean, my folks, all of my family on both sides were from Vermont and very unexposed to show business. And I mean, I think my parents would’ve been Amish if they’d heard of it. But my Aunt Gloria was completely different. She had a career, she was divorced. She drank, she smoked cigarettes. I was just in awe of her. She clothed and all that. And she took me to my first play. And she’d say things like, “When you grow up, we should go scuba diving off the coast of Portugal.” And I was like, “What planet is this person from?” But that had a huge impact on me. When I pictured myself as an adult I always pictured her.

Jay Ruderman: So it sounds like you were always attracted to strong women.

Geena Davis: Yes, absolutely.

Jay Ruderman: Did you always know? I mean, you and I both grew up in Massachusetts and I know you went to Boston University. Did you always know that you wanted to be an actress?

Geena Davis: I did. In fact, I don’t remember this, but my parents told me that when I was three, I announced that I wanted to be in movies. I don’t know what I saw that even made me think that was a profession, but it never wavered. And when it came time to go to college, I wanted to major in acting. And I asked my music teacher in high school, “Where do people go if they want to be an actor?” And he very confidently said, “Oh, Boston University,” so that’s where I went.

Jay Ruderman: Well, your music teacher was right. Boston University is a great place to go to study the arts. Okay. So now I want to talk about authenticity because you wrote in an op-ed that when you see someone like yourself on-screen doing interesting and important things, you get the message. If someone like me, I must matter. And Octavia Spencer did a PSA for us on disability in film and television and one of the lines that she said is that when she was growing up, seeing the Jeffersons, it was the first time she’d seen someone like her on TV and it had such an emotional impact on her. So can you talk a little bit about what you wrote and why you think authentic representation matters?

Geena Davis: Well, it absolutely does. And I mean, so many celebrities… I’ve read articles or heard them speak about that very thing that they saw someone like them on screen and it made them realize, “Oh, wait a minute. I can do that too.” My Institute actually has done research on the impact of professions on people. And we studied...to study specifically the impact of the Dana Scully character. And so we did, and we found out that I think it was 58% of women in STEM careers cited specifically her as the reason that they went into that field. And that’s one word on one show… You can find that everywhere. It’s really incredible. That’s why our motto is, “If they can see it, they can be it.” I fully a hundred percent believe if it happens on screen, it can happen in real life.

Jay Ruderman: That’s amazing and shows the impact and power of representation on screen. You’ve also spoken out about age and you’ve been quoted as saying when you turned 40, that up until that point, you were making a movie a year and then the roles stopped coming.

Geena Davis: Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: Why do you think that was?

Geena Davis: Well before I was even in the business, I had heard that women after 40 in Hollywood have real trouble getting jobs. And when I was starting out, that was a phase when Meryl Streep and Glen Close and Jessica Lang and Sally Field were all getting nominated for Oscars every year, these big starring women movies and I thought, “Well, they’re going to fix it. It’s not going to happen to them when they turn 40.” Or then I started thinking, “Well, it’s not going to happen to me. I’m getting all these incredible roles. So I’ll be an exception if it’s still the rule.” And then I profoundly was not the exception and they didn’t fix it. It’s still a huge problem.

Jay Ruderman: I find that to be really disturbing on one hand, but surprising because I believe that people want to see authenticity in film. If someone has a disability, they want to see someone with a disability. If there is an older character, they want to see an older person. Why does Hollywood skew towards younger people all the time, especially with roles for women?

Geena Davis: I think that happened when the era of the blockbusters came along and Hollywood realized that they should cater to the teenage boy segment of the public. And so that’s what they started doing. It became very focused on younger males as the audience. And there was also this belief, which is still held by many, many people in the industry that women will watch anything, but men won’t watch women. So you have to make everything about men because otherwise men won’t watch it. And it’s been proven over and over again in recent history that men will go in droves to movies starring women, if it’s a great character. So I think that’s what really narrowed the window.

Jay Ruderman: And what about from men? I mean, we still see Clint Eastwood making movies and other actors who are older. So is it different for men than for women?

Geena Davis: It is slightly different. So the population of characters that are over 50 in films is 20%. Only a quarter of that is women over 50. Now you’re not even talking about 70 and 80-year-olds. We’re just talking about over 50. So that I believe comes out to 5% of the characters on screen are female.

Jay Ruderman: We need to change that.

Geena Davis: Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: One step you took towards changing that in 2004, you founded the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. What was the impetus for starting that? And what is the mission of the Institute?

Geena Davis: Right. So it was one very specific thing that happened. I had my kids later in life, in my forties and when my daughter was about two, I decided to start showing her little kids stuff, preschool shows and whatever, and G-rated videos and things. And the first thing we sat down to watch in about five minutes, I think, because I had this heightened spidey sense about how women are portrayed on screen, I noticed immediately that there were far more male characters than female characters and something aimed at three-year-olds and I couldn’t believe it. And then I started noticing it everywhere, in the movies that we were watching and I didn’t intend to start an Institute right then, but I was alarmed because the immediate thing I thought was, “We’re training kids from minute one to have gender bias by showing these wildly unbalanced worlds to them.”

So I started just asking people I had meetings within the industry, if they noticed, “Have you ever noticed how few female characters there are in movies for kids?” And every single… I’m talking about dozens and dozens of people, every single person said, “Oh, no, no, no, that’s not true anymore. That’s been fixed.” And they would often say, “We fixed it, my company, my studio,” whatever. So then I thought, “Okay, it seems impossible that no one notices,” even people making these things don’t notice what I think I see. So what I’m going to do is get the numbers and then go directly to the creators and share it with them and see if once they know, if that will make a difference. That was my plan.

Jay Ruderman: And you’ve had success because you’re showing them statistics. So you’re showing them the numbers. And how are people in the studios reacting when faced with numbers?

Geena Davis: Right. So I didn’t know how they were going to react. And the first meeting we took was with Disney and we weren’t singling Disney out. Every studio was doing exactly the same and I went to Disney. They were very kind and gathered a whole lot of people. And once they heard the research, their jaws were on the ground. They were stunned. The head of casting for the studio said, “Every movie we make my staff and I go through and see which characters could become black or which could become Hispanic or Asian or whatever. And we never once have thought, ‘Could any of these characters become female?'” And it was like that all around the table. And I have to say, Disney has responded the strongest to all of this. We are very, very embedded in Disney, but that first meeting, it’s been the same at every meeting that we’ve taken when people hear it for the first time, they are stunned.

And so I think I stumbled on the magic key to changing what happens on children’s onscreen TV and movies, which is, people who make these entertainments love kids, they want to do right by kids. And so when they hear that they’re not, they want to change and do better. And so pretty much universally people have responded and are changing.

Jay Ruderman: What were some of the statistics that you uncovered that surprised you the most?

Geena Davis: Well, when we first started out with the first study we did showed that only 11% of lead characters in  kids movie and TV were female, only 11%. And our most recent study showed that we have achieved parody in both TV and movies, as far as genders of characters. So that’s been pretty great.

Jay Ruderman: So, 17 years later you’ve changed the industry and you’re going to affect the lives of children as they grow up from here on out. So that must feel pretty gratifying.

Geena Davis: I’m very happy that we reached two of our goals, which is, the main characters, but as you well know, there’s so many other segments of the population who are not represented on screen. And we are working on all of those. I think we’re the only media research company that focuses on six characteristics, gender, gender, identity, age, race, and ethnicity, ability and body type. So yeah, we’re really trying to change all of that. We’ve made some progress. People of color are now 38% of the characters in movies and they’re 40% of the population. So, we’re getting pretty close, but there’re certain segments of that that are not represented well. I mean, you know all this.

Jay Ruderman: Yes I do. And we’re working on it too for more authentic disability representation. I recently saw a documentary that you were involved in called, This Changes Everything, which is amazing and I would recommend everyone watch it. And I wanted to use that documentary to talk to you about your activism. Do you feel it more effective to be an activist inside the room in the studios or an activist on the outside, speaking to the media and drawing attention to what’s missing in the industry?

Geena Davis: Well, I think there’re powerful rules for both inside and outside. It can be very effective. We have exclusively been in the room because I felt like I’m in the industry, I have access to all of these people, why not go directly to the creators and get them to change what they’re creating rather than educating the populace? I mean, the populist will benefit if we can make changes by impacting the creators. So we have exclusively done that. There’s no shaming and blaming. We’d never put down movies or companies or anything. It’s only about encouraging them and working very collegially with them.

Jay Ruderman: So there’s a couple quotes I wanted to give you from towards the end of the documentary. One, an executive in the industry says, “It can only be done if the CEO is totally bought into it.” And Meryl Streep goes on to say, “Progress will only happen when men take a stand. It’s the chivalry of the 21st century.” What do you think of that?

Geena Davis: Well, I do believe that the person at the top sets the tone. Bob [Agawy] was very outspoken about women and did a lot for women. It’s the environment of a production company or a studio or whatever, network, TV show, if the person at the top cares about it. And as was implied in those quotes, men are often the person at the top of these pyramids. And so they need to become aware of it and look, like I found, most people are not aware of this stuff. They just simply are not aware of it. They’re shocked to find out because now we do analyses on how we’ve done over the past five years and we can do that and they’re stunned because they think they’re doing well. And then they’re not.

Jay Ruderman: But there was the example of the executive at FX where he was shown that 89% of their directors were men. And they flipped that around. So 49% a few years later were men and FX did it. It’s usually men are in these roles. Does it take someone to say, “Oh, I realize the mistake that we’ve made and I’m going to make sure that change happens.” And what happens if someone at the top just says, “All right, I hear what you’re saying, but it’s going to take us a long time,” change doesn’t happen. What do you do at that point?

Geena Davis: Yeah, absolutely. That’s the big question, but yes, it like John Landgraf, if the person at the top decides we’re going change, look how fast he did that. It was incredible because the talented female directors are out there. People are just used to hiring their white friends, male friends. So the change can be dramatic and happen instantly. That’s what I say is that there’s one area of inequality in our society that can be changed absolutely overnight. And it’s in media. The very next movie somebody makes or show or whatever can be completely different. So well, you have to just keep working on people who are resistant to embracing change. And that’s where activists and people from the outside protesting and demanding that these people do better is very effective because the fact is that as far as female directors go, which are still in the single digits in films, everybody knows and has known for decades, the percentage.

So me or anybody going to the studio and saying, “Do you realize that you only have 7% female directors?” is pointless. We already know that, therefore, it has to be some other motivation. And I think that’s where activists could really come in.

Jay Ruderman: So it’s a combination of you working inside the room because of the great statistics that you have to present and your connections in the industry and people outside the room saying, “Hey, we want to see more authentic representation. We want more female directors, more female lead roles and you think it’s a combination of both.

Geena Davis: I really do. And I think it’s the difference between conscious bias and unconscious bias. I found in the case of on screen representation is very often unconscious bias, that if I see a movie that’s really imbalanced, I always feel like, “Oh, if I could have only talked to them first they would’ve instantly changed this.” But I believe that behind the camera is conscious bias, I have to say, because they’re aware of the statistics and they do nothing, except some people do. Disney, now they may have reached 50% female directors. They’re very close to it, at least. Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: So you see some change happening there, but not enough?

Geena Davis: No.

Jay Ruderman: Not happening fast enough?

Geena Davis: No, no, not enough. It’s fantastic if Disney does it and FX does it, but everybody else needs to do it.

Jay Ruderman: Let’s go back and talk about, have things improved for actresses past the age of 40?

Geena Davis: No, they have not. It has not improved according to our statistics. I mean, the number I quoted to you 5% is for over 50, but 40… We should do one for specifically over 40, because that was the benchmark of when the change happens. And it certainly proved to be the case in my career.

Jay Ruderman: How does that change? Because if you look at society, I mean, obviously, you’re like everyone else living in society, walking around, there’s people of all different ages, body shapes, races, nationalities, abilities, how does it change? How do you change an industry that’s used to showing things one way that’s not based on reality and get them to change? I mean, you did it for children’s programming in film and television. How do we take it to the next step?

Geena Davis: Frankly, I think the more we can change what’s on screen, the more it will happen in real life. And like I said, that really applies to occupations as well. And the more we can normalize seeing women in positions of authority and power and competence, it will change society. And the more we see people with different abilities on screen, the more we’ll realize, “Oh, they’re part of society, normal, whatever, absolutely same as you.” If on screen reflected the population, which shouldn’t be an extraordinary request, right, just reflect the population as it is, if we did that, it would be such a dramatic change in our culture.

Jay Ruderman: Right. We’ve talked a lot about female directors, actors. What about the other people who are part of the industry, people behind the scenes, the writers, the show runners, everyone that it takes to make a film happen, do you see any change in those roles?

Geena Davis: Right. Well, one glaring example is female cinematographers. It’s like 2% or something. It’s ridiculous. But as far as female writers, producers and show runners, TV is doing a much better job than film. And also specifically streaming companies are doing better than broadcast networks. So there are pockets of actually very, very positive and encouraging change.

Jay Ruderman: And do you feel that’s because TV happens so much faster and streaming puts out so much more content and films take longer to produce? Is that why we’re seeing more content out there in these mediums?

Geena Davis: I think so. I think that’s part of the reason why, but it’s often perplexing to me because if you have a studio that also has a TV division and the TV numbers are far different than the film numbers, it’s like, “How is that happening?” And that’s because somebody at the top is not saying all of us have to do the same. So I find that weird that nobody thinks of that.

Jay Ruderman: And you’ve done obviously, been very successful in film, but also in television. Do you have a preference of where you like to act?
‍

Geena Davis: No, I love both. I really love both. Before I got cast in Commander in Chief, I had very actively told my agents, I’d never want to do an hour long TV show because everybody says it’s the worst lifestyle in Hollywood. And then I was offered that part. And I was like, “When do I start?” Because what could be more iconic than the first female president, but I loved it. I absolutely loved it. I love TV. I really, really want to do another series. There’s definitely more opportunities, especially for older female actors in television. We see lots of shows headed by people over 50 or over 40.

Jay Ruderman: I think I remember reading you being disappointed that some television can be very successful, but can be canceled and it’s gone unlike a film, which is once it’s done, it’s out there. Can you talk about that?

Geena Davis: Oh, I have to say the biggest disappointment of my life was Commander in Chief being canceled because it was the number one new show, all this acclaim, fabulous reviews. And just from internal politics, it wasn’t to do with anything but internal politics. It ended up getting canceled and I grieved that for years. I just couldn’t give up. I tried getting somebody else to do it, switch it over to another network or something. But yeah, it’s tough. I mean, I shouldn’t feel like that because if I did a movie, it would be over and done. And I shouldn’t expect to keep playing that character. But something about the nature of TV makes you value it based on how long it goes on.

Jay Ruderman: Well, if streaming was around then maybe it would’ve been saved. I want to talk a little bit about independent film and you co-founded the Bentonville Film Festival. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of independent filmmaking and why is this festival different than others that are out there?

Geena Davis: Well, this festival was founded on the idea of projects that reflect the population, gender balanced, and in all the different categories. That’s our only focus. A lot of film festivals have added a division or a part of the program or whatever, or really upped their percentage of films directed by women or people of color and all that. But that’s all we do. You have to meet our criteria to be in the festival. And a lot of those films that are direct by underrepresented communities are independent movies, but our aim actually is to make it mainstream across everything that a focus on diversity and inclusion should be part of mainstream entertainments as well. And so we’re showing these movies as examples of great films that show the quality you can get if you have these criteria.

Jay Ruderman: So is Hollywood paying attention to these independent film festivals and underrepresented communities having larger roles in independent film?

Geena Davis: I think every major studio has a presence at our film festival. And I mean, it’s a small festival still. It’s just still only six years old. But I feel like we are having an impact. We have very close relationship with all the major studios and between my Institute and the film festival, I feel like they really are getting the message and hopefully acting on it.

Jay Ruderman: That’s awesome. Next year is going to mark the 30th anniversary of A League of Their Own and it was one of the most successful films about sports that was ever made. Why do you think three decades later sports films are dominated by men?

Geena Davis: And also this year is the 30th anniversary of Thelma and Louise. I did those two movies back to back. I couldn’t believe it.

Jay Ruderman: Wow. That was quite a year.

Geena Davis: Yeah. So what happened with both of those was the press predicted… That’s why the documentaries called This Changes Everything predicted that first Thelma and Louise would change everything. Now we’re going to see so many more movies with women in the leads and blah, blah, blah. And then when A League of Their Own came out, all the press was about now we’re going to see so many. Now that it’s been proven beyond a doubt that a female sports movie can be a giant blockbuster, we’re going to see so many more and crickets. There weren’t more. I think the next female sports movie to come out was Bend It Like Beckham ,10 years later, which wasn’t even an American production, but it didn’t happen.

And then maybe five or seven or whatever years later, a movie comes out with an all female cast or something. “Oh, okay. This one is now changing everything.” And it doesn’t. And I remember when Hunger Games came out, everybody said, “This changed everything.” Now there’s a teenage star and then all that, but it doesn’t happen. And I think it’s just entrenched beliefs. I think there’s an entrenched belief that in general men don’t like movies starring women. So we just don’t want to take a risk. It could fail. And it’s not the case. I think it was maybe 2018, movies starring women made more money at the box office than movies starring men and movies with a mixed cast of men and women in color are the most successful movies. But people don’t bother believing that. They just keep doing what they think is right, because it was put in their heads.

Jay Ruderman: In A League of Their Own, you acted next to some great actors like Rosie O’Donnell, Tom Hanks, Madonna. What are some of your favorite memories of making that movie?

Geena Davis: Gosh, well, one of the best was, I mean, Tom is the greatest human being on earth. I love him and we all did, but one of the best things was having all those women. We had a female director and having all those women and bonding and everything, but I’ll tell you something interesting. When reporters would come to the set to interview me, every single one asked, “So is there a lot of cat fighting with [inaudible] all you women?” [inaudible] No. It was just interesting that all they could think of to ask about having a female cast was, “Do we cat fight with each other?”

Jay Ruderman: Wow. It’s ridiculous that in a movie all about powerful women, a reporter would ask about cat fights. In Thelma and Louise you also said it’s the 30th anniversary. I think that was Brad Pitt’s first major role.

Geena Davis: Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: What was it like working with him at such a young age?

Geena Davis: He was so incredible. I was there for his audition and he just nailed it. And so, I mean, Susan and I, everybody knew this guy is really going to be a huge star because, so charismatic and talented, it just had that it factor, and he was so sweet and shy and aw, shucks. He’s from the south and we just loved him.

Jay Ruderman: That’s great. I know you talked about the reaction that you got after playing Thelma, after playing Dottie in A League of Their Own. What type of reaction did you get from young girls and women?

Geena Davis: It’s virtually the same now as when the movie came out, the number of people who recognize me from that movie and the vast majority, I would say of people who stopped me want to say, “I play sports because of that movie.” So I think it had an incredible impact and not just baseball. I mean, any sport, soccer, whatever they took it up because they saw a movie about women playing sports. So it’s been profound in my life and I love having teenaged girls recognize me. [inaudible]

Jay Ruderman: So speaking of sports, I was impressed to learn that you almost went to the Olympics at age 41 for archery. How did you decide to take up archery at that age? And how did you become one of the best in the country?

Geena Davis: Well, it’s a little strange the story, but I had to learn sports for a bunch of different movies. Baseball was the first one, but then I had to learn horseback riding and ice skating and all this different stuff. And I was good at all of them. And invariably, the coaches would say, “You have some real talent,” and somebody who said that was the person training me in pistol shooting. He said, “You could compete in this if you really took it up.” I thought, “Wow, compete in a sport? Oh my God.” And then I saw the Atlanta Olympics on TV and it was heavy coverage of the American men’s archery team. And I got a really good look at that and I thought, “Wow, that is so beautiful and dramatic and it’s kind of a weapon. I wonder if I’d be good at that?”

But I was 41 and I found the best coach I could find and who actually taught Olympians. He says, I asked him at the first lesson, “How old is too old to be in the Olympics in archery?” And I said, “I’m sure that’s not true.” It had to be at least a second lesson, but see, I always take everything too far. So anyway, I did. I took it way too far, became obsessed, practicing hours and hours a day and two and a half years later, I was a semi-finalist in the Olympic trials, not a finalist and not on the team, but a semi-finalist.

Jay Ruderman: That’s amazing. It shows you how hard you work at whatever craft you’re involved in.

Geena Davis: Exactly.

Jay Ruderman: And it’s funny because I know you’ve talked about growing up in Wareham, Massachusetts and being very tall but not playing basketball.

Geena Davis: Right. Right.

Jay Ruderman: So I guess at an early age, you were not into athletics?

Geena Davis: No, no. I was much too shy and self conscious. I didn’t want people to look at me because I was so tall and just not confident in my physical abilities. And so even though they desperately wanted me on the basketball team, I wouldn’t do it. I couldn’t bear having people watch me if I failed.

Jay Ruderman: Wow. That’s quite a statement and then someone who later became a world famous actress.

Geena Davis: Right.

Jay Ruderman: And has everyone in the world watching her.

Geena Davis: Yeah, exactly. How does it happen? And a lot of actors are actually shy in real life and it’s like, how does that happen? But I think it’s because you get to be somebody else. I think I wanted to break out and be somebody else.

Jay Ruderman: So Geena, I want to talk to you a little bit about mental health because there’s been a lot of sports figures, actors, celebrities, who’ve been outspoken about mental health. And I think that there’s, in my view, something about fame that puts a lot of pressure. Women in Hollywood are constantly being criticized for their looks, their opinions, their personal lives. How do you deal with it? And how do you prioritize and protect your mental health?

Geena Davis: ’ve made a habit of believing the good press and totally discarding the bad press. I somehow have created the ability to do that. So I read reviews or whatever. I’m not worried about it because I know that I’ll just [inaudible] what do they know? But it is hard on you and it’s very stressful. I have pretty severe bouts of depression at various times, either from getting canceled on TV or not working or not getting parts. So it’s challenging. It’s challenging. And I have ADD which is challenging in a whole different way. It’s tough. It’s tough. That’s part of what I loved about archery is points. It’s not anybody’s opinion about you. It doesn’t matter how you look, what you wear or anything. You either hit the bullseye or you don’t. And this was a whole new chapter in my life where things could be measured. I think I must love statistics and numbers or something because your success can be measured in numbers.

Jay Ruderman: My son has ADD and sometimes people with ADD will describe it as a superpower that it allows them to focus so intensely in what they’re doing and to be so successful. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard that, but, or experience that.

Geena Davis: Yeah. Oh, I believe it. Yeah. I think that is a characteristic of us. It’s so hard to focus, but then when something makes the gears connect, you are obsessed with it and you could really do it. It’s like my therapist described it as like lions lay around 90% of the time, just sleep in line down and then something goes and they go, “What’s that?” [inaudible] They are a hundred percent focused and I think that’s what it’s like.

Jay Ruderman: I like that metaphor. And it’s a good way of looking at things. Geena, you’re so smart and talented. Do you have any plans to write or direct in the future?

Geena Davis: No, I don’t want to direct. I’ve decided that I don’t want that job. It’s just too big of a job. I like my job and writing, I wish… I can’t tell you how much I wish I could write things for myself, write Rocky, like Sylvester Stallone did for himself, but I can’t. I can’t focus on it enough to be able to actually complete a script. It’s just not the type of… Sitting down for a little bit of time every day or whatever. I can’t do that. I don’t seem to be able to do it.

Jay Ruderman: So what about acting? What’s in your future? I mean, I know you’re still acting and still getting parts. What do you see coming down the road?

Geena Davis: Yeah. I mean, I’m an actor. That’s what I love and what I want to do. And that’s my jam and I’m attached right now. Obviously COVID put a big dent in everything. I’m attached to incredible scripts for… There would be independent movies, but there’s all that business about financing and a lot of different moving parts. But I hope that both of those can go someday because as we know, the chances of a really great part like I’ve played in the past, coming along is slim. They get Meryl Streep.

Jay Ruderman: Well, I’m sure you have many, many, many fans and I’d love to see you back on the screen again in many different things.

Geena Davis: Thank you.

Jay Ruderman: Who do you see as the next generation of Hollywood leaders who are following in your footsteps?

Geena Davis: Gosh, there’s so many. Reese Witherspoon and Natalie Portman and Jennifer Lawrence, Mindy Kaling, there’s Jessica Chastain. These are powerful and empowered women and really making strides and producing things for themselves and really getting a big foothold in Hollywood. So I think there’s any number of young actresses who are really… Shaline Woodley has also talked to me and they’re very passionate about women in Hollywood.

Jay Ruderman: And do they reach out to you for advice?

Geena Davis: I haven’t had any of them reach out to me for advice, but I have had many of them, most of them say that they love what I’m doing and they’re grateful.

Jay Ruderman: That’s excellent.

Geena Davis: Which is nice.

Jay Ruderman: I saw an interview where you said on your tombstone you wanted to say, “I wish I’d spent more time at work.”

Geena Davis: Right.

Jay Ruderman: Most people would say, “I wish I had worked less,” but you want to spend even more time working. What do you want your legacy to be in the industry?

Geena Davis: There’s a country song that says, “Have you ever seen a headstone with the words, ‘I wish I’d spent more time at work?'” And I was like, “Well, I’ll do it then if you haven’t seen it, I’ll do it.” I wish that I had been able to work more, but legacy, I don’t know. I don’t even really care so much that people know that I’m doing this stuff with media and onscreen. As long as we just to get the job done, that’s all I care about as far as that goes. But I don’t know. I guess I just would like people to think, “Wow, she was in some great movies,” and not just ones that happened 30 years ago.

Jay Ruderman: Well, you have been, and I’m sure you’ll be in other things that will be great. And you’ve had a tremendous impact on the industry and not only changed the industry, but I’m sure it changed our country and the world because of your activism, so.

Geena Davis: Wow.

Jay Ruderman: I’m so honored that you spent some time with me and I wish you all the best going forward.

Geena Davis: Thank you, Jay. And I’m a big fan of all that you do as well. It’s been a pleasure talking to you.

Jay Ruderman: Thank you so much.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify and [inaudible]. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to Rudermanfoundation.org/AllInclusive. Have an idea for a podcast? Be sure to tweet @JRuderman.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman: Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. RJ Mitte skyrocketed to fame at the age of 13, when he landed the role of Bryan Cranston's son, Walter White, Jr., or Flynn on the hit show, Breaking Bad. Like his character, RJ also has cerebral palsy, which he was diagnosed was with at the age of three. However, that has never deterred his drive to carve out his own unique path in Hollywood.

Since Breaking Bad ended in 2013, RJ has starred in over 20 films in TV shows, modeled for The Gap, and was a presenter for 2016 Rio Para Olympic Games. In his most recent film, Triumph, RJ plays real-life inspiration, Mike Coffey, a determined high school senior who strives to be a wrestler, despite having cerebral palsy. Throughout his career, RJ has used his platform to help remove the stigma associated disabilities and advocate for more inclusion in Hollywood. RJ, it's a pleasure to welcome you to All Inclusive.

RJ Mitte: Oh, it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you all so much for making time for me. And I'm very excited to be a part of this.

Jay Ruderman: So RJ, you were in one of the most celebrated shows on television, Breaking Bad. And you played Bryan Cranston's son who has cerebral palsy.

RJ Mitte: Yes.

Jay Ruderman: How did you end up landing the role of Walt Jr.?

RJ Mitte: Like any audition or role I went in, I went in for it, and at the time I was living in Los Angeles. I was working as an extra on shows like Hannah Montana, and Everybody Hates Chris, and Weeds and Seventh Heaven as an extra. And if you move to Los Angeles you and you don't join a gang, you don't act, and you don't go to school, you don't really have any business there. So I was acting to meet kids my own age and make some money. And my manager called me and went like, Hey, they're looking for someone. We really think it fits you.

And the breakdown said, dark hair, big eyebrows and mild cerebral palsy. And I'm like, that's me, and went in. Apparently they loved me, so they hired me. I auditioned four times in Los Angeles and then one day they said, all right, well, we're going to fly you into New Mexico, because we're already there. They already started filming Michelle with the pilot episode. I was 13 turning 14. This was 2005, went down there, and it came down to me and one other individual, and went in, read for Vince and read for everyone.

And then came back 30 minutes later and did a screen test with Bryan and Anna for a scene. And about another hour later, I got the call from Vince and said, Hey, RJ, you got the role. Congratulations. We're very excited for you to be part of it. And pretty much was like, Hey, so you need to head back to LA and come back because we're already filming.

Jay Ruderman: So it was really quick from being chosen for the role to jumping into the pilot. That happened really, really fast. So the show was awesome. And your character, you were great in it. You said you were 13 years old.

RJ Mitte: Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: You moved to LA. Did you want to be an actor? I think I read that your sister was also interested in acting?

RJ Mitte: Yeah. So the way that I got brought into the industry was my sister at the time who was one. And agent saw her at a Waterpark and this agent was like, oh, I cast this and I do this, but initially my role now is casting director. And I'm in the middle of a project and I'm looking at a bunch of redhead babies at the time, doing it for a Lucille Ball campaign at Universal. And again, we're at a Waterpark in Texas, and she's like, here's my information, they exchanged. I really would like to audition her and see her in LA.

And a few weeks later we got a call saying that they wanted to use her for the campaign and, please come to Los Angeles and we'll put up your room and board. And we all went as a family, me, my mom, my sister, and went out there for that. But that's again, why I started acting because I didn't really know anyone. I didn't really have a job or have friends. And that was the way that I got my friends and work and thing is, is just start acting and it just turned into a career for me.

Jay Ruderman: So I understand that Vince Gilligan, who was the creator of Breaking Bad, was looking to cast an actor with disabilities.

RJ Mitte: Correct.

Jay Ruderman: But maybe you could talk about before you got Breaking Bad, what was your experience walking into auditions as someone with cerebral palsy, and what were the reactions you were getting in the industry?

RJ Mitte: I was very lucky that I got a lot of occupational therapy, my physiotherapy and all the other therapies along the way at a very early age. And so I really didn't have too many, that I saw, physical limitations. But I didn't really, in the beginning stages, tell people I had cerebral palsy, and now the society's a little bit different. But I'd go in and they would look at me a little funny. And I would eventually though, at the end of my audition, be like, oh, by the way, I have cerebral palsy. I never used, or had my disability to me be a negative.

It only, for me, added to my characters and amplified what I was doing. And I never really thought about it at the time. And I would just go in and do my best and walk out of the room and I'd be like, that's what I did. That's what I could do, and hopefully they liked it. And so sometimes it would be viewed as a positive and sometimes it would be viewed as a negative. Again, this is 2004, 2005 and disability was viewed very differently then, and it's still is viewed differently in some circles. But for the most part, I only got positivity out of it, never really had too much of the negative.

Jay Ruderman: So in retrospect, does it seem to you now that Vince Gilligan really was sort of ahead of his time in wanting to authentically cast the role?

RJ Mitte: Yeah. I think there's a lot of people, and I think there still is a lot of people that want to authentically cast their characters and bring their characters into a more real setting. I think there's a lot of still kickback on that. Still a lot of people that are like, no, no, no, we want to fit the check boxes. We want to feel what we know works. Vince had great insight when it came to disability, specifically cerebral palsy, is that he grew up with someone... He had a friend in college who had CP, and that's why actually he based my character off of him. And he passed away and he really wanted to keep his friend alive. And that's what really, I think, inspired Walt Jr.

Jay Ruderman: Well, it was an amazing role, and you were the perfect person for it.

RJ Mitte: Thank you.

Jay Ruderman: Let's talk a little bit about authenticity in film and TV, and why you've advocated that people with disabilities should play roles of disabilities and we should see more authentic representation.

RJ Mitte: My belief on it is that film, television movies, music, all this, entertainment industry is a tool. And this tool could either be used for positive reinforcement  or negative reinforcement. And when we spend the majority of our lives in front of a screen, especially now, what we see really impacts how we treat others, how we treat ourselves, and what we do with our lives. And when you have shows that show positive ... And not always, when I say positive reinforcement, not always a happy-go-lucky guy, but just real people with these types of lives, it really gives people a new perspective.

It gives people a new view and allows people to maybe not be so defensive or afraid to ask questions or want to befriend people that they may view as abnormal or someone that they've never really encountered, when they're like, oh, I've seen it on this, so I know a little bit. It gives that bridge where everyone can meet in the middle with it and talk about it, and be informed. And there's people that talk today about, oh, I saw this and I was never the same. And that is the greatest gift of television and film, is that new way of thinking, this new version of knowledge that necessarily you don't have to experience firsthand.

When you get to watch the journey, you get to learn from that journey and evolve with those characters as they take these paths. And not everyone gets to walk those paths, but if you can see it, and learn from it, and find your path, eventually you can learn down the walk it or learned to walk down it.

Jay Ruderman: That's so powerful. And I think Michelle Obama once said that, we learn about people who are not like us through television.

RJ Mitte: Yep.

Jay Ruderman: Do you think that the character of Walt Jr. helped raise awareness to disability? And what do you think was the impact of the role?

RJ Mitte: I always like to think it made an impact in the community. Walt Jr. I feel was one of those characters that wasn't disabled. He may have had a disability. People may have viewed him as disabled, but if you look at it, Walt Jr. really wasn't disabled. He faced challenges, but he faced them head on and he was put in the situations that he had to overcome, not just through his disability, but through his family dynamic. And I really believe that having a character of Walt Jr really helped the community over the years when there really wasn't content like it.

Breaking Out wasn't based on disability. It wasn't based on Walt Jr., it was just a kid in a family trying to get by, trying to live a life. You can only hope that your work has positive reinforcement in communities, and I believe it did. And I started Walt Jr. and Breaking Bad to give me the opportunity to work with groups like you and many others and raise awareness, and talk about experiences and share things that people don't always get to hear. And for me, that's a great opportunity, great honor, to be able to take my stories and my life and use it as an example for others to grow and grow past me.

Jay Ruderman: RJ, you're a great advocate, and you've had such a big difference in the industry in getting people to think differently. But you know that we're still living in a time when you see many actors playing disability. And, in fact, half of the actors who've won the Best Actor Awarded at the Academy Awards in the past 30 years, are able-bodied actors who've won it for playing a disability. And one thing that really hits home is, in 2017, there was a movie called The Upside and Bryan Cranston played a character in a wheelchair, and he was asked about it by the disability community, about an able-bodied person playing a disabled role. And he called it a business decision. Did you ever talk to him about that and maybe gave him your perspective on that?

RJ Mitte: When all that blew up, I was like, I'm just going to let this settle down. And the thing about is, I think it's so important that when individuals get the opportunity to audition, that accurate representation is key. The one thing that I do and have noticed over the 15, almost 20 years of working in the industry, is that all are business decisions, and sacrifices that I've had to make to actually keep a job, and jobs where I was like, I'm not going to do that, and then saying, well, we don't really want you if you're not going to do that, have always been the business decisions you have to make. And it's not always up to you.

And I think when you have someone like Bryan Cranston or Jamie Fox, or a Forest Gum-type character, and all these other entities, I think there's a fine line of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. But for me, I think The Upside is that it does get to the masses. Is there a better way of doing it? Yes. But if we can get more individuals to think like that and to be like, well, I don't really want to see able-body actors playing disabled roles, it allows voices to come together in the mainstream platform to say, Hey, no, we want this to stop. I think is a great opportunity to get those voices out there, to get those voices heard.

To me though, anyone can be disabled. I'm already technically disabled, but I can walk out of this room, trip and break my neck falling down, and I'll spend the rest of my life in a chair or something. And anyone can join this club at any part of their life. And I think we need to have that realization, that this is more of a human connection than most things that we deal with on a daily basis. And what we do, both either positive or negative, allows us to look at that and look at it objectively after the fact and go, okay, we know this is what we don't want. We know this is what we do want.

So now how can we take this information into other projects, taking mainstream media and having them look back and reflect and go, okay, we got backlash. We got negativity on this. All right, how do we narrow that down? How do we do this? And again, keep in mind, this is all about money. This really has nothing to do with the community. This has nothing to do with inspiring people. This has to do with net asset. And so getting them to think, how do we keep the net asset, but inspire people and bring honesty and truth, and these individuals that need the job, deserve the job, and should have a job to these forefronts? We have to have that, we don't like this, to know what we want to evolve it from.

Jay Ruderman: Right. I think there's so many different aspects of what you've just said. The advocacy plays a role.

RJ Mitte: Yes.

Jay Ruderman: So that when activists come out and say, Hey, this isn't right, I think the industry does listen to that. But then there's also the discussions within the industry. And our Foundation has had success in working with the four major studios to get them to commit to auditioning actors with disabilities. I know that my friend, Danny Woodburn, who's also an actor with a disability, did have a dinner with Bryan Cranston after this, and had a discussion with him and explained to him why it's concerning. But I know we're not at the point now where we're going to have every role of disability played by an actor with a disability. But I do think, as you've pointed out in the past, it's an issue of representation, and it's an issue of people seeing themselves on film. I'm wondering, what was your relationship with Bryan Cranston, Aaron Paul? Do you still keep in touch with members of the cast or Breaking Bad?

RJ Mitte: Yeah, I do. I ironically keep in contact more with the bad guys. But when I was on the show, we have a very open-door friendship and anything and everything that we could ever need, they could call me and I could call them. Again, keep in mind, I was 13, right? Everyone was late 20s minimum. And so my relationship really wasn't as strong with everyone else's on the yarn outside of the set because I was a minor, I was a child. So I think that played into it. But for the most part, we were very, very family dynamic, very open. I could call any of them any time and they would either answer or return my call, which is nice. And so from the group, to acting, to the producing side of it, to the crew and everyone in between, it was a very big family dynamic.

Jay Ruderman: Maybe you can talk a little bit about the business of acting because, like Breaking Bad, you were together for years, and you're doing this show, but it's a business. And then it ends, and people go on to their careers and they do another show, or they do a movie. What's that like? Because most people are in a job, and they're in a job for years and that's what they do. But maybe you can talk a little bit what it's like to be a working actor in the industry.

RJ Mitte: Yeah. It's not easy to build these lives and relationships, and then it's like, all right, well, I might never see you again, but we had fun doing it while it lasted, right? I think it's very special to be able to go into these characters, and go into these worlds and create and live inside of this imaginary world, and then it's over. But I love it. That's one of my favorite things, is I like to portray different people and different things, and get out there and be different things. It's not an easy business. A lot has changed over the last 10 years through social media and through different new media, and all these other aspects that we face now, where you don't really lose your relationship as much as you did in the past. People are always on Face Times and interviews and podcasts.

We really didn't have those, then. We live at a very different time from when I started to where we are now. And  I'm just very interested to see the evolution of television film and the impact it will leave behind for future generations. And that's one of the things, is that when you have a show like Breaking Bad, or any show that's continued on after the ending of it, that really still brings everyone together, is truly special, and truly something that can change people in lives. And the business again is not easy. Lots of auditions, a lot of rejections still, it doesn't change.

People think, oh, once you get the show, it gets easy, right? No, that's where it actually starts getting harder. And that's where it starts becoming, you're more accountable for what you do and what you say, and you're more accountable for the roles that you portray. It only evolves. It escalates from there. I think people sometimes forget that. It's the extraordinary business. I'm going to go work for one month and it's over. As you grow, you learn who you'll see again, who you won't see, but building the relationships and having a positive impact with your peers, having a positive impact with your fans and your community, to me is one of the most important things about our job. And what we do is building those relationships and realizing, you still have to have fun with it, but at the end of the day, it's still a profession.

Jay Ruderman: So, RJ, you seem wise beyond your years and that you understand your place in the industry and the impact that you would have on your fans, on the public. How did you learn that? Did someone pull you aside and say, let me teach you how to be successful in this industry? Since you were 13 when you started on Breaking Bad, did someone like Bryan Cranston pull you aside and say, Hey, let me give you some tips or, let me help you become a better actor?

RJ Mitte: Yes and no. Many people over the years were big influences in my decisions and where I moved in. For the most part, though, it was like, yeah, here you go, and then they dumped you in the pit of wolves. And either one, you get torn apart or two, you become a wolf. And that's where a lot of my first day experience came through was, was just being put in the meat grinder, and came out still whole apparently. But it's one of those things where, people can tell you things, people can give you advice, and the advice could be the best advice in the world. But if you don't understand it, or you don't live by it, it's really hard for it to work for you.

Everyone's different, everyone's lives are different. I grew up with a lot of responsibility at a very young age. And so for me, my biggest thing was always my priorities and what I wanted to prioritize first, be it my career, or my family, or my medical, or whatever that may be. It wasn't always looked upon positively when I made some decisions on choosing my work or my family. And that was always a bummer to me, because I'm fairly family-oriented. So I always pick my family over my job, but I really think it came from just learned experience. A lot of my stuff is learning on the job-type stuff.

Many people, like you mentioned, Danny Woodburn and Allen Rucker, and many other people like that... So when you take into consideration my Breaking Bad family, they taught me a lot. It gave me a lot of tools and information on acting in sets. And we had a casting crew of $500 million episode. It cost money. These were big, big money things. And it taught me those types of ways to be a part of a set like that, what it's like to have the responsibility of a regular character, a recurring character on a TV show that had graphic content, and content that really wasn't positive content until later after the show was done.

When I first started Breaking Bad, the first two seasons, I wasn't allowed to go to a lot of kids' parties. I wasn't allowed to do a lot of things because they were like, oh, you're on that show about meth. And I was like, yeah, but it's so much more than that. And it was a lot for me learning both sides of the coin, the negative coin and the positive coin of what I want to be. What I'm personally trying to do, and this is the biggest thing for anyone that I recommend acting or not acting, it's find what you want to truly do. And that doesn't have to be tomorrow. But what it does is find that moral compass of, this is where I want to go, and this is my circumstance.

Jay Ruderman: Well, you've had so much experience now, and it sounds like you've really been able to get your priority straight.

RJ Mitte: Sure.

Jay Ruderman: I'm wondering what your take is now on disability representation in the industry. Is it different than when you started? And what advice would you give to someone with a disability that wants to get into acting and how do they go about it?

RJ Mitte: Yeah. It is very different. It's pretty much as night and day. I'll tell you right now, because I remember when YouTube and all the vines and social medias were coming out. And I actually was told one time that, if you start doing that, we will drop you as a client. I remember when it was very negative to put yourself out there and to do what now is the market. A lot of the things that people have now used to be very frowned upon and now it's the only way to get a job, and building that fan base and having those views and doing all these things. I do see a very big, positive growth and diversification in media, opportunities for individuals. And not just for people with disabilities, but across the board when it comes to accessing the industry.

There's many different ways now versus the two ways that you could do before is, drop everything and go to Los Angeles or New York and start being a starving actor. Because that's where I started. There was really no phones, no media, none of those things that someone, if you were in Raleigh, North Carolina, like I am now, there really wasn't an industry here. Now there's an industry here. Now I could go online and apply across the world. And I recommend for people that want to get into the industry and want to start learning about the industry, everyone has Facebook, everyone has Twitter, everyone has Instagram, all these forms of media, and start creating that individual you want to be.

Start creating and showing your life in a way that is going to be sadly, appealing to masses, not sadly appealing, just sadly that you have to do that now. And so I think that's a great way. I recommend extra work. That was my big backbone, was extra work and classes. I had a talent manager at the time named Madison White, who was my mentor and teacher and taught me many different forms of acting across the board and learning that, and really was doing that again to only meet kids of my own age, because I didn't have an avenue. My first two months in Los Angeles, I got robbed trying to make friends.

And so I always highly recommend extra work. Take classes, find your community, find those people that are going to raise you up versus put you down, and just enjoy it. Again though, this is a business. Always remember that this is trillion dollar industry that doesn't just make money, but alters minds, alter spirits, allows people to see things and feel things that they couldn't do without it. And there is a responsibility and an obligation you have to your friends and to the people that see your works. And try to remember that when you're out there doing your things, but at the same time, have fun, enjoy it. And don't be afraid to put yourself out there, no matter who you are.

Jay Ruderman: Talking about the business of the industry, which it's definitely a business, one of the recent white paper that we put out, we commissioned a survey of the public, fairly extensive survey, that said that people will pay more to see authentic representation. And I think maybe that's the time that we're moving into, that people want to see reality, even in fiction, they want to see people who really are like those people. And so, the bottom line of the white paper and the survey was that people would be willing to spend billions of dollars more to see that. And I think slowly the studios are internalizing that message. And that leads me to your latest film, Triumph, which is the story of Mike Coffey-

RJ Mitte: Yes.

Jay Ruderman: ... who is a teenager with cerebral palsy in the '80s and wanted to join the high school wrestling team. Tell us about the movie.

RJ Mitte: You mentioned Michael Coffey, the writer, creator, character initially, and he created this story as a dream of his, to be able to portray on the screen and to show kids that they can achieve what they want to achieve. This story is about a young man with cerebral palsy who lives in a different time, a time where disability is viewed more as a disability, as an illness, as something that, oh, we're going to stay away from. But really this is a kid that just needs an opportunity to show what he's capable of, to show his life. A single dad, doesn't really have a lot of friends, and it's his last year at school, and he really wants to be able to do this.

He wrestled when he was younger and he got injured. He didn't get seriously injured, but injured enough where everyone was like, no, he's disabled. You can't let him do that anymore. But it was a dream of his, and he wanted to achieve it. And so through this journey, he starts trying to achieve his dream before he feels that he won't be able to get the opportunity again. And because of that journey, he makes friends, he faces bullies. He handles the challenges that he's been facing his whole life, head on, because he's like, this is my dream. This is my goal. This is what I want to do. And when you start doing that in real life, all the things that you've been avoiding, all the challenges and weights of other people's voices start getting louder, because they're like, no, we've been protecting you for so long.

But really it comes down to, this is his dream and his goal. And he won't stand by that anymore. And I think it's a very special story created by someone who really had the heart to take his life and make it a reality make it a film. And that's one of my favorite things about my industry. Every movie you see, every story you read, isn't just an entertainment piece. It's someone's dream, it's someone's life. And what other business allows you to make a dream a reality, to mortalize your life and story. And really it's only our industry, the entertainment industry, that does that.

This individual really made a dream come true. And I was very lucky to be able to make it happen and pull it together. We've been working on it for seven years now. And I'm so happy it's finally getting out, and that people are looking at it and people are interested in it. I was a little concerned that people were going to be like, what is this? But it turned out people actually really like it. And people really found it enjoyable. It's been very interesting that through all the hiccups that this film has faced over the years, it's still alive and well.

Most films that have the issues that we faced when it came to defining actors, to getting budgets, to locations and everything else, we had our battles. But the movie is still alive and still growing. And the Academy has even looked into it to be potentially nominated, for one. And I'm just very honored that this movie is still out there. This movie is still growing and despite other people trying to stop it or to devalue it or get their cut out of it, it has its own entity. It has its own life and it's still growing.

Jay Ruderman: Well, it'd be nice to see an actor with a disability who's authentic in having that disability, be considered for an Oscar, since the last person with a visible disability to win an Oscar was Marlee Matlin, and that was decades ago. Let me talk about bullying, because it's something you brought up and it's a big part of the film. I watched the film.

RJ Mitte: Did you like it?

Jay Ruderman: I did like it. I did like it. I like all your stuff.

RJ Mitte: Thank you.

Jay Ruderman: I know you've been bullied in the past and I know that you've given some advice on how you've dealt with bullies.

RJ Mitte: Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: So maybe you can just repeat the advice that you give and how you've dealt with that, because I think it's a great approach.

RJ Mitte: Yeah. A hundred percent. You never not get bullied at some point of your life. There's always a bully out there. It could be either at home, at work, on the street, whatever it may be. As an adult, we just don't call it bullying, but it happens. And I find no matter  what you're facing or the challenges you're facing, find those people that you can confide in. Find those people that are going to raise you up. And don't be afraid to ask questions and stand up for what you believe in, and who you are as an individual. Bullying is something that really can traumatize someone. How many times have you been like, I really love this. And then someone say, that's stupid, you should stop.

And then you stop and you never do it again, but it was something that you loved. And who would've known if that could have turned into something great? If someone is bullying you or someone's trying to devalue you, find that person that you can confide in and figure out how you can either one, handle it, or remove yourself from the situation. And talk to your friends, talk to your peers, talk to the people that you care about. Even talk to the bully, like, why are you doing this? What's going on with this? Because a lot of people that are being bullied are being bully.

You don't grow up with hate. You don't grow up being these types of people. You learn it by repressions, by things that have happened to you. And you're like, this is the only way I can cope with it. So I find when it comes to a bully, I always was like, what's your problem? Why are you doing this? Why are you singling me out? And when it got past that point, I would get other people involved, my friends and even the teacher, my parents, people that I believed could help me figure out this situation.

And having those conversations and exploring those, sometimes will help in a situation where it's like, well, I actually don't really hate you. I'm facing an issue with this, and I'm reflecting that on you. And you would never know that unless you talk to that person about it. And even one time, one of my bullies became one of my best friends. And I was like, what's your problem? Why do you keep pushing me? Every time I see you, you throw me into a wall. And he is like, oh, blah, blah, blah, gave me some nonsensical answer. And I was like, no, why is it every time you see me, you do this?

It turned out to be something stupid that really had no relevance on him actually hating me, other than they just wanted to be a friend. They just wanted the attention. And instead of giving negative attention back, I gave positive attention back, positive reinforcement back. And by the end of that week, we were a friend and he stood up for me. And it just turned around in that situation. And I find every situation you're going find yourself in, it's not going to be the same.

Jay Ruderman: Yeah. That's great, RJ. It's so wise beyond your years, like I said, to identify why people are bullying.

RJ Mitte: Well, that's hard to do, though. That's not easy.

Jay Ruderman: No, it takes courage.

RJ Mitte: And it takes you to be the better person, you to be the bigger person in that situation, when you are being hurt. People can't always see through the hurt, and you have to sometimes place your feelings in a way where it's like, all right, I'm going to do this, but this might end badly for me, but if I don't do this, I'll never know.

Jay Ruderman: I was impressed with Terrence Howard, who's a great actor and plays your coach in Triumph. What was it like for you working with him?

RJ Mitte: He only worked for a few days on set. We were able to shoot him out pretty quickly, but brought a lot to the set with a great character for the role. I do had some wild lines, I'll tell you that. But we had a great time working with him, and just really helped bring the story together. That was one of our big issues that we had to come back to, is seven years ago, we stopped production and came back to it with Terrance and a new group of people, and we were able to make it happen. And I think it only amplified the story more that we didn't go with the original cast on that.

Jay Ruderman: Well, he puts a lot of emotion into the film. One of the things about advocacy, which I've been deeply involved in my whole life, and I know that it's an important part of your life, sometimes advocacy in 2022 can become very strident, and it can be all about the group that you're part of. But I happen to think allyship is very important and not everyone is like us, and we need allies. If you look at the great civil rights leaders, someone like Martin Luther King really understood the importance of having allies. So I just wanted you to talk a little bit about allyship and what do you think about it?

RJ Mitte: We can't do this alone, at the end of the day. Yes, certain paths you do have to walk alone, but we always had those people there. We always have allies. The biggest thing that I believe when it comes to disability is that disability doesn't discriminate. It's the one thing that can unite us as a species, as human beings, is that we all face these types of challenges in our future. Yes, some of us like me are born with it and grow up with it, and it's a very normal thing in my life. Some people not so much. But as someone that's grown up with it and born with it, it's my responsibility to help guide people, to give that information, to understand that we all face these challenges, and we all have these hurdles, and it's very easy to be an ally.

It doesn't take a lot of time and energy to make a stand and to be that person and to do what's right. Anyone that's in this world, at the end of the day, can be an ally and should be an ally. But just finding what you believe in, finding that key value of what you want to achieve, where you want to go, and the impact that you want to have by doing that, you're going to find you are not alone in your mission. You're not alone to achieve what you're trying to achieve, because there are many people that want the same thing. And when you start being vocal about it, you find more people are willing to be more vocal about it.

And it can happen in a very small instant. Whatever it may be, look for those impacts in your daily life, find where it's like, all right, I'm just on the street and I'm just walking down and I just happen to see something happen, to see a person happen. You can be that person that steps out and makes that impact. And by doing that, the ripple effect of that is so much greater than you may even realize. By just being that, are you okay? Seeing someone crying on the street, seeing someone that's alone, just coming up to someone and being like, Hey, are you okay? Do you need something?

Nine times out of 10, you're going to hear, I'm fine, I'm okay, I'm good. Leave me alone. Those people aren't always ready to have that helping hand. But it's that one out of 10 that you're going to talk to, and you're going to change that person's life. And you're going to be that ally for them to evolve, to take it to that next level. And when it comes to something like what we're trying to do, when it comes to diversification and media and providing opportunities for people, and economic impacts and all these things...

I've been very lucky that I've worked around the world, working with UEDGE in Russia and Germany and Costa Rica and everywhere in between, making allies, that one day we can make this call and it can be a global front, that we can have this global push and be like, yes, this is what we need. This is what we want. But that takes time. That takes effort. And that takes willingness for you, the listener, to step out of a realm of comfort and be able to put yourself into a position that you may not want to be in, but may feel responsible for. And that can change people's lives, that can impact people in such a way that is unseen and unforetold, and that you can't even realize.

Jay Ruderman: Right. That's so wise. I know that within the disability community, the phrase, "nothing about us without us", is very powerful. But at the same time, all of us, everyone in the world has a connection personally, to someone with a disability. And as you mentioned previously, this is the one community that most of us, as we age, will probably join at some point. So it's a powerful community. I truly believe in allyship. I don't like turning other people away.

RJ Mitte: No.

Jay Ruderman: I know you're filming North Carolina right now. Are you able to say a little bit about what you're doing?

RJ Mitte: At the moment, I can't. I do have a few other projects I'm very happy for. I'll start filming those in the next couple of months, but really, I think for me, my big thing has been getting Triumph off the ground and now I'm doing that. That's been a labor of love for six years now. Right now, I have a pretty big project in Texas that I'm working on at the moment, just been working, a lot, lot, lot of working.

Jay Ruderman: RJ, what's your dream role? What's a role that you would love to play?

RJ Mitte: I don't necessarily have a dream role per se. I was actually just thinking, talking to someone about this last night and they were talking about Better Call Saul. I wouldn't mind going back to the Breaking Bad days because Better Call Saul's on their last season. I might want to go back to do that. You know what I miss the most is having a set with a budget. I know that sounds weird, and not everyone's going to get it. But you wouldn't realize how hard it is to make projects on a shoestring budget with minimal resources. So being able to just focus on the acting side of it and not have to worry about, all right, I got to come up with $150,000 by next week for this movie, or, we're going to have to halt production, would be quite nice.

Jay Ruderman: I get it. I get it. It makes perfect sense. RJ, it's been a pleasure to have you as my guest on All Inclusive.

RJ Mitte: Thank you.

Jay Ruderman: I can't end the interview without asking, I know that your Breaking Bad fans would really want to know, what did you have for breakfast?

RJ Mitte: What did I have for breakfast? I had a Starburst. It was a pink one. It was quite nice. I woke up, I had it, it was great.

Jay Ruderman: Nutritious.

RJ Mitte: Very nutritious. I bottle of water, great. I'm actually... See, one of my big things is, is I don't like to do things before noon, and it's almost noon now. I usually have my breakfast later in the day. And so some bacon and eggs are on my way, but yeah, that was my truthful breakfast, a Starburst.

Jay Ruderman: Well, RJ, thank you. I wish you a lot of success in what you're doing now-

RJ Mitte: Thank you.

Jay Ruderman: ... with Triumph. You've been real ground-breaker in the industry and I know you'll have a lot more success. So thank you so much. Wish you a lot of success.

RJ Mitte: Great to see you. Thank you again. It's really always a pleasure to be able to work with you all in the Ruderman Foundation and we've been friends over the years, and it's great to see the impact that you've all had in the community. It is something that it takes a lot of time, a lot of energy and a lot of resources to face these types of challenges and to give people on that awareness. Thank you for the impact that you have in the community. And again, anytime, I'm always a friend and an ally to you all and anything you'll need, just let me know.

Jay Ruderman: Thanks so much, RJ.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. To have an idea for a podcast, be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman: Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive. A podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. Mariska Hargitay is best known for playing Olivia Benson on Law and Order SVU. For the past 23 seasons, she has dealt with topics on sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse in the United States. She's also received thousands of emails from survivors sharing their stories of abuse after watching the show. In response, she created the Joyful Heart Foundation in 2004. Their mission is to transform society's response to sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse, support survivor's healing and end the violence together.

Today, I'm speaking with Joyful Heart's director of policy and advocacy, Ilse Knecht. She has spent 20 years invested in victim advocacy and is a nationally recognized expert on the rape kit backlog. She leads the foundations and the backlog campaign, which is at the forefront of untested rape kits across the country. Previously, she was at the National Center for Victims of Crime, where she created the DNA Resource Center and led efforts to reform policies and practices related to testing rape kits. Ilse, welcome to All Inclusive.

Ilse Knecht: Thank you so much for having me really, really grateful to be here.

Jay Ruderman: Thank you. So Ilse, walk us through what happens when someone has been sexually assaulted? What do they do? Do they go to the police? Do they show up at the hospital? Just in a general sense, what happens at that point?

Ilse Knecht: Well, survivors have many options after a sexual assault, they will choose the path that's best for them. So only about a quarter will ever report the assault to law enforcement and three quarters of them unfortunately, don't report to law enforcement and may never tell anyone. And those victims though, sometimes do find other ways to heal, the criminal justice system is not the only way for survivors to find a sense of justice or healing. The quarter that do decide to interact with the criminal justice process often will show up at a hospital, they may call the police. And so survivors who go to the hospital can choose to have of a forensic examination done, medical forensic exam, that's to collect evidence and also to attend to other needs such as injuries and emotional needs dealing with trauma after the assault.

And those survivors in all states have another set of options at that point and they can decide either to have the evidence collected and go through an interview with law enforcement and basically enter the criminal justice system process, or they can have the evidence collected and then held for a certain period of time while they make a decision whether or not the criminal justice system path is the right thing for them. So it may be that in two weeks or two days or five years they feel that it's the right time for them to interact with the justice system, which by the way, is not an easy system to go through as a rape survivor and they may decide at that point to have their kit tested.

Jay Ruderman: So let's dig into this a little bit more. Someone shows up at the hospital, they've just been the victim of a horrendous crime, is the doctor or nurse or whoever's attending, are they mandated to offer them a rape kit examination?

Ilse Knecht: That's actually different state by state. So some states have laws, Texas has one of them that says, "If a survivor shows up at your hospital, you have to give the option of having a forensic exam there, even if you don't have a trained examiner or to transport them to a center that does have a trained examiner." And then there are quite a few other states that don't have any laws around this. So a survivor may show up at a hospital that has no one trained to collect this evidence in a compassionate or competent way, they may wait hours and hours and hours while they find somebody who might be able to do this exam or wants to do this exam and it's a whole other process and in those scenarios.

Jay Ruderman: So I guess what you're saying, someone gets out of medical school and they haven't necessarily received the training how to deal with a victim of sexual assault?

Ilse Knecht: They may have had some brief training on how to work with sexual assault survivor and mention of the fact that there are evidence collection that needs to be done, but that's very, very brief. Many doctors have to open up the rape kit exam box and read the instructions while the survivor waits so it's always better to have a trained examiner. They're sexual assault nurse examiners or sexual assault forensic examiners that are trained not only to collect the evidence, they're trained to testify in court and they're also trained to respond to the trauma that the victim is experiencing. That's sort of the model that we hope all victims have an option to access.

Jay Ruderman: And I assume that all states have a rape kit.

Ilse Knecht: Yes.

Jay Ruderman: It's available in every state that even if the hospital itself where the victim shows up, they can be pointed to some place in the state where this process can be done.

Ilse Knecht: That's correct. There are many kinds of rape kits, so some states have one kind of rape kit they use statewide and they're just much more organized about the fact that there's one kit and everybody uses it. And then there are other states that have many, many different kinds of kits they use, some are more updated than others.

Jay Ruderman: Okay. So without getting too graphic, I understand that it's a very invasive process, that someone is a victim of a sexual assault, they come into a hospital, they say, "I've just been assaulted." At some point someone says, "You have the opportunity to be examined." What does this process look like?

Ilse Knecht: It's a process that can take generally about four to six hours, but it could take even longer depending on the nature of the attack. I think what's really important to remember here is that what a survivor has just gone through is probably the most traumatic experience, most personally invasive experience they'll ever have in their lifetime. They go to a hospital, a stranger is going to ask them to undress and stand on a sheet so that fibers or any other kinds of hairs from the offender might be able to fall onto the sheet. They're going to photograph them. They're going to swab parts of their bodies based on the sort of story of the assault that the survivor has given, the recounting of the assault, which of course is also very traumatic.

And then their body will be swabbed in those areas, basically their bodies become a crime scene. There's an internal exam as well for internal injuries and lots and lots of documentation. The process involves a lot of questions about personal experiences beyond this sexual assault about consensual partners in the last so many days and things like that. So it is a very personally invasive procedure, it's uncomfortable, really be re-traumatizing if it's not done in the right way.

Jay Ruderman: And I assume that not every survivor has an advocate there with them at this point.

Ilse Knecht: That's right. There are quite a few states that have laws that allow survivors to have an advocate present during a forensic exam, that's something that we also work on is just ensuring that survivors' rights legislation includes the fact that they are able to have somebody present during the examination, somebody there just for them. When there is a trained medical examiner who is doing this examination, they are also trained to call the local rape crisis center and that advocate will then come in. But if you're not having an exam done by a trained examiner, that person probably isn't going to call the local rape crisis center. But in many, many cases, survivors have a right to have someone present with them.

Jay Ruderman: And can you walk me through what happens with the rape kit after the exam? And I know we're going to get into this a little bit later, but why would it end up sitting on a shelf?

Ilse Knecht: Let me tell you what should happen.

Jay Ruderman: Okay.

Ilse Knecht: So what should happen is that the exam is completed. The hospital contacts the local law enforcement agency and law enforcement comes and picks up the kit very quickly. The kit is then booked into evidence, sent to whatever local lab or state lab is responsible for testing crime evidence for that jurisdiction. And then the lab handles that quickly, it's done expeditiously, it's tested if a foreign DNA profile from a possible offender is found in the kit, it's entered into state local and the federal DNA databases to see if there's a match and to see if they can identify an offender, that's what should happen.

What often happens is that the hospital calls law enforcement and says, "We have this kit, please come pick it up." Sometimes they don't come pick it up, and we've seen places where there have been kits sitting at hospitals for years and decades. More often, law enforcement do pick up the kits, but they get stuck at the law enforcement agency. And the vast majority of kits end up on a shelf in a storage unit and they sit there for years or decades. Unfortunately, all too common and that's why we have the untested rape kit backlog of hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits is because law enforcement has not sent them forward for testing at the crime lab. Basically they sit on shelves and are just locked behind closed door, completely neglected.

Jay Ruderman: Which is a tremendous injustice. I used to be a prosecutor many decades ago before DNA was being used to the extent that it's used today. I know crimes of sexual assault can be very difficult to prosecute because it used to come down to one person's word against the other, but let's talk a little bit about the police and law enforcement.

Ilse Knecht: Okay.

Jay Ruderman: What is the education? And is there any uniformity across law enforcement as to how to interact with victims of sexual assault and how seriously to take what they're bringing forward to the police?

Ilse Knecht: So you hit the nail on the head with the priority issue. In terms of training of law enforcement and how to handle sexual assault and to work with sexual assault survivors, there's a real lack of training and a lack of knowledge about trauma and how it impacts survivors and their memory, DNA and how important DNA and DNA databases are in solving sexual assault crimes and just in general, how to complete a competent and thorough investigation for a sexual assault case.

So I know that here in New York City, I've looked at the training manuals, I've looked at the agenda for training folks who are not specialized or sex crimes detectives are getting maybe four hours of it. But those who are, are getting more training, but the training has not kind of kept up with what we know about sexual assault and what we know about trauma and how it impacts victims. So for example, the neurobiology of trauma has become a field that is more and more widely known.

What's been found is that trauma impacts a survivor's brain in a way that causes it to not encode the memories of the assault in the same way that we would just encode a normal memory, walking down the street. The hormones that flood the body during the assault and after interferes with the ability of the brain to create a very clear memory of what happened. And so when law enforcement is interviewing sexual assault survivors, they don't understand that sometimes the memories don't come out in a linear fashion, that time, place, date, which is what law enforcement want to know is not how survivors are remembering the assault.

So when a survivor might say something to the effect of it was a blue car, and then maybe a couple of hours later says it was green, that will come across to an untrained detective as lying, that the survivor is not telling the truth and that's a misunderstanding about the way trauma impacts memory. When you talk to survivors after an assault, there will be lots of inconsistencies in their story and that is completely normal. And so unfortunately what we hear too often is, "Victim wasn't telling the truth, victim was lying, she couldn't even remember this, she couldn't remember that." case closed basically before investigation opened. So that is a major, major problem with how law enforcement interacts with sexual assault survivors and understands trauma.

Jay Ruderman: So is that the crux of the matter? Is that why many rape kits end up sitting on the shelf because the detective or law enforcement has decided there's not enough to go forward on this case?

Ilse Knecht: Yes. That's one piece of it. One of the larger kind of issues is that in many states, and this is changing but even six years ago, most states did not have a law or policy about what's supposed to happen with this evidence. An individual detective at whatever department is making a decision about what to do with rape kit evidence. And it came down to how much do they know about rape? How much do they know about DNA and DNA databases? Did they believe the survivor? Rape myths are all too prevalent, victim blaming all too prevalent still in our society. And if you have somebody who's untrained to look at this from a much more kind of almost clinical and informed, knowledgeable state, they're going to bring that bias and prejudice to this decision.

And then you put a woman of color, you put somebody who may be living on the margins of society, a homeless person, or what some police call, known to the department, somebody who's been in and out of drugs and other sort of trouble with law enforcement, immediately the decision is not to believe that person. They're sized up based on all these other factors besides a thorough, complete investigation.

Jay Ruderman: Right.

Ilse Knecht: So the law not having any kind of policy that says your bias doesn't matter here, we're going to send this kit for testing no matter what you think, because unfortunately, I guess we'll get into this later, there have been many, many horrific mistakes made when detective makes their own decision based on their own prejudice about testing a kit.

Jay Ruderman: Right. And I remember from my time as a prosecutor, every city in town has a different police department, and they're all different. And even within departments, you have some detectives who are great at what they do and take their job very seriously and you have some who don't. So this whole hodgepodge going throughout the country, and I completely get what you're saying that there's no uniformity.

Ilse Knecht: Right. And just throwing on top of that, the fact that in some places there aren't even sex crimes detectives, there are people who are not even trained specifically to deal with this. There are no sex crimes units, or they're severely underfunded. So even when you have a unit where you have trained detectives, we still see really shoddy outcomes, unfortunately.

Jay Ruderman: So if in a perfect world, all of the backlog of rape kits were tested, what would happen at that point? Would you have that many more convictions, that much more closure in terms of helping victims move on from their trauma?

Ilse Knecht: Absolutely. There are two pieces to this. One is obviously getting justice and answers for victims and then they're also taking dangerous offenders off the streets. And what we have seen from communities like Detroit, like Cleveland, like Memphis, even smaller cities like Duluth, Minnesota, is that they have taken these old rape kits, some from the '80s and '90s off the shelves and tested them. And they have found dangerous serial offenders who have been operating with impunity for decades. And not only do we see crimes that could have been solved had a rape kit been tested, we see preventable crimes.

And that's the next horrifying level of this work, because we can go back in time, we can look at these timelines and we can see crimes that would've been prevented if somebody would've sent that rape kit for testing, if that victim had been believed and the evidence had been processed. So if we took all the kits off the shelves right now across the country, these communities would be a much, much safer place.

Jay Ruderman: And just to give us an idea, how many rape kits are sitting on shelves across the United States?

Ilse Knecht: We don't really know the answer to that and that is because most states they're getting better at this, have not tracked their rape kits. So just to give you an example of how unimportant and deprioritized this issue is that we would talk to law enforcement agencies that would say, "We can't give you a number because we don't track those. We'd have to go back to some big notebook from whatever date and count them." So just the sheer fact that most law enforcement agencies are not paying attention about how many kits they have coming in are going out. We estimate hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits right now and we are actually in the middle of doing a national count because we have data on almost every state right now, but I would still say hundreds of thousands are still sitting out there on shelves, waiting to be tested.

For example, we had an inventory in California that we helped with that legislation and they counted more than 13,000, but a very large majority of the law enforcement agencies and state did not send their numbers in. So we're just looking at even a state like California potentially having 20,000, the numbers just keep adding up and we're making a dent in it, don't get me wrong but there's still far too many out there.

Jay Ruderman: So let's talk about the medical examiner. The medical examiner has kits on their shelves. Why are they not allocating technicians to test them? Why are they sitting there?

Ilse Knecht: Generally it's the state crime lab, it's not the medical examiner. In New York city, the medical examiner is the agency that does the exams, but state crime labs or local county crime labs are the agencies that generally are testing rape kits. I will say that once the kits get into lab, jurisdiction or into their queue, most of the time they will be tested, unless there's some reason they can't be tested because they're not eligible for the database or some other reason, it's not as much the kits that are in the lab that we're as worried about, it's the kits that never make it to the lab. So there are kits that are just sitting in law enforcement storage, sometimes in a refrigerator somewhere.

There was a case in North Carolina where there was a rape kit sitting in a refrigerator next to somebody's lunch and of course you're not supposed to store kits like that, but just they're kind of all over the place, but it's really those kits that were deemed not important enough to even make it to the lab that is making up this backlog problem.

Jay Ruderman: So let's go back to talking about the victims.

Ilse Knecht: Always, yes.

Jay Ruderman: Do they know what happens to their rape kit after it's been done? Do they know it may be sitting on a shelf and it hasn't been tested? And the other question I have is like, how does this impact the mental health of a victim if they know or if they don't know that this has not been tested?

Ilse Knecht: Yeah. This is such a crucial issue to Jay, most survivors leave the hospital never hear again about their rape kit. Many will never ask, some will ask and they'll never get answers. I've talked to so many victims who've said, "I just figured they were testing it." I mean, why would you collect evidence and not send it for testing? That's what victims believe is happening, also society believes that too. So one survivor said to me, "I blamed myself. I thought maybe I wasn't a good enough witness or maybe I didn't tell the nurse what I needed to tell her to get the right evidence." all kinds of things. Of course the victims will often go back to blame themselves.

The ones that do hear about their kits tend to be better off on their healing journey. We actually did some research in 2016 with survivors that we asked them questions around, what would you like to know about your rape kit? Would you like to be notified about your case? The vast majority of them said they felt that the rape kit belonged to them. Their body was a crime scene and part of it was collected and put in this box and that the information is central to their healing and their wellbeing and that not having information and not having access to it is actually harmful to them. So it was really clear to us that survivors want information and that having information is really important to their healing journey.

Jay Ruderman: And I would imagine that some of them, like I read about a victim who became an advocate in Florida and actually helped pass some legislation in the Florida legislature to help remedy the situation. But I'm sure there are other victims who are just far too traumatized and want not to revisit this again because of the potential being retraumatized.

Ilse Knecht: Survivors will sometimes say that, "I just didn't want to think about it. I wanted to push it aside. I just wanted to kind of move on." But what they will also say then is that, "I never did and it's impossible to move on." That, they think about it all the time. They wonder where their kit is or they wonder where the offender is. I've had so many survivors say, "I felt this burden because this person was still on the streets and I knew how dangerous they were and something I did or didn't do..." they felt like maybe helped that person to escape justice. So survivors carry that on their shoulders. Many survivors report only because they want to stop this person from hurting someone else.

Jay Ruderman: So let me just ask you what compelled Mariska Hargitay to start the Joyful Heart Foundation?

Ilse Knecht: As you may know, Mariska has been playing detective Olivia Benson on Law and Order Special Victims Unit for more than two decades. And when she started playing that role and was preparing for the role, she trained at a rape crisis center, she was reading everything she could and the information that was in front of her was really opening her eyes to the statistics about this problem and the reality and the impact on survivors. And she says, "I've got fan mail." But it wasn't the normal kind of fan mail, it was letters from survivors saying, "I've never told anybody this, but this happened to me." disclosing their stories of abuse for the first time.

And many were saying, "I wish I had a detective like you, I never got the compassion that your character shows survivors on TV." And she just felt very compelled to do something about it and so her answer to these survivors was to create the joyful heart foundation in 2004, with the mission of helping survivors heal and reclaim joy in their lives. And today our mission is to transform society's response to domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse, to support survivors healing and end this violence. One of the things that really struck her was the rape kit backlog. So that's something that we've been focused on for many years and is really a core of the work we're doing now.

Jay Ruderman: So I've heard Mariska say that she wants to bring joy back into the lives of victims again, what does this look like for the foundation?

Ilse Knecht: The foundation originally was doing work on healing with survivors, right? We had survivor retreats that addressed the trauma that survivors were experiencing in a kind of holistic manner and looking at different sort of healing modalities. In addition to traditional methods, what other things could help survivors heal and actually looking at the fact that research was showing that it wasn't that healthy for people to tell their story over and over again. We kind of already knew that because we were trying to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors were working together so survivors never had to tell their story a thousand times, but that was something that started becoming more kind of known in the victim services field. And so looking at how to address trauma in a different way with yoga and movement and experiencing nature and so that was something that Joyful Heart worked on.

For many, many years we had healing retreats with survivors, and then we did some research with Georgetown University to look at how are these retreats? And so that research shows that survivors were coming out of this kind of retreat better than they went in, let me put it that way in that they were definitely having good healing experiences. And then also we looked at those who are working with survivors and sort of the vicarious trauma that they experienced. Could be therapists, it could be a rape crisis center, counselors, it could be the nurses that we've spoken about, it could be law enforcement and looking at their trauma and helping them heal from that trauma.

And we worked with law enforcement in different communities across the country and other stakeholders there to kind of teach them self care, how to not kind of take in and hold that trauma that they hear and they experience from their interaction with survivors, so that was a large part of what Joyful Heart was doing in the early days all with carrying sort of Mariska's words of helping survivors reclaim joy in their lives.

Jay Ruderman: Well, I know that Mariska has really been an important advocate and has done the important work that someone who has her celebrity we all expect would do, you also have spent 20 years invested in victim advocacy. Can you tell us how you got involved in this work?

Ilse Knecht: Sure. Without going into like my whole life story, I have to credit my mother for kind of instilling in me this passion to make things better for other people. And I was working in a women's clinic and had a good friend working there and she was abducted and murdered by serial offender, this was in Toledo, Ohio. Her name was [Samara L'Oak D.] and I was the last person to be with her and so I was very involved in the investigation and going to court and working with the prosecutors and having to testify. I saw things about the system that I thought were very damaging to the victims and I just thought, "I want to do something about this." And I ended up working at the National Center for Victims of Crime in DC for 16 years.

There is when I learned about the rape kit backlog and I remember exactly where I was sitting, I was reading an article and it was about a woman named Debbie Smith, who was the namesake of a federal law related to testing rape kits, a fantastic woman advocate and I just felt like, "Oh my God, my head's going to explode, what is going on here? How are these kits not being tested? This is absurd." And so that just became my life's work and worked on federal legislation and state legislation, National Center for Victims of Crime. I created the DNA Resource Center there, looking at using DNA in all kinds of crime, maximizing the potential of DNA and trafficking cases and burglary cases and all missing persons cases, but I was always really focused on the rape kit backlog. And then I came to Joyful Heart six years ago and really was able to hone in specifically on accountability for law enforcement and other parts of the system around making sure that rape kits are tested.

Jay Ruderman: Well, I have to give you a lot of credit. I spent several years in the domestic violence unit in the district attorney's office that I worked in on the North Shore, Massachusetts and it is a grueling process and you see some success, but you often don't see success. And to spend 20 years dedicated to this is, is really God's work so I give you all the credit for that. And you've had some tremendous success.

Ilse Knecht: Yes.

Jay Ruderman: I want to sort of switch to the Freedom of Information Act and how that may have been able to support victims' rights to access information about the rape kits. Can you talk about that?

Ilse Knecht: Well, the Joyful Heart Foundation has a project called the Accountability Project, and we have been using this tool across the country to shine a light on the number of untested kits. This is one of the tools we're using to try to get law enforcement to go into their evidence rooms and count their kits and be public about it. So we've issued more than 65 across the country and we're in the middle of about 20 more. And as so at the agency level, we're sending these to law enforcement and Sheriff's offices, sometimes prosecutors, sometimes labs to try to find out what their numbers are.

We do that on behalf of survivors of those communities, survivors themselves can also use the FOIA process, it's probably more effective if they try to do that with an agency that kind of helps represent them but it's sunshine laws, it's like sunshine's the best disinfectant, right? So using this tool that's available to us is something that we are relying heavily on. I will tell you unfortunately, probably three quarters of the time we don't get any responses or we get half responses or we are fighting back and forth for months and years with these agencies to get them to comply with the law.

Jay Ruderman: And is there advanced technology today that could sort of be more seamless in the way survivors can know what's going on about the status of their kits?

Ilse Knecht: Yes, absolutely. When you order something on Amazon or even GrubHub, you can track your food or your shoes everywhere it is, from this warehouse to that warehouse, to this stop and now it's on the truck. And 10 years ago, those of us in the field were saying, "Well, you can certainly do that with a rape kit." This is existing technology. Now, we don't really think about it, but back then it was kind of the beginning of Amazon and tracking everything and so sort of the rape kit tracking system was born out of this thought and labs were already using some tracking software within their lab to know where the kit is. This was bigger, this is a system that tracks it from the first collection site through to law enforcement picking it up, law enforcement getting it to their storage unit and again into the lab through the lab and then its final disposition.

So there are 33 states in DC that either have a tracking system or in the process of creating one, which is amazing. When I look back probably even six years ago and there might have only been just a few states, it's actually really transforming the field, moving forward all rape kits will be accounted for in these tracking systems. Actually, the only state right now that doesn't have a victim portal is California, but we have a bill on the governor's desk there to change that. But all of these systems besides California have a way for survivors to log in and look where their kit is.

And they can do that whenever they want to, at their convenience. They don't have to pick up the phone and talk to someone and tell them their whole story and they're looking for their kit. They can do it in the middle of the night, they can do it 200 times a day, or they can do it once a month. And so it's something that we've been really pushing is to make sure that these tracking systems have a way for survivors to log on anonymously and privately and get that information that's so important to them.

Jay Ruderman: So it sounds like some progress is being made and hopefully the system will become a lot more efficient. I know this is done state by state, is there a rule for the federal government? Can the administration help move this process forward?

Ilse Knecht: Yes. And the federal government has been very supportive of the rape kit reform work happening across the country. And Joyful Heart and our partners are engaged in the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative is a federal grant program that provides money to states and localities to count their kits just to do an inventory and that can cost some money. If you haven't been testing your kits for decades and you have 10,000 of them, that's a little bit of a process to get through, to count them. So to count their kits, to finally get them off the shells and send them for testing and to also investigate and prosecute the cases that come out of testing these kits.

These are cold cases, those are more difficult as you probably know as a former prosecutor, those are going to be more difficult to investigate and to locate the victim and to locate the offender. So [inaudible] for that, because also again, just testing the kit, if you don't do anything with the information that comes out of that testing, it's pretty meaningless. It's really important to follow up with those cases and be aggressive about it. But then also to work with the survivors in those cases, what's really important to remember is that for some survivors it's been 20 years or more than they've ever had any contact with law enforcement about this case. So that contact can be very triggering and re-victimizing for them if not done in the right way.

Jay Ruderman: Sure.

Ilse Knecht: So the sexual assault kit initiative program is much more kind of a holistic program that addresses the testing, prosecution, investigation and victim engagement. So the federal government is an investing in that every year around 45 million, the Biden administration has asked for that to be doubled, which is fantastic. We'd also like to see them support more, do some kind of work around pressing states to adopt our six pillar approach to rape kit reform. We'd like to find some way to encourage states to get on board with the six pillar approach. And once they pass those six pillars, it really is a comprehensive reform of how the state handles their rape kits.

Jay Ruderman: Can you just briefly get into what the six pillars are?

Ilse Knecht: Yeah. So the first pillar is inventory, you obviously have to know how many rape kits you have before you can start dealing with them and where they are. So for example, in New Mexico, Albuquerque had the vast majority of kits so the resources are targeted in a different way if your kits are in mostly one city. Inventory, making a commitment to testing them, finding the resources to test them and having the tenacity to go through it. It took Detroit more than 10 years to test their 10,000 kits.

Mandating the testing of all newly collected kits that are coming in within a certain timeframe, tracking, setting up a tracking system for rape kits, granting victims the right to know the status of their kit and state law and funding for all of these things. Of course, it all comes down in the end to making sure that states are making the investment in these changes. We look at it as public safety as the top priority of government and this should be at the top of their list for their investment.

Jay Ruderman: So do these kits ever become stale? And do you deal with statute of limitations in different states where because the kit have not been tested for so long, the statute of limitations has run out and you can't prosecute the crimes anymore anyway?

Ilse Knecht: Right. So there are two issues here. One is sort of how long can you hold kits and how do you get DNA out of kits that are decades old? And the answer is yes, it's been actually amazing to look at kind of the hardiness and tenacity of DNA. When you look at Detroit, they had these 10,000 rape kits that were sitting in a warehouse with open windows, half of the building was actually destroyed, had literally been bulldozed and windows and birds flying around. Detroit's cold so it got very, very cold and it gets very, very hot in the summer. So they were taking rape kits off the shelf in Detroit and getting results from these rape kits, so that's pretty amazing.

Some cases from the '70s have gotten usable DNA from them and so obviously they need to be stored correctly, but we have seen kind of amazing results from some of these cases that people thought, "Well, there's no way that usable DNA is going to come from these kits." The other side is the statute of limitations. And in some cases it's 10 years, it might be 15, it's different from state to state. And first of all, is every reason to test kits that are beyond the statute of limitations, that is our policy, that is what we suggest because one really kind of big theme has come out of this work is that survivors want answers and justice means different things to different survivors.

It might not necessarily be that they want the criminal justice outcome of the offender going to prison, that for many is what they want, but they do find justice sometimes just through the process. So if a case can't be prosecuted, an offender can't be brought to justice that way, sometimes for survivors it's just knowing that the system cared enough to test the kit and then to contact them and say, "Hey, we found your offender, it's this guy." Number one, it's who you thought it was or number two, here's a name for you, so you finally know. And also, many of them are already in prison because they're repeat offenders and so for a survivor to know that person's in prison is really going to give them a sense of peace of mind. Many survivors say, "I'm always looking over my shoulder." And knowing they're in prison, it's just information that they really want to know.

They also have opportunities sometimes to go and give victim impact statements in other cases related to that offender. So they may be able to go in to parole hearing or to a sex offender hearing, so there's so many paths, ways that survivors can actually also get little kind of nuggets of healing through this process. And I've also seen prosecutors do kind of interesting things like, okay, there's no statute of limitations on this sort of theft or whatever, and be able to charge that person with stealing $20, but not be able to charge them for the rape.

Jay Ruderman: Right.

Ilse Knecht: So it's really important for those kits to be tested. And one last point is that again, because many of these offenders are serial offenders, those kits may connect to other kits and then you can see this is one more case that is on this person's rap sheet basically.

Jay Ruderman: So which states have done the best job at working through their backlog and which states still have a lot of work to do to get through the backlog of rape kits?

Ilse Knecht: Well, so we have more than 10 states that have adopted all the six pillars and they're doing pretty well, but I will say, for example, Texas is one of them, that has all the six pillars on paper that has had some trouble with the implementation of the laws, that's kind of where we're looking now. A lot of our work is looking at how are these laws being implemented and trying to hold the stakeholders accountable for that? So I'll say one state that has done really well is Kentucky. They were very early in the reform process, they passed all the six pillars very early, they've got a wonderful state lab and the attorney general and the governor over periods have just been very involved in trying to make changes.

We're seeing some good things happen in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio has done really well. We're working in several states right now that haven't really done anything on paper, so like Rhode Island and Maine is one of them, Mississippi, a couple of states that we'd like to see some reform take place this year. And then most of the states are kind of in between, they have some things they're doing, some reform, they may have gotten federal grants, but they're not working legislatively, so it's kind of a patchwork quilt.

Jay Ruderman: So the Ruderman Family Foundation is based in Boston and I know that the Joyful Heart Foundation has done work in Massachusetts. How are we doing here in Massachusetts?

Ilse Knecht: We've been through an interesting journey with Massachusetts, I will say in the end, the sort of forecast is good. We were involved in a law in 2018, without getting into the nitty gritty, basically had a loophole written into it that we were kind of unaware of that was able to be kind of taken advantage of. And we found out recently through our Freedom of Information Act requests and some very diligent reporters that there are about 6,000 untested kits that need to be tested in the state. And we recently went through the budget process and got some language in the budget process to fix that with some amazing lawmakers along the way and advocates of course.

So I think Massachusetts is actually in a good place now, and I know that they have a 30 day testing turnaround timeframe for their new kits. And I've been told by several parties that that is happening and that Massachusetts is outsourcing some of their new kits to a private lab so that they can keep within that 30 days and that's fantastic news. So I'm hopeful that Massachusetts is really coming around and is going to get into that kind of comprehensive reform state soon.

Jay Ruderman: Great. I hope we live up to our ideals here.

Ilse Knecht: It's been an interesting road.

Jay Ruderman: Yes, I'm sure. In 2019, Grey's Anatomy became the first series of network television to have depicted what goes on into a rape kit. And the next year, Netflix Unbelievable came out and told the true story of a woman who was failed by the system when she was accused of lying about rape. Do you think that media and entertainment has a responsibility in sharing these types of stories and does it help move the issue forward?

Ilse Knecht: Yes and yes, we've seen it I think time and time again with Law and Order: SVU of course, being very groundbreaking in that are arena, and I'm not just saying that because Mariska is my boss, but I think the more that the general public can see how this crime impacts survivors and what they have to go through after an assault, especially if they want to report to police and have evidence collected, the trauma that they experience, I think it's sort of almost person by person, just making sure that people are more open to understanding what happens with survivors.

I think the media can have a really big impact on what the general public thinks about these issues and also anger them and inspire them to action. You may know that Mariska produces documentary called I Am Evidence, which won an Emmy and was about the backlog and followed the story of four survivors and what happened to them in their lives after their kits were collected and not tested. And we have just seen such an outpouring of people being inspired and even from advocates to legislators after seeing the film Take Action.

And so I think our hope is always that media will inspire people to take action and not just legislative action. It means if somebody tells you they're a survivor that you believe them, that individual moment is so important to survivors. Don't ever underestimate the impact you can make in that person's life by just saying, "I believe you and how can I help you?" And I hope that these TV shows and movies will show people that, that's sometimes all it takes to really help a survivor heal and find joy.

Jay Ruderman: Yeah. I was just going to mention the I Am Evidence, which appeared on an HBO and Mariska and the Joyful Heart Foundation  has done tremendous work and you've been at the heart of that to really correct a wrong that's been systematic in our country. Maybe you can leave us with a success story, a rape kit that was on the shelf for many years, but actually ended up in a prosecution.

Ilse Knecht: Oh my gosh, there are many which I'm glad to say, there are many, I think I want to mention a woman named Gail Gardner who was in Florida. She's a survivor who was sexually assaulted by a serial rapist and was not believed and her rape kit stayed on the shelf in Orlando Police Department for a long, long time. And it was recently tested and connected her assault to many, I think maybe more than 20 other victims. So her case is going through the system now. But what also has been amazing is to see Gail kind of blossom. I didn't know her before this, but she's become an advocate. We worked on legislation in Florida named Gail's Law, which created a rape kit tracking system. Every time they needed her in Tallahassee, she was up there, she was talking to the media, whatever she could do to get that passed.

And I'm not saying every survivor should do this, it's not for everybody but just seeing how the sort of change in how her case was handled and feeling like finally the system was kind of responding to her and taking her seriously, I think has been so healing for her. There are cases throughout this country... I don't know, once a couple months I would get a story emailed to me or through some kind of alert system about a case being solved. But now, especially I think with this Sexual Assault Kit Initiative grant program, it seems like almost every day I get a story about a case that was solved using the DNA database or other methods, but just how important it is to know that this is happening and this rape kit testing and is making a huge difference in the lives of survivors.

There's a lot of progress going on across this country and I think that it's something that we kind of knew would happen, but we didn't know what would happen at this level. We knew we could fix this, but I don't think we really realized how much it would change people's lives and even start changing the system. So I think Gail's story though is just such an amazing story and she's a firecracker, she's ready to go and willing to go for the next legislative session now.

Jay Ruderman: Thank you for sharing that. Finally, for those listening who want to help end the backlog, what steps can they do?

Ilse Knecht: Well, first they can go to endthebacklog.org and look at your state and see what pillars your state has worked on and what they've accomplished, and you can email your legislators and your governor and your attorney general and talk to the media and kind of make noise about what is going on in your state. And we're certainly willing to help you, you can contact us to kind of give you ideas and tips and tools on working with legislators, working with the media, and to start from the beginning just find out does your state know how many rape kits they have and are they testing them?

So I think it's a combination of working with media, working with legislators, even from your city council. You could go to your city council, let's say your state hasn't done much or has done a lot but still locally, a lot of local work is overlooked as how important it is and it really is important to find out. You could have a state law that says mandating kits is the policy, your local police department might be ignoring it so start local and just find out from your local legislators, what's the policy here? What is happening in my community?

Jay Ruderman: So helpful. Thank you so much, Ilse.

Ilse Knecht: I appreciate it. And one thing I want to just really quickly mention-

Jay Ruderman: Sure.

Ilse Knecht: ... when we look at the cases that are being solved through testing these rape kits, communities are finding these serial offenders who are not just committing sexual assault, they're committing all kinds of crime. And you look at their background, you look at even their rap sheets, they've been arrested over and over again for things like burglary, carjacking, non-violent crimes. Many of them have domestic violence backgrounds, child abuse, just the gamut. So these are offenders who are impacting society as a whole.

And what we've also found coming out of Cleveland, the research that they did there is that testing rape kits actually saves communities money. And so when they tested 4,000 kits and they looked then at the crimes that they were solving and the crimes that they were preventing and the impact on society and victims, they were saving $8,000 per kit.

Jay Ruderman: Wow.

Ilse Knecht: So there's an investment on the front end to testing kits, but it will come back to you and it will save you money, but it'll help create safer communities. So not only is this about individual survivors and getting them justice and healing, this is about preventing the next potential victim and also just making sure that our societies are just and a safe place to live.

Jay Ruderman: Such an important point. I remember my time as a prosecutor, rarely did I prosecute someone who only had one thing on their rap sheet-

Ilse Knecht: Right.

Jay Ruderman: ... so such an important point and a great way to end our conversation. It's been a pleasure speaking to you, I learned so much.

Ilse Knecht: Oh, thank you so much.

Jay Ruderman: And I hope a lot of people will listen to this and will take action. So thank you so much for your time.

Ilse Knecht: Really appreciate it, Jay. Thank you.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast, be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

Speaker 1: All-Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation, and social justice with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman: Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation, and social justice. Tony Goldwyn is an actor, director, and producer who you might know from his breakout role as the villain, Carl Bruner in the 1990 film Ghost, or his seven-season run as President Fitzgerald Grant and ABC Scandal alongside Kerry Washington. Behind the camera, Tony boasts of an impressive resume directing the Feature Conviction, starring Hillary Swank, the critically acclaimed series, The Divide, and episodes of hit shows like Grey’s Anatomy and Law and Order. Tony is also a passionate activist who dedicates much of his personal time to philanthropic work. He sits on the board of trustees at the Innocence Project, serves as an ambassador for Stand Up to Cancer, is a board member for the humanitarian relief organization Americares, and the list goes on. His upcoming projects include the limited series, The Hot Zone: Anthrax, and the feature film King Richard with Will Smith. Tony, welcome to All Inclusive.

Tony Goldwyn: Thanks, Jay. It’s my pleasure.

Jay Ruderman: So, Tony, you are known for many different roles from the classic film Ghost and of course playing President Fitz in Scandal, but a lesser-known fact might be that your family is a Hollywood institution and that your grandfather was the G in MGM. Was your Hollywood path to becoming an actor a given?

Tony Goldwyn: No, I don’t think so. I mean maybe, genetically speaking, maybe. But no, when I was growing up because it was sort of the family business I wanted to… I thought that was the last thing I would want to do, but then like most actors I sort of got bit by the bug when I started doing high school plays and then it just became an unavoidable thing. You know I must say that as a kid from the very first time I ever stepped into a theater, into a live theater, I was intoxicated by that and sort of fell in love with that world. So, I suppose it was happening before I even knew it.

Jay Ruderman: And I know that you and I both went to Brandeis and I’ve read that you really caught the bug at Brandeis and was very actively in the theater scene there.

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah, I really… I mean I had caught the bug well before Brandeis, but I went to Brandeis because they had a very good reputation as a theater department and I was lucky enough to have one of those great teachers at Brandeis. A guy named Ted Kazanoff who ran the department when I was there.

Jay Ruderman: So, I know that you’re very well known for your roles in feature films and on TV and I’m a huge fan, but I want to really focus for the first part of this interview and your activism, and you’re very directed to specific causes. Can you talk about how you came about deciding which causes to spend your time on?

Tony Goldwyn: Sure. You know the whole thing of service I guess it took me a little while to find my focus. You know when I first started experiencing notoriety from the jobs that I was in, I was pretty uncomfortable with the whole phenomenon of celebrity. It felt rather unearned and I don’t know. There was just something that felt quite shallow about it to me. I really loved doing the work and I was grateful that things were successful, but then I quickly realized oh, well, you can use this as leverage to bring attention to important things. And people seem to want to be in a room with you simply because you’re on television or a movie so I started just experimenting and it took me I would think, about 10 years almost of getting with organizations that maybe I wasn’t so passionate about and doing things that felt like I wasn’t doing any deep dive.

I was just showing up or people simply wanted me there for a photo op. You know, but so I became a bit frustrated with that. And then I decided no, I’m going to put my energy into only things that really move me. So, the organizations that now I’ve been involved with for the past 20 plus years are all things that have my passion for them has developed organically and sort of gradually. I’ve learned I can be much more effective that way and it’s much more satisfying to me because I really am able to develop an understanding of what I’m talking about and not just showing up at a party, or for a photo op, or being part of an organization that I ultimately didn’t think is terribly effective, even if they have a good mission.

Jay Ruderman: So, how did that come about? How were you introduced to the right people? I mean was this your own homework digging down and saying, these are the issues I really want to focus on, or were you introduced to certain people that you’re like yeah, I learned a lot from them and this is where I want to go?

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah, much more the latter. It was almost by accident in every single case. You know, let me just start by saying I feel like my generation, with obvious exceptions, was not terribly service-oriented. I see young people today and my daughters included, and as they come into their adulthood, how they can give back is something that is a part of their sort of portfolio of how they want to build a life. For me, I came of age in the seventies and early eighties and it was just such a… I don’t know. I feel like we were very narcissistic, self-serving generation in American and so I didn’t… I’m so career-focused that I didn’t really even think too much about it until I got into my thirties and then that was when I sort of spent 10 years sort of splashing around.

So, by the end of my middle to late thirties, I started getting very frustrated with some of the organizations that I was involved with as I mentioned and stepped back. And at that time, I guess it was in 2001, I heard about a story on the news about a wrongful conviction and my wife actually saw the piece on the Today Show I think about a guy who had just gotten out of prison after 18 and a half years. He was exonerated, found innocent and his sister had been the only person to believe in him. And she had completed her high school education, gone to college, gone to law school, all in order to become an attorney to find a way to get her brother out of prison, and she did. And he was exonerated through DNA evidence. My wife said, “That’s a great movie.”

So, I chased down… I had started you know, I was a director by then and I sort of chased down this woman’s story and found out about this organization called the Innocence Project, which had helped her get her brother out. And so, I made this movie. It took several more years to actually make the movie, which ended up being called Conviction. But, that story awakened me to the fractures in our criminal justice system and to the reality of wrongful conviction in general. So, I organically developed a relationship with the Innocence Project because I was making a movie about them and I just got really passionate about their work. And so that was the I would say, that the Innocence Project was the first organization that I really started investing in and our relationship just grew organically.

And then gradually they sort of drew me in and I became a bit of an ambassador for them. And over the years we’ve gotten very close and I’m now  on their board of directors and that’s a sort of perfect example. I really became, you know my knowledge base grew. So, then when I was talking about it, for someone who’s not a lawyer, I was able to speak knowledgeably in helping to tell their story. So, that’s in and I think in every other, I would say I’m intimately involved with about four other organizations and in each case, it’s a similar story of evolution.

Jay Ruderman: And I read about your family and that they really sort of kept you, even though you were a Hollywood family, they kept you away from the celebrity aspect of Hollywood as you were growing up. Did activism, did any of that come from your family? I mean did you learn that from your parents?

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah. You know my parents are both, my grandparents and my parents were very service-oriented. You know my mother, who was an artist, spent a lot of her free time working with kids. I grew up in Los Angeles so working with kids from East LA. In the Latino community, there was a community center that she taught art at. And as a kid, not only did my mom teach two or three times a week at this community center, she really brought a lot of her kids into our life. So, there were always kids, her students that were just at our house sometimes like living there. She would have parties twice a year where they would all come over, all these kids, and she’d just whatever their needs were, she’d address them.

I became friends with a lot of these guys and yeah, and it was just a thing that was natural and normal. You know, similarly, my father was very involved with a number of organizations. His father, my paternal grandfather, who you mentioned who was one of the sort of pioneers of the film industry, Samuel Goldwyn. My grandfather started… was one of the people who started in 1921, what is now called the Motion Picture Television Fund, which is an industry organization that really helps our own. Entertainment is a very insecure fickle field. It’s basically a freelance job for most people and there was no real support system. So, the MPTF provides social services, all kinds of services for people who work even tangentially in the entertainment industry. So yeah, that was one of the things my grandfather started, and it was very important to him, and also very important to my dad.

And now I’m involved with that as well and sort of [inaudible 00:11:17] with. And so, it was a part of my family. I honestly think as I mentioned before, I don’t know. I just… The generation, they came up in the eighties. It was the Wall Street generation. Not that I was on Wall Street, but I don’t know why it took me a little while to put my focus on that. I mean when you’re in your twenties also, you don’t really have any money. You think well, what can I do? How can I give back? What can I, you know, what do I have to offer? So, maybe that’s why [crosstalk 00:11:43].

Jay Ruderman: Well, I also know about growing up in the age of Ronald Reagan and in the eighties. It was a different time in our history and I think there was a focus on business, and excess, and not necessarily as much a focus, as you mentioned today, with your kids and giving back.

Tony Goldwyn: Correct.

Jay Ruderman: So, it was a different age, but I just want, you know, you mentioned the issues in Hollywood and where some members of the crew could work for 12 or 14 hours a day on a set and issues with contract negotiations. You know we recently had a terrible case with the movie Rust and Alec Baldwin. Can you talk a little bit about what it’s like being on a set and how to protect the people that are working day in and day out on the set who are not the stars or even actors in the production? I mean this was a terrible case where the cinematographer, Helena Hutchins, was killed, but how do we make our sets safer? How do we make the productions a better workplace for the people who are working there?

Tony Goldwyn: Well obviously, the situation with Rust is just beyond tragic. You know my heart goes out to Helena’s family and friends and everyone on that crew, and to Alec, who I just can’t imagine being in his position. Look, there’s an ongoing investigation. I don’t know the facts. I just know what I’ve read. Same as you. What I can say is that A, that’s a freak situation. You know other than what happened with Brandon Lee and maybe a few really rare cases where firearms have gone off mistakenly or improperly. Brandon Lee, famously Bruce Lee’s son, who was an actor, got hit with actually a paper slug, which was a blank that was shot and it was too close to him and he ended up dying. So, this is a very rare thing and I’ve never in my entire career heard of any live ammunition being on set. We will find out how that happened.

All that said, there are very direct protocols for the use of firearms on set. I have never been on a set and I have been on hundreds of them, where if there were firearms involved, the armor, every time you use a gun on set, whether it’s a rehearsal, or you’re filming, the armor and the prop person, sometimes the prop person is licensed to be an armor, will come up to you. The process is they say, “Okay, this is either a rubber gun.” Then they show you the thing. “This is not real. This is for rehearsal purposes only.” And they always show you and they say this very clearly, and everyone knows that it’s fake. If it’s a real gun, they will say, “This is an empty gun.” And the armor or a licensed prop person will open the chamber and show you the empty barrel and show you that everything is completely empty before they hand you the gun.

And then if it is a live gun with a blank in it, everyone is notified. It says this is a hot gun. This is fire on the set. You know it’s all very, very buttoned down. So obviously, that did not happen on Rust. I have never once in my career heard of a first AD, the assistant director, handling a firearm. I’ve never heard of that. That’s against any protocol I know about, which is what happened in this case. So, this is very rare and obviously, things did not go according to plan. What has happened and I have experienced a lot in recent years, is the time pressure and the money involved in making a film and the increasing pressure on labor to work longer and longer hours with fewer resources in order to bring a film in at a certain budget level, has put a strain on crews and even on producers, on the people who are trying to get it done.

Where people can very easily get sloppy, and rush, and put people in hazardous, unhealthy situations, whether they’re working 16 hours a day and have to drive home an hour and a half after doing that, and in danger of crashing their car or falling asleep at the wheel. It’s just a whole litany of negative consequences that can happen because of an irresponsible work environment because of top-down financial pressure. There’s a boom happening right now in film production because there’s such a desire for content. So, you get areas where there’s a lot of filming and not a lot of crews so you get inexperienced people working on film sets who are not properly trained because there’s just no one else to do the jobs and people want to get it done. You know, I mean I could go on and on and on and on.

You know what recently happened with the IATSE, the technical trade union, which is a conglomerate of guilds of all the people who work behind the camera, there was a strike authorization to put a stop to all of this. And now thank God, that a strike was avoided and changes are being put into place. So Rust, I think, is a tragic outcome of that phenomenon.

Jay Ruderman: Any thoughts on I know Dwayne Johnson just came out recently said in his productions, they’re not going to use live guns. They’ll use fake guns. Do you have any feelings strongly one way or the other on that?

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah, I think that’s wise now. You know I really do. I hadn’t thought of that because you get so used to the way things are, but for a long time, the reason you used a real gun was so that when that trigger was pulled, you have the effect of you have recoil, and you have flash out of the barrel, and all of the things when you record that a film that is very effective and makes it feel real. Now we have the capability with computer technology and they do it anyway so the reasons we used real guns, I think are no longer necessary. We can make it look real without a real gun. And the truth is when you have a projectile coming out of a weapon, even if it’s just a paper slug, as in a blank, people can get badly hurt. And as we’ve seen with Rust, it may be vanishingly rare, but somehow a live cartridge got in that 45 revolver, Colt 45. So, I would totally support that.

Jay Ruderman: Right. I want to talk a little bit about technology because, regarding your work with the Innocence Project, a lot of it’s based on DNA. I used to be a prosecutor and DNA as a tool did not exist at that time. And now it’s being used to free a lot of people who were wrongly convicted. I mean how big of a problem is this? How many people in America are wrongly convicted and serving time in prison?

Tony Goldwyn: The Innocence Project, since its founding in 1992, has exonerated 375 people. 21 of them from death row. Okay, so that’s a lot of people, but that’s a small fraction of the people who are in prison who are innocent. You know there are many, many cases, even ones with negative DNA results. In other words, it’s proven by DNA that this was not the person and the system will not let those people out. There are many people where there is no DNA evidence available to retry them. It’s been estimated to my knowledge, that the percentages of people who were wrongfully incarcerated, in other words, innocent, spending time in prison for crimes they did not commit, is somewhere between four and 10%. So, if you say there are two to 2.5 million incarcerated individuals in the United States, that’s 200, could be up as much as 200,050 to 200,000 people that will be sleep being in a jail cell tonight for a crime that they did not commit/.

Jay Ruderman: In the United States in 2021, that’s crazy. And what do you think of the top reasons that this ends up happening? I mean is it just a quick trial and the prosecutors trying to push through a conviction? I mean how does this happen?

Tony Goldwyn: Well, you’d be more expert at that than me as a former prosecutor, but I think that it’s a couple of reasons. I think sort of the most macro reason is that when the tragedy of a violent crime happens, as human beings we crave closure. We crave resolution. We want to get the bad guy. We want someone to be held accountable, and we want to put this to rest and move on, and we want retribution. So, there’s a tremendous amount of emotional pressure to solve a crime and to get the bad guy, sort of speak. The other more structural reason is that police and prosecutors, and tell me if you disagree, but are incentivized and pressured to have a high conviction rate and to bring resolution to these crimes as quickly as possible. And people politically, you know, a lot of DAs are politically and a conviction rate is a real badge of honor politically.

So, I think that the system is currently incentivized to get the bad guy and to get convictions at all costs. You know we have problems of the tragedy of mass incarceration, which was a byproduct of the Crime Bill in, was it 96′ or 94′? When was the Crime Bill was passed on the Clinton administration, which was really a reaction to the devastating crack epidemic and the upsurge in crime? And again, it was emotionally, it was very politically charged, but it was like let’s get the bad guys. So, mass incarceration I think has added tremendous pressures, just the volume of people in the system. Mostly people of color, just put that on steroids and made it just that much more difficult for people to get justice.

Jay Ruderman: Yeah. I think you’re right and I think there is community pressure, political pressure. You’re right. A lot of DAs are elected and it changes from state to state. I mean there are some states that are better than other states, but it is a nationwide problem. I know there’s been a lot of work on criminal justice reform and Kim Kardashian has gotten a lot of attention on that. Is this something that you’ve also been involved in? Is it an issue that a lot of people who have recognition who are celebrities and well-known figures are getting behind?

Tony Goldwyn: I mean I can’t speak for other people. Kim Kardashian, obviously, is the most famous one, but the answer is criminal justice reform and that has become increasingly a bigger and bigger focus at the Innocence Project. You know for people that don’t know enough about the Innocence Project, and I encourage you to go to innocenceproject.org to find out more because the work is extraordinary. You know it started out by developing, pioneering the use of DNA technology to prove someone’s guilt or innocence by testing the bloody evidence, or semen, or hair samples from a crime scene to categorically prove whether someone was the perpetrator or not.

But civil rights attorneys, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, have founded this and have been doing it now since 92′, but what’s happened is as groundbreaking is that work was and as important, the Innocence Project, now really criminal justice reform and policy reform, is almost as front and center as DNA testing. You know because there are many aspects to this in addition to prosecutorial misconduct or police misconduct. There are pressures. There are things in our system that just need to be changed. For example, the use of junk science. There are a lot of things that are admissible in court and often persuasive at trials, which are completely bogus, like bite-mark testimony.

There are many people who’ve been convicted because of bite-marks and they’ll have a dental expert, forensic expert come in and say these bite-marks match this person’s teeth and that’s why we know absolutely that this is the person that did it and it’s complete nonsense. It is bogus.

Jay Ruderman: Right.

Tony Goldwyn: So, those kinds of laws, banning bite-mark testimony. Another one, the biggest cause is eyewitness misidentification. So, you have someone saying I know I saw, that was the guy, or that was the woman who did it, and there are many, many ways to manipulate someone’s memory. And so, there’s a lot of work being done to address that phenomenon. And you could probably list many more examples of forensics that have been taken as standards that really need to be adjusted. So yeah, I’ve been as vocal as I can be and there are bills in many states, and the policy department at the Innocence Projects working on a policy level all over the country to get these laws changing. And they are changing. There’s real, real progress being made because it’s not like… This takes it out of the political realm of sort of you’re either law and order, or you’re not.

And the thing I always say to people is for every person who is put in prison innocently, the perpetrator of that crime is walking free to do it again. You know you may think you’ve gotten just served, but you’ve actually enabled an assailant, or a murderer, or a rapist to roam the streets freely and do that again. So, and in addition to victimizing the innocent person and destroying their family, and their whole social network, and their children, all the ripple effects of a wrongful incarceration are just incalculable.

Jay Ruderman: Yeah. It’s a huge problem. What would you say to someone who’s listening who’s like okay, well, I don’t have a huge network, but this issue speaks to me and I want to get involved? What’s the best way that they can get involved and feel like they’re making a difference?

Tony Goldwyn: Well, I think you go to innocenceproject.org, and there’s the answer to that question. For me, all activism can start on a local level, like what is happening in your community? What organizations are supporting the aspect of, if we’re talking about criminal justice reform, what speaks to you emotionally about it and how can you… Find out what bills are being worked on in your community, or in your state, or in your district, and go and advocate, and call your assembly person, state representative, congressperson, Senator.

There’s lots of ways to advocate. If you have the means, you can get money. If you know these organizations, a lot of them operate on a shoestring budget so they need volunteers. While there is the Innocence Project in New York, which is what we call the mothership, you know the main one, it is part and sort of the head of an entire Innocence Project network. The Innocence network around the country and each Innocence Project is financially independent. So, there may be an Innocence Project in your area that may really need some help. And if you have expertise, if you’re an attorney, or you may have gifts that would be very helpful.

Jay Ruderman: Right? Tony, you’re an established figure in the entertainment industry and you mentioned in 2010, that you produced and directed a movie called Conviction, which you described. Also in 2014, you developed a series called Divide, based off the conviction and the Innocence Project, and tells a story about a caseworker trying to stop the impending execution of someone she thinks was innocent. Do you think that your activism has now entered into your profession, that you’re in a position where you’re able to take your activism and have an impact through your work and through the production of entertainment?

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah. I mean look, what value do I bring to a charitable organization? If I’m having a good year, I can get some money. I can lend my support, but really what my skills involve is storytelling. So, whether that is going out and speaking out on behalf to help tell the story of the Innocence Project or whatever organization I’m involved in a way that hopefully affects people’s hearts and spurs them to action. That’s one way, but telling stories to shine a light on these issues, that’s the holy grail for me. If I can make a piece of entertainment that moves people and in a three dimensional way gives them a life experience of what, in this case, of what it is to be wrongfully convicted and really lets them into a two-hour experience where they feel they’ve lived it, what more valuable contribution can I make? So yeah, when I’m making stories that are connected to issues that I care about, I really feel like I’m doing the best version of my work.

Jay Ruderman: Well, I’ve always believed that entertainment has sometimes a greater impact on society and the way society sees things than even legislation.

Tony Goldwyn: You know the culture changes the zeitgeist. It really does. If you think about LGBTQ rights, for example, and gay marriage. Okay, so into the early 2000s, the idea of gay marriage, or it was still an insane idea. People just didn’t… It just seemed so foreign and then you have a television show like Will & Grace, where you have Eric McCormick, who’s like the most sort of all American guy, and you have Sean Hayes, who’s just hilarious, and endearing, and fun to be with in your living room every single night, I honestly think Will & Grace had just a profound impact on the American psyche about their attitude towards gay people because what seemed unfamiliar or didn’t know about them was somehow threatening. Suddenly, people realized we’re all just human beings or Modern Family.

You know these kinds of things I really think shift the consciousness so that now people look at gay marriage, obviously, there’s some people who are more… Every issue has its detractors, but now people just take it for granted as normal. It was a 50 year or longer, but a 50 year pitched battle for gay rights, and the progress that we’ve made on that issue in the past 15 years has been monumental. I really think that’s a perfect example of how the pop culture can really change things. I mean even in my experience of doing Scandal, for example. When we premiered that show, the idea of an interracial relationship between the president of the United States and one of his staff workers seemed so like wow, man, this is really edgy stuff.

And sort of the corporate entities were nervous about are people… How’s this going to go over? And of course, people loved it. And within a very short period of time, it was no big thing. Like it was just Shonda Rhimes created a world that was the world as she saw it, and audiences completely embraced it. And so, not that we don’t have a vast distance to go in terms of our issues with racial justice in this country, but cultural phenomena like that, I think play a massive role. So, that’s where in my small way, I feel like I try and put my energy.

Jay Ruderman: Yeah. Two excellent examples and really changing society and societal attitudes can lead to laws that are really effective. I know you’re really political and you’ve been very out there and outspoken, and I don’t think you’re afraid to be outspoken. One of the issues that touches on some of the work that you’ve done is the death penalty. And some people see the death penalty as extremely inhumane and then other people in our country are going to see it as a way of deterring crime. I’m sure you have strong views on this. Is it something you’ve spoken out on?

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah, to some degree. I do have strong views on it. I mean from a moral perspective, I think it’s immoral but that’s just my personal opinion. It has been proven statistically, it is not a deterrent. And from an economic perspective, it is a travesty. In other words, the amount of money that is hundreds of millions of dollars that have been wasted of public dollars on housing and death row inmates, as a simple, as a strategy, and on an economic matter, it makes sense whatsoever. It is not a deterrent. It destroys people’s lives.

You know there’s in terms of inhumanity, the chemicals that are used for lethal injections, there’s all kinds of moral issues about cruel and inhuman punishment and suffering. But again, that falls under the moral part of the spectrum. From a practical standpoint, it should be abolished. It makes absolutely no sense. It does not  work. And as I mentioned earlier, of the 375 exonerations where people were proven by DNA evidence to be innocent of those crimes, 21 people were freed from death row. So, using the numbers we were talking about before, if those 21 people plus all of the other people who have not been able to yet prove their innocence, but likely are innocent, that’s murder.

Jay Ruderman: It’s an amazing statistic and it really hits home. You mentioned your years of playing President Fitz, who was a moderate Republican on Scandal, for seven seasons. What do you think President Fitz, or what do you think you would think, or what do you think of what’s going on in this country? I mean with Trump and the denial of the insurrection that took place on the capital, this whole thing that our whole election system is rampant with fraud. I mean there’s this whole narrative out there that, to me, it seems to be extremely dangerous for our country. And I know you’re very you know passionate about being involved in politics so this has to be front and center to something you’re thinking about.

Tony Goldwyn: Everything you said is true. Fitz, well not the Paragon of virtue.

Jay Ruderman: Right.

Tony Goldwyn: I do think he would’ve been appalled by what’s happened to our country  and to the Republican party. I mean Jeff Perry, who played Cyrus, my chief of staff, and my dear friend, Jeff, when we were first doing the show, we were trying to get a sense of like well, what is our world view as Republicans in this alternate universe? And we really thought well, okay. So, well, our agenda is to bring the Republican party back to a consensus party and heal the divisions that coming out of the Bush years we thought there was so much division with the neocons and the Republican party pitted against the left-wing of the democratic party. And we thought well, that’s going to be our sweet spot as an administration and that sounds so quaint and unrealistic now.

Yeah. I think we’re in a very, very dangerous place in this country and around the world really. I think that Trump represented, for me, was someone who really capitalized, and had the gifts, and the skills to capitalize on people’s fears, and maybe even more people’s sense of grievance, and saw that there was just real traction there. People who felt unseen, and felt overlooked, and felt looked down on by, quote-unquote, coastal elites, which I suppose I’m one of, and he’s really a genius at that. And then combining that with the advent of social media and the explosion of what’s happened in our media ecosystem where misinformation can be just rampantly distributed on a mass scale in such a way that people, all of us in our various silos, can really just create the world that we see and find lots of confirmation bias, lots of information to back up our view of the world, regardless of what actual facts are.

The famous Kellyanne Conway statement of we just create our alternative fact. There are alternative facts and that’s become, you know we laughed at the time like I can’t believe they came out of our mouth, but that’s very much what I think we’re dealing with. And I know that there are many people in this country who literally see the universe in a different way than I do. Like it’s as if we live on different planets.

Jay Ruderman: Right.

Tony Goldwyn: And I say this all as someone who believes and has faith, and optimism in the fact that if we can lower the temperature and begin to connect as human beings, find some standard, some baseline of what our objective facts that’s, to me, where the healing begins and to in a sense rise up. Not just against Trump or he really was just like the right guy, at the right moment, with the right skills, and the right charisma, and all of that. It’s not about Trump or Trumpism. You know I think that is a hazard really to get too focused on that. To me, it’s about finding ways to bring people together in conversation and to be able to connect with people just at a lower temperature where those kinds of polarizing sort of flashpoints are not in the conversation.

So, it’s a real challenge, but I think we’re in a very dangerous moment right now, but I don’t know. I do have faith. When I have conversations with conservative friends of mine, or when I get into unemotional, deep conversations with people who may be so much more conservative than I am on a lot of levels, we are always at least as many areas where we can, have the opportunity to connect deeply as human beings about our families or our view of one aspect of life or another. And the focus suddenly then shifts away from that handful of things that we really see very differently. And we’ve lost that in this country I think.

Jay Ruderman: So, I mean I agree with you. I think that Americans and people around the world, for that matter, are mostly good and want to do the right thing, but we live in a polarizing time, and Trump is still out there, and the Republican party is completely behind him. What advice do you give? I mean your kids are already young adults, but you know younger people who are getting involved in politics and they’re jaded by what’s going on, but yet you deeply believe in being involved in the political system. What do you tell them?

Tony Goldwyn: Well, first of all, whatever your opinion is, we are so blessed to live in a society where we have the agency to, vote and to speak out, and to do all of the things that we’re allowed to do as Americans. We can’t take that for granted. I would say to young people who are jaded, please take the time. The world is in your hands. Seriously. You can make a difference. You can affect change. You can have agency over your situation, and it is through community building, and through connecting with other people. And the other thing that it is, is knowledge. Knowledge is power. And it seems I remember in my teens and twenties, it all seemed like I didn’t even know how to get my brain around politics, and it all seemed futile, and out of my control, and I felt that I didn’t have any impact.

You can… There are so many resources to begin to find out how you can have an impact about the things that you care about or the things that impact that affect your life. You can become an activist and it’s like all you need to do is dip your tone in the water and the truth is it’s really invigorating. It is soul expanding. It is enriching, and fun, and empowering. And so, once you start doing it, you get addicted to it because we are social creatures. We require that. We need to build human networks. That’s a major ingredient in happiness and feeling empowered in our own lives. And I want to share with you an example of this is my eldest daughter, Anna, last year with two partners, started an online platform called Political Playlist. Answering exactly this thing about after the political divisions that we’ve experienced in the past several years, they formed this platform called Political Playlists, which is a nonpartisan platform where what you do is it is focusing on members of Congress who are under 45-years-old.

Okay. So, our young, our future leaders. Get to know our future leaders. So, what you do is you go to politicalplaylist.org. You take a brief five-minute survey. It’s really cool and fun, and they have this great interface, and you say where you’re from, what your party affiliation is, what issues you care about most, whether you’re interested in national leaders, or leaders in your region, whatever it is. It’s a quick cool quiz. And then you get matched up with your playlist of five politicians who either match your needs and generally they’ll throw in one who has the exact opposite ideology from everything you have. And then you get a biweekly newsletter that’s customized for you with information about your leaders, who again are under 45-years-old. And in every newsletter you get, there are links to click through to an article, or to what bills this person is working on, or news about this person, or how to volunteer.

And so, that to me is such a perfect example of engagement because it’s very digestible. It’ll take you about five minutes to read your newsletter, but because it’s coming every week or two, you just start to build your knowledge base and you start to see oh, well, I could have this impact here. And you start to feel knowledgeable about these young leaders who some of them are going to be the leaders of the Senate and presidents of the United States. So, that’s an example of what Anna’s done with Political Playlist of the kind of thing that young people with technology can really… It’s fun. It’s like it’s not overwhelming. And so anyway, that’s an example of the kinds of things that are out there but I do think that’s the thing that’s going to change our system for the better, and I’m not advocating right or left because it has nothing to do with tribalism.

Jay Ruderman: That is so innovative and how do people sign up to get this newsletter?

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah. Go to politicalplaylist.org. It’s a really cool website. They got nominated for a Webby Award this past year right after they launched because the design and the interface is so cool. You just go to Political Playlist. Google it and you fill out this form, and you sign up, and you give your email address, and you will be matched up with five people in Congress or the Senate who are 45 or under. And if you don’t… You can then explore many others. There’s lots of data and the newsletter there’s also really interesting articles about what’s going on, an initiative, they have a podcast that talks to a lot of the young leaders, or activists, or celebrities, or people that are in the conversation. So yeah, check it out. It’s really cool.

Jay Ruderman: That’s awesome. So, Tony, I want to talk to you, you have some really exciting projects that are going to be released very soon. You’re going to be in a film, King Richard, which is coming out on the 19th of November, the story about Serena and Venus Williams and their dad. Can you talk a little bit about your role as coach Paul Cohen in the film?

Tony Goldwyn: Yeah. This is an extraordinary film, which is going to be out very soon. The 19th, as you mentioned, in theaters and on HBO Max. Will Smith plays Richard Williams, who was Venus and Serena’s father is. Venus Serena’s father who really got them into tennis and many people may know the story or a version of the story, but for those who don’t Richard, two years before Venus and Syrian were born, Richard was watching a tennis match on television and he knew nothing about tennis. He saw a young woman win a tournament and get handed a check for $40,000 and he just had a vision. He said, “We are going to do that.” And he wrote a 78-page manifesto, a plan. He envisioned this thing like a prophecy that he and his wife were going to have two additional kids. There were already three older girls and these two children were going to become the number one and number two female tennis players in the world.

And they did it. So, this story, King Richard, really we meet them when Venus and Serena are young girls and follow them through their childhood, and how they got into it in this extraordinary story of really a family’s, because it became a family mission to do this. It’s just incredible. And we all know what the end of the story is. So, I play Paul Cohen, who at a certain point when Venus and Serena were like five and seven years old or something like that, Richard couldn’t take them. You know he was self-taught in tennis and he sought out the top professional coaches in America and to try and get some training. So, Paul was their first professional coach and was Venus’ first professional coach because Serena was a bit younger and really took Venus to become the juniors undefeated junior state champion of California and really professionalized her game, and had a very close relationship with the family as well.

Jay Ruderman: It sounds like a film that I really want to watch and I’m sure a lot of people want to watch. I’ve heard Will Smith was very powerful in it. I know that you’ve talked about his character and getting into character. I also read that when it was decided that it was going to go from a theatrical release to streaming that Will Smith gave bonuses to all the actors on the film.

Tony Goldwyn: Yes. Well, the film will be released in theaters, but Warner Brothers because of the pandemic, decided because people going to movie theaters was a big question mark, so last year they decided they were going to take all their big movies and simultaneously release them on HBO Max as well as in theaters. And there was a big outcry in the industry about that. It was very controversial and Will felt bad I think, and wanted to do something for the cast who there might be a revenue impact for all of us because it’s going to be partly on streaming. So, Will just gave every of all of the main cast, this bonus out of his own pocket. And I just got a call saying, “Hey man, Will’s got a gift for you.” And I just couldn’t believe it. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. He’s just a classy human being.

Jay Ruderman: That’s amazing. Another film that you have coming out over Thanksgiving weekend is called Hot Zone: Anthrax, and it recreates the investigation surrounding the sending of anthrax-laced letters to politicians and media outlets in the weeks following 9/11. I remember this happening distinctly and how it put the entire country on edge right after 9/11. What impact do you think it’s going to have on today’s political climate and why was it important to tell this story 20 years later?

Tony Goldwyn: Well, The Hot Zone, National Geographic has done this incredible six-part series, as you said, profiling this investigation. The fact that we are just are in the midst of a global pandemic or hopefully on the backside of it, that both the terror that we have felt over the past two years, the way we’ve seen science manipulated, misinformation rampant, the way political agendas on all sides have sort of steered science, and our sort of base or instincts have created pretty destructive scenarios, all of that was at play in this investigation. It’s the thing that people don’t know about. I mean I remember vividly when the anthrax letters were sent three weeks after 9/11 and we were all traumatized by the attacks on the world trade center, and it was really, really scary. Several people died of anthrax poisoning because of it.

But then with the March to war in the Middle East, people forgot about it and this investigation went on for seven years. So, what I’m doing is I play this guy called Bruce Ivins, who was the lead anthrax researcher for the US Defense Department. And Bruce was a very complicated guy who became obsessed with this investigation and ended up we’ve learned, that Bruce really suffered from some very severe mental illness that he had hidden. I won’t give away a lot, but it’s an absolutely fascinating story that people will find has great resonance given the two years that we’ve all just been living through.

Jay Ruderman: I’m definitely going to watch it. I want to ask you, I know you’re very involved with Americares, so maybe you want to talk a little bit about what Americares does and how effective that organization is and helping people around the world.

Tony Goldwyn: Yes. Americares is another one of the few organizations that I’m deeply involved in. My involvement, again, happened organically. This is an organization that was started in I think 1977, but the genesis of it was just after the Vietnam war ended, there was an airplane. We were evacuating people out of Vietnam and there was a Pan Am, an airline that no longer exists, a Pan Am flight that was taking 143 I think, Vietnamese orphans to get them out of Vietnam when the communists took over, and that plane crashed in the jungle. And it was all over the news, and these poor children were lost in the jungle, and the American government and the state department couldn’t do anything about it, and there was lots of crying and stuff on the television. And a businessman from Connecticut named Bob Macauley was just appalled that the most powerful country in the world couldn’t do anything.

So, he and his wife Leila, mortgaged their house and rented a 747 aircraft, and flew over to Vietnam and rescued these kids themselves, and then brought them back to the United States, got them all settled in foster care, and realized that they wanted to keep doing this work and that they were going to form an organization that would cut through the red tape and act now, ask questions later, and just identify a need and get it done. And thus, Americares was born. They started this organization, which in the past 40 years, has become now it’s a very large organization and is of the preeminent humanitarian relief organizations in the world. And what Americares does now is it really is a health-focused disaster, and humanitarian, and development organizations. So, what we do is we really are focused on health, and health care, and building health infrastructure in communities.

So, we will go to a community that is affected by disaster or poverty, whether it be after a tsunami, or an earthquake, or a flood, or a hurricane, and go in and we’re first responders to bring in medicine, medical supplies, and medical training into a community. But I think the more, most more impact actual thing that we do, is we go into communities and work with the local partners in the community, whatever health infrastructure they have, whether it’s a hospital system, or whether it’s a hut in the jungle that is a health clinic with five people, and work with the local leaders, and the local infrastructure to build out a sustainable health infrastructure in that community.

When you have health, you have the ability to have a job, to educate your children, to put food on the table. When you don’t have health, you don’t have anything. So, health is fundamental and as we see it, health equity is a huge problem globally. Americares has been on the front lines of the pandemic. That was one of the immediately we were on the ground helping frontline workers. We provide prescription medicines for people in rural communities around the world. We’re part of a network of free clinics around the United States. So anyway, it’s a very… It’s an extraordinary organization so I encourage people to go to americares.org to find out more. It’s a group I’m really passionate about and really stand behind.

Jay Ruderman: Definitely. One last question. What do you think you’ve learned about yourself personally, over the years as being an activist?

Tony Goldwyn: I think a combination I’ve developed an increasing sense of humility as I engage in whatever level of activism I’m involved with and see people who really are doing God’s work, who really commit their lives to the service of others. I’m constantly inspired by that and humbled by that. And at the same time, I’ve learned… It’s given me a sense of agency and power where I really do see where I can have an impact and create change in a way that I never thought was possible. You know for many years in my life I thought well, I don’t know what to do. What difference can I make? You know I’m not a health expert. I don’t know anything about the criminal justice system. I don’t, you know many of the things that I’m involved with, it’s like what can I do? And I’ve realized that by just getting in the conversation, suddenly a myriad of things reveal themselves for me to have an impact.

Jay Ruderman: Thanks so much, Tony. It’s been a real pleasure. I really enjoyed our conversation. Thank you for being a guest on All Inclusive.

Tony Goldwyn: Thanks, Jay. It’s great talking today.

Jay Ruderman: Thank you.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify, and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast, be sure to tweet at Jay Ruderman.

‍

Speaker 1: (00:03)
All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman: (00:13)
Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice.

Jay Ruderman: (00:24)
For Jewish communities around the world, or those who have consistently battled against the uprise of religious persecution, there’s no name more synonymous with the fight against antisemitism than Abe Foxman. Born in Poland in 1940, Abe survived the Holocaust when his parents entrusted him to their Catholic nanny, who baptized him and raised him as her own son. After the war, Abe reunited with his parents and immigrated to the United States at the age of 10. In 1965, after obtaining his law degree, he joined the Anti-Defamation League. Abe would spend the next 50 years with them, 28 as its national director, devoting his professional career to educating the world on combating antisemitism. Throughout his career, Abe has been a trusted authority on antisemitism in the United States and worldwide, by prominent figures like President George W. Bush, Pope John Paul II, President Barack Obama, and many more.

Jay Ruderman: (01:28)
Abe, so good to see you, and it’s an honor to welcome you to my podcast, All Inclusive. I hope you’re well, I hope Golda is well.

Abe Foxman: (01:35)
It’s good to be on. Good to see you again.

Jay Ruderman: (01:38)
So, let’s jump right into it. How would you describe the current state of antisemitism in America and around the world?

Abe Foxman: (01:47)
I would say it’s serious, but not critical. It’s always been there. It’s always been out there. The difference today is, we’re more aware of it. We’re aware of it because it’s more covered in the media, because of the internet, because it’s being politicized. But basically, the disease has always been there. It’s been contained at times, it’s been underground, but it’s always been there. Today, it’s a lot more public. In the United States, there is one significant difference. No Jew has been killed in the United States, because he’s a Jew, for a hundred years. Since Leo Frank was lynched in Atlanta, in 1915, no Jew has died in this country because he was a Jew. That’s a major change. That’s a serious trauma to the American Jewish community, and I would hope to the American public, that even in this country, a Jews not immune from being hurt or killed because of his faith.

Jay Ruderman: (02:51)
So in terms of, that antisemitism is not worse than it’s been since the Holocaust in America, but you’re seeing more physical attacks and more killings than we’ve ever seen in the past.

Abe Foxman: (03:03)
Well, we’re seeing killings, I’m not going to say more killings. We’re seeing killings for the first time in a hundred years. The other thing is, again, antisemitism is more public because of the internet. There’s more of, it’s more visible. Look, I was with the ADL for 50 years. We, every year, we issued reports on antisemitic incidents. Every year we did studies on attitudes. They were always there, but nobody cared. Nobody covered it. Today, it’s more in the news, again, I said, because it’s politicized. There’s a political interest to hype a little bit, but the threat has always been there. I think when we realized, those of us dealing with the subject many years ago, that it’s a disease without a vaccine, without an antidote, we developed a strategy. What I would call a containment strategy. Put all the pieces together to set up a firewall, to make sure latent, to make sure that it’s not acceptable.

Abe Foxman: (04:02)
It’s worked, until about the last five or 10 years, where the firewall dissipated. Look, we had a containment policy, which was a combination of a consensus in this country of what’s right and what’s wrong. We had coalitions, we used litigation, legislation, coalitions, all these things together worked. Sometimes in one area with exposure, we use the media. We use truth. Antisemitism, at the end of the day, is the big lie. It’s the big lie about who the Jews are, what they are, what they believe, what their aspirations are, what their history is. And we use truth to answer that lie. Sadly, truth is gone today. In the last five or six years, the political establishment has destroyed truth. So, we’ve lost an element of response. The media. We used to use newspapers to answer the big lie, to tell the truth. And again, media today doesn’t have the credibility, the stature, the strengths, the power to respond to the antisemitism. So again, it was always there. It’s still here, but the environment has changed, dramatically changed. And, because there is no civil consensus about civility today.

Jay Ruderman: (05:26)
So, let me talk to you on that vein about leadership. Many of the people who are leading the world today, who have led the world in the past are people that you’ve interacted with. Biden is the president right now. You know Biden. You’ve had interactions with him. Do you feel that in terms of support for the Jewish community, responding to antisemitism, he’s where he should be?

Abe Foxman: (05:50)
Yeah, I think in most democratic countries, the difference in the past is that the democratically elected leadership is ready to speak out on antisemitism. Especially, you look at Germany and Merkel. Look where Merkel is on the issue. She’s been out there. She’s been outspoken. She cares, she raises her voice. And you find that in most democratically elected countries. So there is a shift from a hundred years ago, from 50 years ago, 70 years ago, where there was silence in positions of power. Look, sadly in the United States, there’s still this debate, where Franklin Roosevelt was on the issue of the Holocaust.

Abe Foxman: (06:30)
So, no, I think if you’re talking about Biden, absolutely, he’s there. He’s spoken, he’s acted. He’s appointed a new ambassador on antisemitism. I think on most cases, when you see any incident in this country, you see a response from this government, whether it’s from Homeland Security, whether it’s from the Justice Department, whether it’s from the Secretary of State, it’s there and that’s his leadership. So, that is not a problem. The problem is our general environment, and to what extent his words impact. That’s really the question.

Jay Ruderman: (07:06)
So, let me dig a little bit deeper on that. The last four years, the last administration, things seemed to get worse. And I don’t know if you met Trump personally or had any dealings with him. I know you’re a lifelong, or, most of your life in New York. He’s a prominent New Yorker. It seemed to me that there were dog whistles out there. Close to the Jewish community, obviously, his daughter is Jewish, his son-in-law is Jewish. But at the same time, when you had the March in Charlottesville, and the slogan, Jews Will Not Replace Us. And then afterwards him saying, “Well, there are good people on both sides.” Were there dog whistles there, that were sort of encouraging people who are anti-Semites to come out and be much more vocal about their antisemitism?

Abe Foxman: (07:53)
So, first, I know Donald Trump. I’ve known him in New York. I’ve known him in Florida, had a relationship. He endorsed one of my books. So we’ve had a relationship before the presidency. Not very much during the presidency. Look, Jay, the 200 Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville were there before Donald Trump. He didn’t create them. They were there. They were Neo-Nazis. They were anti-Semites. What happened? What one can accuse Trump, or blame him for is he emboldened them. He gave them the legitimacy. These anti-Semites were anti-Semites, but they knew better not to go public. For whatever reason, as I talked about, we had this consensus of civility and yeah, our constitution permits people to be anti-Semites or bigots. But if you act on it, there are consequences. And so these 200 knew that if they acted out publicly, there’d be a price to pay. Whatever, maybe their job, maybe their kid, whatever.

Abe Foxman: (09:07)
They woke up one morning to feel times have changed. That, now it’s okay to surface, to stand in front of the media to say, “Jews will not replace us.” And they were emboldened by Trump and Trumpism, because what Trump did is he broke all their taboos. There were taboos in this country. What’s right. What’s wrong. Sure. You can do it. The constitution says you can do it, but you’ll pay a price. He’s spoke out in terms of racist terminology, et cetera, which said basically if it’s okay. And if it’s okay for the president, it’s okay from some guy from Charlottesville. And so, that’s the major difference. He’s not an anti-Semite. I’m not even sure he knows what it is, even though he’s engaged in some stereotype-like language. And again, I’m not sure he understands it. He has a daughter who is Jewish, has grandchildren who are Jewish.

Abe Foxman: (10:00)
I wrote him a handwritten personal letter after Charlottesville. And when he talked about, there are good people on both sides. And I talked about the impact it would have on his children, his grandchild. I didn’t get an answer back. But he made it okay. Not only about antisemitism. I think this atmosphere that all taboos have been broken applies to Asian Americans, applies to African Americans, Latino Americans, the LGBT community. You’re seeing a more open bigoted atmosphere out there. So he let the genie out of the bottle. I think this, Biden and this administration is trying to put that genie back in the battle. It’ll take time. It’ll take time.

Jay Ruderman: (10:45)
So, I don’t want to dig too much to his psychology, but he did some good things for the State of Israel. He was close to the State of Israel and obviously to the Jewish people. How do you put that together at the same time, sort of giving a wink and a nod to extremist anti-Semites, and at the same time saying, “Yep. I support the Homeland of the Jewish People.”

Abe Foxman: (11:08)
You can support Israel and still be an anti-Semite. That, one does not necessarily obviate the other. And I think from the perspective of the Jewish community, I think we should say, “Thank you,” to former President Trump for recognizing Jerusalem. We should say, “Thank you,” for his attitudes towards Jews and strengthening Israel, et cetera. But at the same time we should say, “No thank you,” for calling us double loyalists, that we’re not loyal enough for this country, if we don’t support him or his policy. No thank you for the immigration policies. No, thank you for the racism that you’ve legitimized. And so, I think as a Jewish community, we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Thank you, Mr. Trump, for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but no thank you for the atmosphere of legitimizing bigotry that you’ve released.

Abe Foxman: (12:03)
Look, there’s also this quandary. The Israelis, yes, the Israelis, the overwhelming majority of Israelis like Trump. The overwhelming majority of American Jews don’t like Trump. And, to me, I explained it very simply. You stand where you sit. Now, where the Israelis sit in terms of their environment, sure to them, he was a great president. Where American Jews sit, yeah, they like some of the things that he’s done. But in terms of the general atmosphere of this country, in terms of democracy, in terms of equality, et cetera, American Jews don’t like him. And I think we can deal with both at the same time.

Jay Ruderman: (12:41)
So, before we move to Europe and the rest of the world, in antisemitism and the role that plays there, talk for a second about your experience and the growth of antisemitism on two different spectrums in the United States. On the far right, and also at the far left, sort of at the same time.

Abe Foxman: (12:59)
Well, many years ago, over a hundred years ago, Mark Twain went to Europe, giving a lecture tour. And he came back from the tour, and he wrote an essay concerning the Jews. Wherever he went, he found antisemitism and it shocked him. He became a Philo-Semite. He became an advocate against antisemitism. And he wrote the essay and he said, “Smart people and dumb people are anti-Semites. Rich and poor, religious and atheists, albeit all walks of life were infected with this disease.” And what was true 120 years ago is true today. It’s a disease that serves interests, depending on the time, the period, the political environment, of the geographic environment. It’s a disease that metastasizes to serve interests. And so communists are anti-Semites, fascists are anti-Semites.

Abe Foxman: (13:58)
So, we shouldn’t be surprised that there’s antisemitism in the left and there’s antisemitism in the right, because what antisemitism does is serve certain interests. And blaming somebody else, scapegoating somebody else, whether for political, for religious, for economic reasons has always been there. And Jews have been the number one scapegoat in history. And so, yeah, it doesn’t surprise me that in our political environment, which is pretty extreme, you find antisemitism on the right. You find it antisemitism on the left. Shouldn’t shock us, shouldn’t surprise us. It should make us understand that we’re dealing with a disease, which still has no antidote and no vaccine.

Jay Ruderman: (14:46)
And is antisemitism different than being a racist, or anti-gay, or anti-trans, or all the other terrible things that go on in our society, where people hate other people? Is there something distinct about antisemitism?

Abe Foxman: (15:04)
Yeah, I think so. It’s interesting. I wrote down … I was watching some of the coverage and the Malmö, the Swedish government last week had an international conference on antisemitism, and the prime minister opened up. And as a whole, we’ve been dealing in the last several years on a definition of antisemitism. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance took six years trying to develop a definition of what antisemitism is, which 34 countries have adopted. A lot of organizations, universities have adopted. And, when I listened to it, I later looked it up and I wrote down how he defined, the prime minister of Sweden. Sweden has been iffy on a relationship with Israel, Jews, et cetera. So it’s interesting. And he basically answers your question. So let me read it.

Abe Foxman: (16:01)
He said, “Antisemitism differs from other forms of racism. It is in itself, a conspiracy theory based the notions of Jewish power, and Jewish interest, and the secret desire to rule the world. It is a specific toxic form that drives conspiracy theories.” So, that is quite different than racism, in general. You racism basically is, “I don’t like you because of your color and your ethnicity, maybe your religion,” et cetera. But this has very specific ideologies. It’s about Jews and money, Jews and power, Jews and control, et cetera, which was created by the anti-Semitic, John, and it feeds on itself. So yeah, to that extent, it’s different.

Jay Ruderman: (16:52)
So, let’s talk about Europe, and anti-Semitism in Europe, and what form it takes, and how it’s going. Specifically, in light of the rise of nationalism recently over the last few years in countries like Poland, and Hungary, Austria, how do you see anti-Semitism in Europe right now?

Abe Foxman: (17:13)
Europe, unlike the US, our politics have also been violent. We had a Civil War, which we lost 600,000 of our own, and I guess it was economics, but it was politics as well. But unlike the US, in Europe, politics and ideology is violent. And so, there’s always been violence attached to political differences, and certainly to isms with a loss of life. I don’t think that Europe has totally catharcized its Holocaust experience. I think when you look, in certain of the former Soviet union countries, they still compare communism to Nazism. They still see, don’t recognize if you will, the horrific uniqueness of the genocide of the Holocaust. Yeah, sure. Communism for fascism, or Nazism, the right foot is left. But for ideology, for territory, the Holocaust, Jews had no territory. Jews had no ideology. They were being exterminated because of who they are, and what they are, and what they believed in.

Abe Foxman: (18:21)
So, I don’t think Europe has, even to this day, understood the differences. It’s still there. There’s guilt, there’s ignorance. There’s politics. I still worry about what’s going on. There was a good sign, I think, out of Czechoslovakia this week, where something interesting happened, which was all the left of center, centrist political parties came together against the right. And the problem has always been that they splinter and they don’t understand the great threat of nationalism and populism. Yeah. So, I think there aren’t that many Jews in Europe, but I do worry about their future.

Jay Ruderman: (19:04)
And so, I’m going to ask you about a controversial issue in Poland. Poland passed a law saying, “If you equate the Polish people or the Polish government with the Holocaust, you can be prosecuted.” Any thoughts on that?

Abe Foxman: (19:18)
That’s ridiculous. I have a very, very emotional relationship with Poland. I was born in Poland. It’s nice. The time was bad. I survived because of a Polish Catholic woman who risked her life to save me. So there are two parts of the history of Poland during World War II. There’s the good part, which is the Bronislawa Kurpi, the Catholic Polish nanny who risked her life to save me. And, and there’s the other part of collaboration. There’s a part of Jews being killed after the war in Poland, who came back, who survived. So, the truth is there’s the two sides to that story. And to only say that there’s only good, and to say, you cannot talk about the truth. There was collaboration, there was antisemitism, there’s still antisemitism. It’s hideous and it’s horrific. And I would say, it’s antisemitism again.

Abe Foxman: (20:13)
So yeah, look, there is a very serious problem. There’s a problem of compensation and restitution. Poland is the only country that was occupied under the Nazis, et cetera, that has not dealt with the issue of restitution. I think all of the, I think most recently, Latvia just, or was it Lithuania? Latvia, just publicly said, “We will pay compensation to Jews.” There is a problem. The problem is that, look, there are some cities that were 50% owned by Jews. You’re talking about Łódź, you’re talking about Białystok. So if you were going to pay restitution, it would be very, very difficult for Poland, economically.

Abe Foxman: (20:56)
I once met a gentleman in Poland who came up with an ingenious approach, because I don’t think the Jewish people will resolve its relationship with Poland unless this issue of restitution is dealt with. But it has to be dealt with in a way that brings a measure of justice without hurting the Polish people. And he came up with an ingenious plan. He said, “Set a value of what Jewish property was. Let’s say it’s $10 billion. Symbolically, you give that $10 billion to the State of Israel, who are the inheritors of those who perished, and then the State of Israel reinvests that $10 billion in Polish industry, to create jobs, to change the infrastructure, et cetera. And the profits of that money goes for Holocaust education, or for aid to children, Jewish children in Israel.” And so that, nobody gets hurt. So, we need some ingenious creative plan to resolve it. Otherwise, it will haunt our children, and grandchildren.

Jay Ruderman: (22:03)
So, you and I traveled with a group to Poland many years ago, in a delegation of leaders of the Anti-Defamation League and officers of the Israel Defense Forces. And, it was a very emotional trip. You touched on this, but maybe you can talk a little bit more about being a child of the Holocaust, and your own personal story. And the impact that, that’s had on you, for what you’ve done for your life.

Abe Foxman: (22:32)
Well, I’ll share with you, but people have said to me, “Well, a million and a half Jewish children perished. You survived. You survived so you could do what you do.” That’s arrogance. That’s the height of arrogance. Who knows? Who knows why I survived? And when people say, “Well, because what happened to you, you spent the last, your adult life fighting prejudice and antisemitism.” My answer is, “Well, what about proctologists? Why does somebody decide?” So, I’m not comfortable with this cause and effect. I don’t know why I survived, and I’m not sure I know why I gravitated to where I gravitated. I started as a chemical engineer in city college, round out in political science, went to law school. And then, the ADL. I read a book about the ADL, and I applied, and there it was my adult life.

Abe Foxman: (23:22)
All right. So about my beginning, I was born in Poland. 1940 was a bad time to be born a Jewish kid in Poland. But I was very, very lucky, or miracles, or whatever you want to call it. We were in Poland. Some people knew, some people didn’t know. Some people had means. Some people did not. My parents had a sense of what’s going on. And so, as the war broke out in Poland, they moved east in the hope of staying ahead of the Germans. And they went to Baranovich. Baranovich is where my father was born. Baranovich today is Belarus. And that’s where I was born. Then as the war continued, or things got worse, my parents decided to continue to move further east. And the Germans caught up with them in the city of Vilna, which is in Lithuania. They had a nanny. They traveled with a nanny.

Abe Foxman: (24:20)
And, when the order went out for the Jews to be herded, assembled into a ghetto, my nanny said to my parents, “Listen, you go. I’ll take care of him. You’ll be back in a couple of weeks.” So, who knew what it was? My parents made one of the most difficult decisions for any parent to make and that is to separate from their child. Now, again, they had no idea it was going to be four years. They had no idea what was in it, but it was a fateful decision which saved my life and indirectly saved their lives. A, it saved my life, because she baptized me, protecting me, hid me, risked her life every single day, doing it. And at the same time, made it possible for my parents to fend for themselves.

Abe Foxman: (25:10)
A family unit of three with an infant had no chance of survival, but acting alone, and with the hope of coming back for me, they had a greater chance of survival. And in fact, my mother escaped on an error inside. She got false papers. I knew my mother as my aunt. I grew up with her as my aunt. She would provide for us. My father wound up in a partisan group, and were reunited finding me. And then things turned a little ugly. Then my nanny said to my parents, “I saved him. He belongs to me and the Catholic church.” And they tried every which way to say, “We’ll be a family. Whatever happens with us, you’ll be with us.” It didn’t impact. She tried to get my father arrested. She got him arrested by the Soviets, said he collaborated, and said he steals. They arrested him several times. And then the Soviets said, “You have to litigate this because we can’t play family politics.”

Abe Foxman: (26:12)
So, there was a trial with two appeals. The court ruled I belonged to my parents and we were separated. We were repatriated. Soviets permitted refugees within their empire to go back to where they came from. We went back to Poland. She followed, I was kidnapped. My parents kidnapped me back. And then we smuggled the borders to come, to eventually we got to the American Zone in Austria. So as my father would say, at the age of 10, I was an old man, but very lucky. The sad part, Jay, was, I never said goodbye to her. I never said thank you to her. And I remember, I couldn’t understand if she loved me so much, why was there so much hate and anger? And my father was a very wise man, said to me, “Everything in excess is no good. Too rich, too poor, too smart, too stupid, too fat, too skinny, too much love. Too much can turn into hate.”

Abe Foxman: (27:13)
And so, it’s sad because my father smuggled out pictures of us, of her. And when I asked him why he risks smuggling out the picture, he said, “Because I wanted to make sure that for the rest of your life, you had her face in front of you.” And sadly, ironically, Jay, and somebody asked me the question, “Would you remember her?” And I don’t know. If I hadn’t had the pictures, would I? I hope I would, but I don’t know. But, so to sum it all up, it’s miracles. Human miracles, and my father believed, God’s miracles. And what I did, I don’t know why I did it, but I was blessed, and lucky, and privileged to do what I did for 50 years, on the platform of the Anti-Defamation League.

Jay Ruderman: (27:59)
And, I understand that despite everything that happened to your family, you still sent packages to your nanny for years until she passed away.

Abe Foxman: (28:08)
Yeah, there was a process called [PEKOW 00:28:11] under communism, that you can send money and packages. We did, she had to sign for it, but no communication except that she received it. And then we received notice, the package had came back because she passed away. I’m still trying to find where she’s buried, try to bring closure, hopefully someday.

Jay Ruderman: (28:32)
Well, Abe, it’s quite a life that you had at a very young age. And, I think that you’ve turned it into a hugely successful life on behalf of the Jewish people and others. Let me touch on something I think is central in what’s going on now with antisemitism, and I’d like to hear your thoughts on the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, because I hear this debated all the time. It’s debated on college campuses. It’s debated, I’ve been caught up on it. If you’re a supporter of the State of Israel as the Jewish Homeland, and if you’re connected to Israel, you’re attacked. And I’d like to hear from you, are those attacks legitimate, or is that antisemitism?

Abe Foxman: (29:22)
Let’s start with criticism of Israel. Can you criticize Israel and not be an anti-Semite? And the answer is yes, absolutely. There are more critics of Israel, of Israeli policy in the State of Israel, per square kilometer, and per square Jew than anywhere else in the world. So it’s not a question about criticizing the government, the policies. Yeah. That’s legitimate and it’s fine. I do, however, ask a question of people, not Jewish, not in Israel who criticizes Israel. And I asked the question, “Okay, so you set a certain standard and value. Do you apply this anywheres else? If you think that this is wrong, would you say that this is also wrong in China, in Cuba, in America, and Spain?”

Abe Foxman: (30:17)
And if, after a period of time, the only criticism of any government action that somebody is out there is the State of Israel, that at the end of the day, it’s not legitimate criticism. It’s singling out the Jewish states, singling out Israel for criticism, and that becomes antisemitism. But per se, criticizing the government or its policies, hey, you know what? That’s part of democracy. But, when it’s only focused on what Israel does and you set certain standards only for Israel, then at the end of the day, it metastasizes into antisemitism.

Abe Foxman: (30:58)
Then we go to Zionism. What is Zionism? Zionism is national liberation movement of the Jewish people. That’s what it is. It says, the Jewish people, like all other people have rights, aspirations for self-determination. To have its own country, its own flag, its own history, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So if you don’t like that, again, it could be okay. There are some people in this world who are universalists, who don’t like nation states, who don’t think anybody should be nationalists. That’s fine with me. You, want to be universalist. God bless you.

Abe Foxman: (31:35)
But if the only nationalism that you don’t like is Jewish nationalism. If the only country that has no right, and the only nation that has no right for self-determination to have its own country, its own flag, its own capital is the Jewish state, well whamo, you’re an anti-Semite. So, if you don’t like Zionism because it’s nationalism, I better not catch you liking Palestinian nationalism, or French nationalism. And so, what you find is it’s just an excuse. It’s a euphemism to try to legitimize their antisemitism on a political platform. The INEJ is, designed this movement, while it was created to make the Jewish people their normal, like all nations that have their own homeland, their own place, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And they thought this would do away with antisemitism because part of antisemitism is, the Jews don’t have a place.

Abe Foxman: (32:33)
But, if Jews become normal nation, with their own country, with their own laws, et cetera, then antisemitism will disappear. The irony is, that what the designer’s movement hope for in the fact, almost provided a platform for antisemitism. So, in the past it was, Jews can’t do this. They can’t be lawyers. They can’t own land. They can’t live here. They can’t do this. Now, it’s about Israel. Israel has become the Jew amongst the nations. So, every nation in the world can determine its own capital, except Israel. Every nation in the world has a right to defend itself, except Israel. So every nation can make its own rules, and it’s not called racist or apartheid, except Israel. So, you can criticize Israel if you criticize somebody else. If you only criticize Israel, then whamo, you’re an anti-Semite.

Jay Ruderman: (33:29)
And, as a child of the Holocaust, what do you think when you hear people say, which I heard during the last war with Gaza, Jews are white colonialists?

Abe Foxman: (33:39)
Well, it’s hideous. Look, Israelis compared to Nazis, we see this all the time. So either one or two things, either you’re ignorant of history, which most of these people are not. Or, you’re a bigot. To compare Israeli soldiers to Nazi soldiers, et cetera is hideous. But again, we try to apply reason, logic, rationale, decency to people who don’t engage in logic or reason, don’t care about truths. Listen, I worry more about trivialization of the Holocaust today, than I worry about Holocaust denial, Holocaust deniers, I said, just people say it is, it didn’t happen. Trivialization, when you compare mandates on vaccinations to the Holocaust, it undermines the history. So, some of these people, again, some of these people are comparing the Holocaust to vaccine mandate, either are totally ignorant of history, or they’re totally bigoted. Take your choice. Either one is no good.

Jay Ruderman: (34:42)
Do you feel that Jews are under a physical threat, both in the United States and Europe?

Abe Foxman: (34:50)
I would put it this way. I think if you were to say to me, “What are we doing fighting antisemitism today?” I would put, number one, security, security, security, security. I think again, in the US, law enforcement is with us. It’s on our side, will protect us, et cetera. But again, I go back to my years at the ADL. Every year, we would say to the American Jewish Committee and to the American public at large, “Listen, there is a potential. This is a poison, that has acted out in violence. So, you need to take it seriously.” In the last 30 years, since the FBI has been taking inventory, attacks against Jews are number one in America. So we should always take that seriously. And again, since what happened in Pittsburgh, and Poway, in Jersey City, where we saw on our soil that we’re not immune to Jews being killed because they’re Jews. Yeah, I think we should take security very seriously.

Abe Foxman: (35:51)
Then you, again, I think we need to rebuild a containment policy. I think we need to figure out how to bring back civility into our society, because it impacts so disproportionately on us. A lot of things that have changed, but probably the most significant element in making antisemitism so much more blatant is the internet, social media. Social media and the internet have already destroyed privacy. They’re on the way to destroying civility. It has provided a super highway for bigots, for the anti-Semites. You can now transmit anti-Semitic thoughts, conspiracy theories about Jews, lies about Jews in nanoseconds globally. What you could not have done 30 years ago. 30 years ago, you would publish it. You would put it on a fax machine. You’d have to have a meeting. Maybe you’d give a speech. You’d meet in some bar.

Abe Foxman: (36:57)
You couldn’t recruit. You couldn’t communicate this hatred in such a sophisticated manner as you do it today. And it impacts. That means, the hate is out there. It’s all around us in ways it never was. You have to go and seek it out. Or somebody had to seek you out. Today, it’s there whether you want it or not, it comes into your faith. So it’s a new challenge. And it’s a very serious challenge, because after 9/11, Jay, we struggled how to balance our freedoms, our basic freedoms with security. And we compromised. We used to get on a plane without any, just showing their ticket. That was it. We gave some of those freedoms in order to protect our safety and security. I think we’re at a stage in America and society where we have to figure out, how do we balance civility with freedom of speech?

Abe Foxman: (37:58)
Because, freedom of speech unfettered, it’s like crying fire in a crowded theater. Where is that balance? And I think we’re just beginning to deal with it. I don’t think that at this moment in time, we yet understand how the social media and internet is impacting on us. Listen, socializing has changed. Dating has changed. Some people talk to each other, or don’t talk to each other, has changed. Now, all of that has societal results. Some good. Listen, we can communicate better. We can exchange information. You resolve fights around the dinner table by asking what the answer is. So there’s some good stuff. There’s some fun stuff, but there’s also some very, very unintended consequences, which we’ve seen in the election, which we see in hate, which we see an impact on our children. And we haven’t yet begun to figure out how to deal with it. Is it legislation? Is it regulation? Is it from the pulpit? I don’t know, but I know that we better start dealing with it soon.

Jay Ruderman: (39:04)
So, let me ask you regarding social media. One of the most traumatic incidents that we’ve had as Americans recently is the attack on the Capitol, on January 6th. You saw people in that attack very, they were on social media. Obviously, people wearing t-shirts that said Camp Auschwitz. Antisemitism was part of that. Why? What’s the fit there between antisemitism and an attack on the American democratic system?

Abe Foxman: (39:38)
Well, it’s the people. Well, listen, the people who gravitate towards populism to super nationalism are people who gravitate to racism, and racist theories, and white supremacy. So they are white supremacists. And white supremacists have a higher level of antisemitism than other supremacists. So, and that’s, maybe shouldn’t surprise us. But, during my years at the ADL, I reached out to Palo Alto. I reached out to the geniuses who helped create this new world of social media, et cetera. And, I went, talked to them and I thanked them for their genius, giving us all these wonderful things. But as I indicated, I said, “But they’re unintended consequences, which are serious.” And their answer to me was algorithms. “We can’t help. We can’t do.” And we now know that was BS.

Abe Foxman: (40:31)
They control the algorithms, they move the algorithms. So we now know it’s within our power to monitor, to control. Now, then the bigger question is, who does it? Do we trust the business people who do it with the profit motive? Do we tell government to do it? I don’t know what the answer is, but January 6th, the recruiting was enhanced by social media. The message was enhanced. So yeah, it’s a serious challenge. But, I’m not surprised, Jay, that you found Camp Auschwitz on January 6th in the Capitol, because that’s where they come from. That’s part of their ideology. That’s part of their conspiracy beliefs.

Jay Ruderman: (41:15)
So setting aside, what’s going to happen with so social media and who’s going to reign it in, whether it’s going to be the social media companies or whether the US government is going to step in, or other governments. Some European countries have laws that curb antisemitism, or make it illegal to be outwardly anti-Semitic. Would those laws work in the United States?

Abe Foxman: (41:38)
No. It’s an irony that you point to. Europe has more anti-antisemitism, anti-hate laws than you can imagine. The US does not, because the constitution prohibits us from limiting free speech. Before I got to the ADL, there were efforts to find, to develop a hate law. And, it didn’t pass constitutional muster several times. So, the interesting thing is that what we have, until recently developed, is in our country, whether there were no laws, there were consequences. You paid a price for being a bigot. You can be a bigot and lawyers can defend your right to be a bigot. But if you acted in a bigoted way, at the end of the day, you would pay a price, whether it’s in politics, whether it’s in commerce, whether it’s in entertainment, whatever. And, to me, the best example that I have is Mel Gibson.

Abe Foxman: (42:33)
Mel Gibson, in time of his career was number one. Number one on People’s Choice. Number one actor, number one director, producer, you name it. He was king of entertainment until he exposed himself as a bigot and as an anti-Semite. And that’s when it wasn’t laws. It wasn’t litigation. It wasn’t. It was the consequences of the American people saying, “That’s not America. That’s not who we want.” And he paid a price. He went from number one all the way to the bottom. And that’s what had worked for us. And that was this, if you will, contract of civility. What’s right and what’s wrong. So, even though the law says to you, “Yeah, you can be a bigot,” but if you are a bigot in the public arena, you paid a price because it was un-American, and unacceptable, immoral, un-Christian, whatever it was. We’ve lost that. We’ve lost that consensus of assure that. Legislation basically says, “This is what the American people, or New Jersey, or Massachusetts believes in.” But, you still have to have the people accept it.

Abe Foxman: (43:42)
Look, in the ADL, we pioneered hate crimes legislation. And again, very interesting. It was to punish for a hate crime, but we were very careful not to make speech or intent a crime, because again, it would not pass constitutional muster. So, what does a hate crime legislation mean? There has to be an underlying crime. So, if you commit arson for say, to collect money on insurance, the penalty is one year in prison and a thousand dollars. But if I can prove that you committed that arson, because you didn’t want the African American, or the Jew, or the Hispanic to live next door to you, and you committed arson the crime, then your punishment is two years in prison and $2,000.

Abe Foxman: (44:34)
So, it goes to the penalty because it says, “American society so abhors hate that if you commit a crime, which normally is a crime, but if you do it for hate purposes, you will pay a greater penalty.” And that goes to the issue of consequences. That, Jay, has worked in our country. It’s falling apart. It’s falling apart because again, truth is gone, right and wrong is gone. The media’s gone. All these things worked in the system where you didn’t need legislation to say, “Don’t hit somebody because you don’t like him for who he is.”

Jay Ruderman: (45:12)
But, Abe, I think that the point about Mel Gibson is, it was your activism and the activism of ADL that called him on the carpet, pointed out his antisemitism, and really elevated the issue without any legislation. But I think the point you make is that, activism is important. It important to take a stand and to speak up against antisemitism.

Abe Foxman: (45:35)
Well, but there’s also something else that’s happening. What’s happening is people are dealing with it now in a different way. It’s called cancel culture. I was always opposed to cancel culture. I believed it was our job to change people’s minds and hearts. And you don’t do it by cancel culture. What you do is, you remove them, but they’re still out there. And so, yeah, I tried in my years and in public service to try to change people’s minds and hearts. There was always, at the end of the day, consequences, if you don’t. To be very honest with you, I never personally interacted with Mel Gibson. It was, they tried every which way, but there was no agreement as to what we’re talking about. But society acted. Yeah. We made it public. I spoke out, I challenged, I questioned, but it was the societal response that made the difference. Today, we’re not trying to change people’s minds and hearts. We want to cancel them out. I think at the end of the day, we’re all going to pay a very serious price for that.

Jay Ruderman: (46:42)
So, let me ask you, you’ve been an activist, but you’ve also, you’ve had the ear of presidents. You’ve spoken to presidents like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama about antisemitism. What would you advise the United States, or President Biden today? What’s the best thing he can do to combat the rise of antisemitism in the United States?

Abe Foxman: (47:04)
Number one is, protect democracy. First and foremost. Democracy is very important to minorities and certainly to the Jewish people. When there is no democracy, Jews suffer. Number two is, to be a bully pulpit. That’s the biggest bully pulpit in the world. The world listens to the president of the United States. And, so when he speaks about antisemitism, when he speaks about prejudice, when he speaks about those issues, it’s very, very important. And then of course, to make sure that the instruments of government follow the message, so that law enforcement and FBI gather the data, that Congress look at the data seriously.

Abe Foxman: (47:46)
And, there is legislation in certain areas that, there are issues of protections, of security. The community itself, the Jewish community, I think can afford all the funding that would be necessary to protect all the Jewish institutions. So there is a role for government, federal, and state. And then again, comes out of the message, comes out of the bully pulpit. I think, what the leader, what the president says, what the governor says, what the mayor says does make a difference. And what’s important is, that they speak out in time, in real time. Not wait several days until it moves away. So, yeah, I think they have a role. So far, I have no complaints.

Jay Ruderman: (48:28)
So, I want to ask you BDS. There is a famous case a couple weeks ago, Ben, and Jerry’s said, “We’re going to stop selling our ice cream in parts of Israel.” It got a lot of attention. It’s a movement that’s trying to de-legitimize investment in Israeli companies. What are your thoughts about it?

Abe Foxman: (48:54)
I’m a minority view on the whole subject of BDS. I think BDS, there’s no question in my mind that it is antisemitism, because it attacks the legitimacy of Israel. It’s being, et cetera. So, I don’t have an issue with how we define BDS and that it is anti-Semitic because it says, “Boycott Israel. Israel has no legitimacy. If you boycott it, then it will cease to exist.” I have an issue with how serious it is. And that is, to some extent, I think we have given it more success that it deserves. At the end of the day, all right. So big deal, Ben and Jerry’s. Big deal. What impact does it have on Israel’s security, wellbeing? And you had the soda company that was boycotting it. After all is said and done, they’ve had no successes. That means, no university has canceled its relationship with Israel, if it had one, because of BDS.

Abe Foxman: (49:54)
I was a man who recently met with the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu then. We talked about BDS and he said, “You know what, Abe? I don’t have time to go to the bathroom. The countries are lining up. Corporations, they want to do business with us.” So, and you take a look BDS, and now you have the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. So, it’s almost ridiculous that, we’re talking about Ben and Jerry’s when Arab Muslim countries are making peace with Israel. So, I’m a little concerned that we give it so much attention, that it gives it more credibility than it’s worth. But what they have, the only thing they have achieved is it frightens campuses. Campuses, universities don’t invite Israelis, because they don’t want noise. They don’t want controversy. There they have succeeded. I mean, we really should fight it. But in terms of impacting on Israel’s trade, economy, place in the world, it has had no impact. It hasn’t. So let’s not give them more credit, and more visibility than they deserve.

Jay Ruderman: (51:02)
So you raise a good point about college campuses. There’s been surveys that have said, that there’s a shocking lack of Holocaust knowledge among millennials and Gen Z. How do we turn that around? How do we teach them about the Holocaust, and not repeat the mistakes that have been made in history?

Abe Foxman: (51:22)
Well, Jay, I was on a college campus in the ’60s. It was weird. Nowadays … It was no picnic being pro-Israel, and a Zionist on the college campus in the ’60s. There was SNCC, and CORE, and there were Arab students and there were swastikas. There was no internet, that made it not huge. But, today on the college campus, when it comes to Israel, there are more college students that have visited Israel than ever. So, in my time there were very few. There are more pro-Israel organizations on a college campus today. In my day, there was students learning this organization in ALL. Today, there’s a confederation of organizations on campus. So I don’t see the campus as that much of a calamity.

Abe Foxman: (52:08)
When you come to the subject of the Holocaust and knowledge of Holocaust, we first have to take a look at how we teach history. We don’t teach modern history. By the time I finished high school, and I went to day school, so it’s different. But look at the curriculum of public schools and high schools. They don’t teach geography and they don’t teach modern history. So, World War II, most students never get to in high school in the United States. Okay? They just don’t get to it. And if they get to it, it’s very minute. And so, the Holocaust doesn’t make an impact at all. So I, again, I am not shocked that so many people don’t know what Auschwitz or the Holocaust is. I would be shocked if Jewish kids didn’t know, but at the same time, I think there are serious efforts to educate. I think there are now 13 states in the United States that mandate education on the Holocaust. But again, you need specialized teachers. You need time, you need funding, et cetera.

Abe Foxman: (53:06)
To me, Holocaust is not so much about Jews as it is to teach what hate can do. It’s a vehicle. It’s a platform. Recently in New York, got a Museum of Jewish Heritage, we brought an exhibit in Auschwitz. And I argued that the title, subtitle of that exhibit should be, “See what hate can do.” The Holocaust needs to be a lesson, a universal lesson of unchecked hatred can eventually lead to an Auschwitz. I’m not sure we’ve done that very successfully.

Abe Foxman: (53:42)
On the other hand, there are more books and more films written about the Holocaust, 70 years later, than we ever could have imagined. I sat on the council that decided on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. And I remember we agonized, “Listen, we’re going to build this museum in Washington. And after the Jews come, nobody will come and it will be an insult to the victims.” How wrong we were. In the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, until recently was number two. Now it’s number three after the African American. So again, the other side of the picture is, thousands of Americans are coming to know, and understand, and learn. We have to make sure that we focus on the lesson, and the lesson is, the Holocaust and the genocide of Jews, it shows you and teaches you what uncontrolled hate can lead to. That’s an universal lesson based on Jewish history.

Jay Ruderman: (54:40)
It’s so powerful. And I just want to add that, we’ve talked a lot about antisemitism, but at your time at ADL, you have been a champion of historically marginalized groups, and standing up for them. Immigrants, the LBGTQ community. How did that happen? That as a Holocaust survivor, you looked at other groups and you said, “I’m going to stand up, and speak out in favor of them.”

Abe Foxman: (55:06)
Jay, the ADL mission when I was there was to fight the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure equal rights for all. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t have rights for one group, or not have rights for the other. Chances are, bigots today hate one, tomorrow hate another. So, it’s all linked. And a struggle to fight antisemitism is the same struggle to fight bigotry against any group that’s singled out, because who they are, what they are, what they believe, what they look like, what their sexual orientation is. So, I always saw it as part and parcel of our struggle for equality. And, if we didn’t fight for other people’s rights, then our equality would be meaningless, if and when we achieved it. So, it was never a question of debate, discussion. It was always there. If you strengthen the rights of one group, you at the same time strengthen the rights of other groups, but you also have to be ready to stand up for them. And we did.

Jay Ruderman: (56:07)
It’s an excellent point. And I just want to end with, 50 years working at the ADL, being a champion of combating antisemitism, hate, is there something that you’re most proud of? I know that’s a really difficult question to ask someone which with such a long and varied career, but is there something that stands out to you?

Abe Foxman: (56:28)
No, it’s interesting, but when we had our hundredth anniversary, people asked that question. Not about me, but what’s in the history of the ADL, though. “If you had to find one significant thing that you guys did that had the greatest impact on hate, what would it be?” And so, yeah, I came up with one. I wasn’t there, but I think if you’re looking for one thing that, and that is we pioneered, we wrote, we drafted anti-mask legislation. This was in a heyday of the Klan, and the Klan was active. And what you had was bigots who during the day were lawyers, doctors, Indian chiefs, whatever, members of society who at night, covered their head with a hood and acted out their racism and their bigotry.

Abe Foxman: (57:23)
So, we passed a law called the anti-mask law, which basically said, “You can be a bigot. You can say whatever you want, but you must take responsibility for it.” And it removed the mask from bigots, and therefore removed the mask from the Klan. It couldn’t march in the streets with hoods. It couldn’t meet, et cetera, et cetera. It was the one single act that was the thing that destroyed the Klan. Because if these people could no longer hide their identity, which could affect their jobs, their welfare, whatever, all of a sudden they weren’t bigots. I think that was the most significant. Ironically, 50 years later comes the internet and puts that hood back on the bigot. So today, the bigot can operate internationally anonymously. It sort of sets it back.

Abe Foxman: (58:17)
I don’t think any of us can point to one thing. There are times, it was great satisfaction in communicating with somebody, having somebody understand that they’re bigots. Sometimes even trying to rehabilitate somebody. So, on a personal level, there were a lot of those things, but in its totality, thank God, there is an ADL. There was an ADL. There’s American Jewish Congress for each committee. Thank God that the Jewish community understood that it needs to organize to fight bigotry, not only for itself, but for Americans all.

Jay Ruderman: (58:51)
Abe, I want to thank you so much. It’s been an honor speaking to you. I learned a lot. So, thank you so much.

Abe Foxman: (59:00)
Thank you.

Jay Ruderman: (59:01)
And I wish you good health.

Abe Foxman: (59:03)
Stay safe and see you soon.

Jay Ruderman: (59:05)
Thank you.

Speaker 1: (59:10)
All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities, in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast? Be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

‍

Speaker 1: All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman: Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. For decades, Deborah Lipstadt has been a leading figure in writing about and combating anti-Semitism. She’s probably most well known for having been sued for libel by David Irving after calling him out as one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial in her 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust. Irving lost the case and was publicly denounced as a Holocaust denier. Lipstadt later wrote about the trial, which was made into the 2016 film Denial, starring Rachel Weisz. However, Deborah’s accomplishments spent far beyond the trial that made her infamous. She’s currently the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, and has written eight books on the topic of anti-Semitism. She spent the past 20 years in roles like historical consultant to the Holocaust Museum in DC and served two terms on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council as a nomination for President Clinton. Her most recent achievement, a nomination by President Biden as US envoy to combat and monitor anti-Semitism. Deborah, welcome to All Inclusive.

Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you, Jay. It’s a pleasure being with you.

Jay Ruderman: So let me just jump right in and ask you the pertinent question of why is anti-Semitism different from other types of hate?

Deborah Lipstadt: It’s a great question and I could go on about that for an hour but let me give you a short answer. It’s similar in many respects, it’s a prejudice and prejudice, think about the etymology of the word prejudice, pre-judge. Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve made up my mind. I know what this person is when I see them coming down two blocks away, and it assumes everybody in the group is the same. So in that sense, it’s a prejudice and other characteristics of prejudice as well, but it’s different. I always find that the best contrast can be done between, most direct though it applies to other prejudices too between racism and anti-Semitism. The racist does what I like to call punching down. The racist looks at the person of color black person, brown person, Asian person, Asian origin person and says if that person if they, and I put they, if we were on camera I would put they with very big air quotes.

If they move into air quotes, again, our neighborhood. If their kids go to our kids school, there goes the neighborhood, there goes the school. They’re going to drag us down. They’re lesser than us, they’re not as smart, they’re not as talented et cetera, et cetera. The anti-Semite looks at the Jew and sees someone, they’re smarter than us but not smart in a good way. Smart in a malicious, a conniving way. They’re crafty. They’re small, but they’re all powerful. They’re rich, they’re all rich. In other words, the anti-Semite punches up, but at the same time punches down. In my very nice neighborhood in Atlanta, at the height of the pandemic, there’s a Catholic family, lovely family, terrific family who was in the neighborhood, but their young kids were playing outside and some Jewish kids were [inaudible] with yarmulkes.

I think it was Shabbat so maybe they had Shabbat clothes on or whatever and the young kids said, there are those who do stay away from them, they carry the pandemic. When the parents who were standing there, the Jewish parents heard this, they spoke to the Catholic parents. The Catholic parents were appalled, but somehow the kids had picked this up, and if you look at some of the untrue stuff about the pandemic, it’s often infused with anti-Semitism. So the anti-Semite punches up, the Jew is more powerful and punches down, the Jew is disgusting, but that punching up is the main difference in that the Jew is not just to be loathed but for the anti-Semite, the Jew is to be feared for what they might do.

Jay Ruderman: So do you think that Jews are seen in some sectors by anti-Semites as the white elite?

Deborah Lipstadt: It’s a great question. Some see them as the white elite. Some see them as non whites, it depends who the anti-Semite is. You have anti-Semites on the left. You have anti-Semites on the right. You have anti-Semites who don’t know where they stand politically. So I think it would really depend on the person who was the source of the anti-Semitism. Let me contrast anti-Semitism on right and left because I think I know that’s of interest to you with all the other work you’ve done in this arena. For the person on the right, on the far right, for the murderer in Pittsburgh, or the murderer in San Diego, or the murderer in Halle, Germany, three of the recent incidents that we’ve had in Halle, but for a lock on the door, a door that had been reinforced with funds given to that community by the joint distribution committee. There would have been the biggest massacre of Jews on German soil since World War II.

For all those people, those were all far right wing extremists. For all those people the Jew was other, the Jew is not white. The Jew is other and not only is the Jew other, but the Jew is the one conspiring behind the scenes to hurt white people. That’s what you heard in Charlottesville, in Charlottesville when they were chanting on Friday night with the tiki torches, Jews will not replace us. What did they mean by that? They meant that the white supremacist, and this goes back to a theory propounded already in the late 60s or early 70s as civil rights was began to change, as there seemed to be in a sensible change and there was a change not far enough as we well know, in the status and in the position of black people in the United States.

White supremacist looked around and said, remember my punching up punching down thing. These people they’re not smart enough. They’re not talented enough to be achieving this on their own. There’s got to be someone behind them, someone smarter than them and smarter than us, someone wealthier than them and possibly wealthier than us, who is conniving, who is making this happen. Who is the piper the puppets? Who the puppeteer? The Jew is the puppeteer. So the Jew for those people are clearly not white people. I believe the murderer in Pittsburgh, as he was being brought down by the SWAT team was screaming at the people in the synagogue, many of whom he had just murder, you will not destroy the white race. In other words, you’re not white. You’re something other, you’re mud people, whatever. If you go to the left, and I’m not talking about everybody on the left, nor am I talking about being on the right but I’m talking about the extremes. But if you go to the anti-Semite on the left the Jew is white.

The Jew is white, the Jew is privileged. Now there are many Jews who can pass as white, who are white, however you to define it, and I’m one of them, which is one of the reasons why if we were on camera, you would see I’m wearing a Jewish star. I started to wear a Jewish star just about a year and a half, two years ago as anti-Semitism began to skyrocket and I didn’t want to a pass but for them, the Jew is white. The Jew was wealthy. Remember my template of anti-Semitic charges. The Jew is powerful, and the Jew can’t be a victim because they’re white privilege powerful. So it really depends if you’re looking on how the Jew is seen you have to ask who is doing the seeing.

Jay Ruderman: So let me ask you something about the left. Where does anti-Zionism fit into this? I mean, obviously, you can be critical of Israel but sometimes those lines are blurred and anti-Zionism being against Israel, blurs the line and becomes anti-Semitic. Where do you see that happening?

Deborah Lipstadt: It’s a great question and it’s a very, it’s a difficult question because there is so much nuance embedded in both the question and the answer and you asked it in a very nuanced fashion, I’m not surprised but more power to you for that. As you say, you can criticize Israel, you can criticize Israel’s policies. Read Haaretz. Certainly before the current Israeli administration, Haaretz was a bedrock of criticism of Israeli policies and it still is to a certain extent, go to the Knesset, you sat in the Knesset and I’m sure you’ve been in there and they yell and scream at each other. They’re debating and criticizing Israeli policies. Go to the coffee shops of Tel Aviv of Jerusalem [inaudible] you’ll hear criticism. That’s not anti-Semitism. I say that we have to be we, particularly we in the Jewish community, have to be very careful because if we call any criticism anti-Semitism, then when we confront real anti-Semitism, nobody’s going to pay attention to us. So it’s not criticism of Israeli policies.

I would argue that someone who says I don’t believe in the right of a Jewish state to exist that I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure there is no Jewish state. I would say to them, excuse me, there’s six million Jews living in, that strange number, but yes, that’s the approximate number. There’s six million Jews living in United States, many of them of course, people of color, or they would be considered people of color or non Ashkenazi at the very least, where should they go? What should happen to them? Now if they tell me they should live happily in a by national state, I would say, give me an example of one Muslim state with possibly the exception of Morocco, where Jews and other religions live and prosper as minorities. A, you want to say the Jews as a people don’t have the right to a national identity in the national homeland and b, you’re glibly willing to do away with the State of Israel without thinking of the personal consequences. I would say that’s not anti-Semitism, it’s pretty darn close to it.

Jay Ruderman: So it seems to me in my 55 years that I’ve experienced more anti-Semitism in the past few years than I have in the rest of my life. Do you think that over the past few years, let’s say three to four years, that there’s been an uptick in violence both in America and Europe and why do you think that is because anti-Semitism has been with us for thousands of years?

Deborah Lipstadt: Right. It’s rightfully called the oldest or the longest patron. I’m not sure if the late Professor Robert Wood speech was the one who coined that term, but he wrote a book, calling it that. You’re absolutely right. It’s been around. I describe it as a herpes like disease. Someone who regrettably has a herpes like disease can be mild, it can be more severe but they know that at moments of stress, it often will surface. At moments of stress it will often come out and there are certain kinds though, medicine has advanced now at certain times can be eradicated, can be gotten rid of. Some lay dormant in the body and I think in that respect, there’s a similarity to a virus that lies dormant in your body and can’t be gotten rid of.

Why more in recent years? I certainly think that we’ve just had an administration here in the United States, with a president who did some good things, the Abraham accords and things like that, but who also, his political strategy seem to be based in dividing amongst groups rather than uniting groups, and being what might be called in new edition, certain German [foreign language], a cooking spoon stirring up the pot. I’m not saying at all that he created it, not at all. It was there. It was there long before, but it was given a certain legitimacy, open expressions of prejudice, open expressions of racism, of hatred, the anti-Asian sentiments were made okay by that. Conversely, as we began to get in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and even before George Floyd other murders and other tragic incidents like that, there began to be those in the African American community, in the anti racist community, who as I said earlier, began to look at Jews and say, what are you talking about anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitism isn’t real anti-Semitism is made up. You’re just using anti-Semitism because you want to be thought of as victims.

I have a friend who just experienced it in the high level conversation group in their major metropolitan city where a group of prominent people and emerging leaders have been brought together to talk about practice of racism and in the course of talking about problems of race and someone engaged in pure anti-Semitic stereotypes and no one in the group of about 20 people there no one in the group said a word. She tried to intervene but by then the moment had passed. So that anti-Semitism, in part because Jews, we recovered quickly, it’s sometimes hard for people to remember. I know you have no trouble remembering it, that about 70 years ago, one out of every three Jews on the face of the earth was murdered and we never replace those, that third of our population. But on the surface to the general population it looks like well, they had a tragedy and they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, or they got others to pull them up by the bootstraps, and they’ve recovered.

So people when we say, wait a minute, it’s still there, there’s a failure to understand. I know of your interest on the campus and that’s one of the issues we see on the campus, that the administration’s, of different campuses and there’s a wide variety amongst them, fail to understand that though the Jewish student who comes into the Office of the Dean of Diversity or the provost for diversity, inclusion, and whenever the title might be, and says I was a victim of anti-Semitism, they look at this student, this articulate nicely dressed students, not on scholarship comes from a solid home, et cetera, et cetera and they say, this is not the victim of discrimination that I see most of the time in my office. What is he, what is she complaining about? They don’t get it or the other thing that we see happening is when students go into complain about this, they’re referred to the Office of Religious Life.

Every campus has some Chaplains office or something because they say we don’t deal with religion. Go talk to them. This is a religious thing and the failure to understand that a kid, an adult, a person, a Jew, to be an atheist can be antagonistic to any form of religious belief but has a very strong Jewish identity. So it’s immediately boxed into the box of religion of anti-religious sentiment. On top of that, we’ve gone through a period of upheavals, the pandemic, the massive migrations from Africa, from Middle East, from South America. If you remember my comparison of a few moments ago of anti-Semitism to a virus that is always present, when there is that tension in society. When you have a proliferation of conspiracy theories it often ends up in anti-Semitism. I just mentioned a term which I probably should have mentioned earlier, when we’re talking about anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism is the only prejudice that’s a conspiracy theory. That’s what makes it different going back to your very first question.

The conspiracy theorist, I think it was [inaudible] who wrote a very insightful little article or blog post, I don’t remember what it was, and he was very correct. I’ve talked about this. I’ve written about this, but he really nailed it in his comment. He said the conspiracy theorist may not start out looking at or for Jews, but they’re going to end up looking at or for Jews. Many conspiracy theories start right away, who is conspiring? Who has evil in the society? Who’s poisoning the wells? Who’s bringing down the German mark, Reichsmark in the interwar period? Who’s doing this? Who said this in the back of a Jew? But there are conspiracy theorists who don’t start there. But if you’re a conspiracy theorist, you’re looking for someone who is manipulating things, someone who works behind the scenes, someone who does the devil’s work, their evil handiwork in Cognito. Someone who is crafty, who is powerful, who is well connected, who knows how to manipulate the sources of power, and what am I describing to you? I’m describing to you the anti-Semitic template.

If you go back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which of course is a forgery produced in the late 19th century by the Czarist police, based on an earlier work that had nothing to do with Jews, was totally unconnected to anything Jewish but taken by the Czarist police and the evil characters that the antagonist in it were made Jews and it’s supposedly the protocols of these groups of Jews, Sydney, I believe in Basel, if I remember correctly, I try not to read it too often, figuring out how to control the world. So if you’re looking for who is controlling, who is creating this pandemic, who is profiting from this pandemic. Maybe the Chinese created it, says the conspiracy theorist, but who’s profiting? Who’s behind Big Pharma? Who’s doing this? They will often end up at the Jew.

Jay Ruderman: So let me ask you, following on this discussion about conspiracy theories, and you’ve written about this, but let’s look at the insurrection the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. All sorts of people up there, they come, they attack the Capitol, they’re trying to stop the election. A lot of anti-Semitic shirts, flags, so forth. What does that have to do, the issue at hand which was trying to de legitimize the election?

Deborah Lipstadt: For the first time in our conversation, I’m going to critique your question.

Jay Ruderman: Okay.

Deborah Lipstadt: You make the same mistake that hordes of people make, lots of people make. You are looking for a rational explanation. You’re a rational man, I know that. You’re looking for a rational explanation for an irrational sentiment. It goes back again to what I was saying earlier about prejudice. A prejudice, to pre-judge, to decide when I see a black person, when I see an Asian person, when I see a Jewish person, when I see someone who is ostensibly gay and I assume I know what they are. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know what their personal behavior and personal beliefs and personal ethics are any more than I would know from a white, blond, blue eyed person. So prejudice is inherently irrational, and to try to find a rational explanation as to why these people might have turned to anti-Semitism is almost to legitimize it.

I’m not saying that you’re legitimizing it but it’s the conundrum we who study and I have spent my entire academic career, over 40 years, well over 40 years, studying anti-Semitism, teaching about anti-Semitism, pondering about anti-Semitism. It’s such a conundrum because you are trying to fight and expose an irrational sentiments and you’re trying to explain something that’s irrational using rational means. So going back to the insurrection on January 6th, there’s no way of rationally explaining it. There were Nazi symbols all over that place and there were also Nazi symbols in Charlottesville, as you probably well know, there is a civil suit that’s beginning in less than three weeks against the organizers of Unite the Right. I looked at all the flags and all the paraphernalia, and listen to tapes, and read transcripts and emails of the organizers of the Charlottesville, Unite the Right.

It was the first rally that the Right tried to come together as a coalition, and the anti-Semitic Nazi ideology symbolism rhetoric was just overwhelmed. These are people who believe in a conspiracy, a conspiracy against white people, of which Jews are not in their view. Those people storming Capitol Hill believe there was a conspiracy and even though there was some Jews amongst them, they were looking for someone who was manipulating this, who was controlling this, someone behind the scenes, and for many of them that was the Jew.

Jay Ruderman: So let me jump to the left and the criticism of Israel that we touched on. There are so many conflicts around the world where people are being treated unjustly, being killed, being forced into camps. What is the fascination with Israel and why is Israel gets so much more attention on the left than other injustices around the world? Not to say that you can’t criticize Israel, but it seems to me that there is an undue focus on what’s happening in a very small slice of the world.

Deborah Lipstadt: Right, You’re absolutely correct. I won’t critic that question because that’s a spot on question. There is a disproportionate attention. If you look at the UN Human Rights Council Commission, the number of combinations they pass of Israel and none of China for the Uyghurs or Rohingyas in Myanmar, or other places in which they’ve been genocides. It’s just striking. That’s not to say, I’m not arguing that everybody does it therefore a prejudice or oppression or mistreatment is right. I’m not saying that at all, and I’m not saying that everything Israel has done is right. It hasn’t, no entity of people can claim that they are as I said, in traditional Hebrew, in biblical [foreign language], free from sin. We’ve all done wrong. We’re human beings, and if any religious identity recognizes that certainly is Judaism. But this proportionate attention you just have to ask, why? What is it about?

That doesn’t mean that someone who fights against what they consider mistreatment of the Palestinians has to be also equally devoted to mistreatment of the Uyghurs in China or the Rohingya in Myanmar, or wherever other countries, whatever it might be. People have their particular niche. People are concerned about a certain disease that doesn’t mean they don’t think other diseases are dangerous, but do have your focus. But the disproportionate as I think you put it, the attention to this one issue, you got to wonder why. I was once in a town, giving a lecture and I was free in the evening, and the big university in that town was having a lecture, something to do with the Middle East, with whatever. So I just picked myself up by myself. Nobody knew who I was and went and sat at the back and listened. Then it was, some things bothered me, some things I agreed with. Afterwards, people were standing around chatting and I was just listening because I really wasn’t there with anyone but one group had welcomed me in or whatever, and I was just listening.

One guy said, Israel doesn’t have a right to exist because it displaced some other people. Now, I thought about this and I wasn’t going to get into a debate, whether it displaced some other people, how many people were there, et cetera, et cetera but there were certainly were people who were displaced you know that and Israel acknowledges that. But I said that, you said because Israel misplaced, or in the process of the creation of the state people were displaced by Israelis, that delegitimize it’s right to exist. The guy said, absolutely. I said, okay, I’m a historian. Let me put that in historical context and let’s think of all the countries that have displaced people in the course of their creation. Let’s start with the United States of America and certainly, Native Americans, some Native Americans prefer to be called Indians, whatever term you want to use, or even slaves. America being built on slaves, they weren’t displaced they were taken, stolen from Africa.

Or go to Canada and the First Nation as the indigenous tribes in Canada are called, and the terrible schools in which these were [inaudible], go to Australia and look at the Aborigines and New Zealand and the Maoris. In other words, I didn’t talk about China and I didn’t talk about me, I talked about countries that are held up as shining examples of Western democratic countries. Again, I said, I wasn’t saying because it happened to United States, Canada, Australia, the British Empire, no better example than that, that makes it all right. I wasn’t saying that. He beats his wife but so does he so that makes it all right, of course not. But I was saying, you may say America mistreated its native population, which it did. No question about it and still does but you don’t say that that questions its right to exist.

Australia mistreated the Aborigines and many cases they still are suffering terrible, terrible, disproportionate status in society, but you don’t question the right to exist. So I’m just saying when you pick out, when you make the Israel the singular focus, I have to ask why, what’s behind it? What’s underlying it? Maybe not in all cases but I would say in many cases it’s anti-Semitism, maybe unconscious anti-Semitism, but it’s anti-Semitism.

Jay Ruderman: Right. It’s a great point. Let me ask you, you’ve written eight books on the topic of anti-Semitism. what initially drew you to this topic?

Deborah Lipstadt: That’s such a good question. A couple of things. I was a undergraduate in Israel in, I went over the year 1966, 67 and that makes me very old, not so old. I was there during the Six Day War and I remember that fear. I remember that concern. I remember those graves being dug in the public parks in Tel Aviv, expecting deaths of hundreds and that was very, very telling for me and a powerful experience. I’d even had a powerful experience before the war in April of 1967 when no one knew a war was coming, including the IDF and security services. I was in Greece, we had a break in school and I went to Greece and to Turkey and then from Turkey, from Istanbul instead of flying back to Tel Aviv I flew to Beirut and went by car.

Beirut, Damascus, Amman across the Allenby Bridge into East Jerusalem and then through what was called the Mandelbaum, which was the way tourists crossed from one side of Jerusalem into the other. I had to hide my identity as a Jew and I heard people say horrible things about Jews and that was also a striking moment.

The third piece, it wasn’t one thing, the third piece of the puzzle so to speak, was a trip I took to the Soviet Union in 1972. I arrived there the day after the massacre at the Munich Olympics and that was already unsettling thing. I spent time meeting with people who were called as you well know, Refuseniks. Jews who wanted to leave the Soviet Union but who couldn’t get visas to leave even though the Soviet said we allow reunification of family and we allow people to freely emigrate, but of course, that was all a lot of hooey. I met people who were suffering directly and experiencing direct anti-Semitism from the Soviet regime and then on the day, we were supposed to continue midway through our trip I was with one other person. Midway through our trip we were detained by the KGB, separated, held for a day, questioned. We didn’t know what was going to happen and finally released and allowed to go to Romania.

So I saw that, it was momentary. I’m not comparing it in any manner, shape or form to what a Refusenik experienced but I saw that hatred up close and personal and it was very, very striking to me. So I think when I put all those things together I began to think about the Holocaust. I hadn’t really experienced or I thought I hadn’t experienced anti-Semitism in my life. I’ll tell you a funny not funny haha, but strange story. I was sitting around with a group of Israelis. It was after the Six Day War because I stayed on in Israel for another 12, 13 months. They were talking about, early on immigrating to Israel and anti-Semitism and things. I said, “Well, I’ve never really experienced anti-Semitism.” Now shortly before in the conversation I had mentioned something about a Jewish kid, a kid from, certainly if they came from a major metropolitan area where there was a large Jewish population, but if they were Jewish, they had to be better than the non Jewish kid to get into the best schools, that it was clear that they had a quota.

This is in the late 60s, it [inaudible] still was there. It was there, sometimes they’d make it a geographic quota. We want to limit the number of kids from New York and from Chicago, Philadelphia and Miami or something like that and Los Angeles. Then I had said, but Jewish kids to get in has to do better on their exams and better in their grades, et cetera. So someone sitting there looked at me and said, “You just said you’ve never experienced anti-Semitism. What’s that?” I was taken aback, and I said,” Oh, my God, they’re absolutely right.” So all those things put together formed the puzzle that shaped my professional life and intrigued me by this topic. Then as I began to study it, and to write about it and write about the [inaudible] and then the Holocaust Denial of course, I then had the unlucky experience of being sued by a Holocaust denier. In that courtroom, I saw anti-Semitism up close and personal sitting 10 feet away from me, sitting in the gallery with his supporters, being accosted in the street by people who were his acolytes, his trainees, so to speak.

I heard sneering remarks in a British courtroom about Jews and even little things like Elie Weisel. He would always say Elie Wiesel, or a description of Simon Wiesenthal at one point hook nose, beady eyes, it could have come out of the most classic anti-Semitic, work it could have been description of Shylock. All those things together reminded me that though I have lived a very good life, blessed life and had many fabulous experiences and the chance to teach and to write, that it’s out there. That it’s out there and that, you see ultimately I also became convinced and I’m more convinced now than ever that certainly anti-Semitism is a threat to the Jew and to the jewel whose ox is gored, they’re the ones who are directly going to experience it. But it’s not just a threat to the Jews. It’s a threat to the democratic society which we still treasure and which Jews and many others have so prospered in so many ways, and I don’t mean only financially but in terms of achievements and contributions.

Other groups have not had that same experience but let’s hope that that improves as well. But hatred, you see anti-Semitism, this goes back to my earlier comments about conspiracy theories. Anti-Semitism creates doubts about the government, who’s controlling the government? Who’s lobbying? Who’s behind it? The banks, who controls the banks? The media, who controls the media? Who’s controlling the judges? Who’s controlling even the protest movements of people of color? Ex cetera. But it creates doubts about the fairness of society and once you’d succumb to, well we saw it going back to your question of January 6th. Once you succumb to this notion of a conspiracy, once you feel that the democratic society in which you live is being controlled by others, and things are being done unfairly. You either have reached that point from a root of anti-Semitism, or you’re going to come back anti-Semitism. So if you value this democratic society, this fragile democratic society in which we live, you’ve got to fight against all forms of prejudice but anti-Semitism goes to the roots of the democratic society which we treasure.

Jay Ruderman: Deborah, it’s an excellent point that I think more people need to internalize because most of us are against different forms of discrimination, but as an academic, as someone who’s been a professor for a long time, why do you think it seems like younger generations of Jews have a very different view of Israel than their parents? I want to follow that up by asking about the growing BDS movement and what it’s about, which is boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, and has that contributed to anti-Semitism?

Deborah Lipstadt: I think first of all, for the parents of many of the young people, they still remember an Israel at threat, an Israel in ’67 with people saying send us the children, why are you going to survive, the young people or war, [inaudible], words that are code words for so many Jews about a much more vulnerable Israel. Even those, many people today who say yes, Israel is stronger, Israel is better are equipped to fight but they also know that there’s a certain vulnerability and the younger people don’t see that. They see a strong prosperous nation and in a very black and white, no nuance view of the situation. They see a wealthy prosperous nation to them and borrowing from subjugating another people. Would I want to be a Palestinian living in the West Bank today? It’s [inaudible] occupied territory, it’s wherever you want to call this place, it’s the same geography, same place, Google Maps will lead you to the same place. No. But is it a genocide? Of course not and you hear that very much.

So you hear these kinds of things and universities are inherently liberal places and they challenge the status quo and that leads me to the BDS movement. I think that the BDS movement when it was founded, and those who founded it. If you go back to its originating documents, which are available online, you see a movement whose ultimate goal is the destruction of the State of Israel. There’s no question about it. Free unfreeable refugees and by the way, the only refugee problem in the world when you talk about Palestinian refugee and they’re many refugee groups of refugees, where it goes from generation to grand generation is in this particular conflict, this particular area.

So essentially called for, all intensive purposes in the destruction of the State of Israel. But that doesn’t mean that every young person or even adults who signs onto the BDS movement is an ipso facto to an anti-Semite and we do ourselves a disservice by immediately deciding, no, you’re from BDS, you must be an anti-Semite. For some people and again, I’m differentiating between the originators and some of the adherence. It’s a way of trying to change a policy just like in previous generation tried to change and successfully helped change, they of course didn’t do it alone, the discriminatory apartheid policy in South Africa. we’re going to boycott you and this will force Israel. We’re going to divest from you and this will force Israel to change its policies visa ve the Palestinians.

So it becomes a code word and there is students as smart as they may be in and are in some of the best campuses, they also sometimes could be like Lemmings. I don’t know if you watch the Netflix series, The Chair but you see that there where a enact, white professor does something silly in class, imitated a scene from the movie which he’s doing the Heil Hitler and immediately the students label him as a fascist. There’s a tendency, nuance gets lost. Nuance gets lost, and as you know, I’ve had the privilege of being nominated by the President for a special envoy in the State Department and should I be confirmed one of the things I hope to do is to bring back an attention to nuance, to an understanding of the terrible practices and try to inject some nuance into understanding not only the threat that it is, but how we might fight it.

Jay Ruderman: Deborah, you mentioned quickly in passing, which I think is very important that you were sued by a Holocaust denier, David Irving, and went on trial. I’m sure that was a very difficult part of your life. I would encourage our listeners to watch the film Denial with Rachel Weisz, because I think it’s a very moving film and she portrays you in that film. I’m wondering what you would say to people if they want to take an active role in combating anti-Semitism. What can people do? What can your average person do?

Deborah Lipstadt: Yes, it’s a great question Jay. First of all, we have to become the unwelcome guests at the dinner party. I often depict, you’ve come for Thanksgiving dinner, we’ve gotten through the Jewish holidays. The next thing on the calendar is Thanksgiving or Hanukkah, who knows what comes first anymore. But you arrive to Thanksgiving dinner and your host or hostess or whomever meet you at the door and says, listen, uncle XYZ is here and you know he’s a play mean homophobic, racist, anti-Semite, whatever it is. Please don’t get into a fight with him. We’ve worked so hard. We want it to be a really nice afternoon and evening. You can’t do that anymore. You can’t sit silently by. You can’t sit silently by a because it’s wrong. What the person is saying is full of hate and venom and b, because you’re telegraphing a message to the other people around the table, particularly the young people that it’s okay to talk like that.

I think the thing to remember and if anything, my studies of the Holocaust has taught me this. It all begins with words. Now being the unwelcome guest at the dinner party won’t stop this pernicious hatred. We need action on state government levels, state levels, educational levels, we need our educators to recognize its pernicious nature, as I’ve said a number of times through our time together, but the little things, when you hear something, say something. Now, that means you got to know what to say, and you got to educate yourself. So maybe start by educating yourself what it is. What’s wrong with it, why it’s dangerous. That’s why I wrote my book as you mentioned on anti-Semitism, my most recent book on anti-Semitism.

I write it as a series of letters to a student then a colleague, because I wanted it to be accessible. I wanted to give people some of the tools for trying to fight it. It’s not easy. Too often you will think of the perfect thing to say at one o’clock in the morning when you’ve had the incident the previous evening you’ll stay, woke up right in bed and said that’s what I should have said and the moment is past but one day you’ll get it right and we need that. We can’t, we won’t eradicate it with all this hatred, but we can try to control it and to make people sensitive to it’s dangerous.

Jay Ruderman: I do want to encourage my listeners to read your latest book called Anti-Semitism Here and Now because I think it’s a very powerful book and it is an important conversation to have, both with an imaginary colleague and student and I think it’s very powerful. Let me end by asking you, some European countries have considered Holocaust denial hate speech, and have made that illegal. Do you think the United States should be going in the same direction as these countries?

Deborah Lipstadt: I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play a lawyer on TV but I don’t think we can because there’s freedom of speech and freedom of speech makes that very difficult but what I like to say is, people first of all have the right to their own, to say things. Holocaust denial is not an opinion, it’s a lie. I have a TED talk on that. Go look at my 15 minute TED Talk, where I explore exactly that. They have a right to speak, but we don’t have to give them a microphone. They have a right to speak but we don’t have to provide a platform. I don’t debate deniers because they are haters and they are liars. I will talk to someone who has been influenced by denial and who I think I can show the lies, but I wouldn’t get into a debate. They’re not on either side and that’s something we have to recognize

Jay Ruderman: Deborah it’s been a pleasure having you as my guest on All Inclusive. You’ve made such an impact on many of our lives and I know you’re going to go on and continue to have a tremendous impact on our world and our country. So thank you so much. I wish you much luck and success going forward.

Deborah Lipstadt: Thank you, Jay and I appreciate this chance and you do a great job on this program. In preparation I listened to a lot of the podcasts and you’re good.

Jay Ruderman: Thank you. Thank you so much.

Deborah Lipstadt: Take care. Bye, bye.

Jay Ruderman: Take care. Bye

Speaker 1: All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts or to learn more go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast, be sure to tweet @jayruderman.

‍

Speaker 1: All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation, and social justice, with Jay Ruderman.

Jay Ruderman: Hi. I'm Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation, and social justice. Sean Taylor had a successful career [00:00:30] in plus-size fashion when she landed a role on the highly-addictive Netflix reality show, The Circle, in which contestant rate each other based on their profiles and interactions on a fake social media network. When Sean came on the show mid-season, she catfished her fellow contestants into thinking she was a straight-sized woman. When she took the brave step of revealing her true self, Sean quickly became a body-positive icon [00:01:00] for people everywhere.

Since her debut on The Circle, Sean has become a plus-size influencer and advocate, where she uses her platform to break down diet culture, share plus-size styling tips, and inspire her almost 200,000 followers to radically love and accept every inch of themselves. Sean, welcome to All Inclusive. Why don't you start by telling us, for those who don't know, what was your big break into becoming a successful body- [00:01:30] positive advocate and influencer that you are today?

Sean Taylor: So, it kind of came out of the blue for me. I really got a message one day from someone from casting that I was like, "Hey, you should audition for this show," and I was like, "Well, okay." So, when I went on the show, I thought a lot about how I would want to approach this, and I was previously working as a social media manager at a plus-size fashion company. So, [00:02:00] I've seen some of the worst of the worst of what the internet has to throw at people my size, so I brought that life experience to the table, and I really wanted to start a conversation about how body shaming and fat phobia is such a problem online.

So, I decided to go in catfishing as a thinner friend of mine, and then eventually, spoiler alert, but it happened like two years ago, I revealed myself [00:02:30] to the rest of the house, and that's something that just ended up really resonating with a lot of people, and I got some really amazing responses from all over the world, and now just have my own like body-positive community online, and that's what I do full-time.

Jay Ruderman: So, I did binge watch The Circle, and-

Sean Taylor: That's awesome.

Jay Ruderman: ... I'm not a reality TV person, but it is [00:03:00] addictive, and I really enjoyed it and what you did with it, and we'll get into that in a little while. But I want to start focusing on your activism, and maybe going back to what it was like growing up as a plus-size child in the '90s, in a decade that was associated with terms like thinspiration.

Sean Taylor: Growing up, I was not only the largest kid in my grade, [00:03:30] I was also the tallest kid in my grade, and I went to Catholic school. I love my parents, and they're super supportive of what I do, and they've had a lot of growth, but my parents were totally, like so many other people, really sucked into the dieting of the late '90s and early 2000s. So, it was a lot of messages from all around me that were like my body [00:04:00] was just wrong for a myriad of reasons, and that's something that I carried with me, really, well into college. I was constantly on just a hamster wheel of diets. It wasn't until really I started to find body positivity online, and I was just seeing people talk about things that it's like I've always known in my heart to be [00:04:30] true, just hearing for the first time that, "Hey, maybe you didn't fail these diets. Maybe these diets aren't set up to actually get the success that you're looking for. Maybe you're not imagining it," that people have some, I don't know, biased and even hateful views about fatness.

So, that was the first time that I really started looking at what are [00:05:00] the beliefs that I actually hold about myself, and how are they affecting my life? At that time, I was actually going to school for acting in college, and I was always having to play someone's mom or the funny, fat friend, and it just seemed like I was always having to make myself fit a very specific mold, or there was an expectation to lose weight. Really, body positivity, fat activism, that just kind of lit a [00:05:30] fire under me in a way that acting didn't. So, I thought I would be moving to New York to pursue acting, and instead, it was a time where Ashley Graham was just on Sports Illustrated, and things were just exploding in plus-size fashion, and so I ended up moving to New York to just try to become a part of this moment any way that I can, and then I ended up in plus-size fashion, and then ended up on The Circle.

Jay Ruderman: So, the organization [00:06:00] that I run, the Ruderman Family Foundation, we've done a lot in terms of the authentic representation of disability in entertainment, working with studios, and I see that there is a trend among many different facets of society to have more authentic representation, but I was wondering, what do you feel about the current representation of plus-size people on screen, on TV, in film, and in general in the entertainment industry?

Sean Taylor: [00:06:30] Well, there's been so much improvement in the past five years, even just... I just mentioned Ashley Graham being on Sports Illustrated. That was such a huge moment, it felt like, but since then there have been so many more plus-size people in media, and also a variety of stories being told. But I still think that there's still a long way to go, obviously. I don't know [00:07:00] if it's still accurate today, but at least I remember hearing the statistic in 2016, it had to be, that it was like 67% of women wear a size 16, 14, or larger, but were only represented in 2% of media. That's a big problem, and I think we're making some headway, but especially... I mean, as someone who was [00:07:30] on reality TV, that's definitely a whole genre that has a long, long way to go. But I've been excited by shows like Shrill, Nicole Byer on Nailed It! There's definitely some huge progress just making tremendous difference.

Jay Ruderman: So, how do you feel about the use of fat suits? Are they harmful to the representation of plus-size people?

Sean Taylor: Totally, yeah. [00:08:00] I mean, I'm heartened by the fact that this is a conversation that is being had, where I feel like when I was growing up in the early 2000s, it was just often a comedic device that wasn't really thought twice about, and now I think people are starting to, I don't know, dig a little bit deeper. The reason why I would say that it's harmful mainly is because [00:08:30] fat people are your neighbors and your friends and your sisters and your coworkers, but you don't see them on TV and in movies, and instead, to see someone else creating or projecting what they perceive that experience to be, I just think it is something that we should let go of because there are tons of talented people that don't need to wear fat suits to play a fat person.

Jay Ruderman: So, I have noticed more and more advertisements [00:09:00] that have plus-size models in them for mainstream brands. For example, I like Bombas Socks, and I just clicked on an ad that I got, and there were plus-size models, and I sent it to Jackie, who I work with in the foundation. I don't know. Do you think that there is a trend, that there's a shift in perception of plus-size body?

Sean Taylor: Oh, yeah. So, I think specifically [00:09:30] when it comes to advertising, that one's a little bit complicated just because I think it's come to a lot of consumers' attention post-racial justice reckoning, that a lot of brands were really called out for the fact that they were using really inclusive models in advertising, but their company makeup, their policies don't actually look anything like that, and I think specifically a lot [00:10:00] of plus-size consumers are probably familiar with the experience of seeing a model that's a bit more curvy or plus-size, and then clicking on the website, checking out their offering, and realizing there's actually nothing that's my size, or if there is, there's maybe a couple things, and they're in black and navy, and it's really disappointing.

So, again, we've made so much progress, the fact that [00:10:30] you are seeing plus-size models in advertisements, but what gives me pause at least is that I hope that or I'd like to encourage what you would call maybe not plus-size or is straight-size, so people who aren't fat or wear less than a size 14, I hope that people who consider themselves allies or want to do just more work in terms of body inclusivity, [00:11:00] that they don't see something like that and say, "Okay, check. They're perfect. They're doing a great job. Moving on." It still requires a little bit of a deeper dive to say, "Okay. This brand is really walking the walk, not just talking the talk." So, I'm excited by this, but I'm also weary of brands just using an inclusive model for an image, but not necessarily having any willingness to change [00:11:30] anything about their company.

Jay Ruderman: So, I just want to ask you about the term straight-size because it wasn't a term before I prepared for talking to you that I had heard, but maybe you can talk a little bit about what that term means.

Sean Taylor: Yeah, yeah. So, straight-size is just like... You could think the opposite of plus-size. That is a term that's primarily used in the fashion industry. So, there's your straight-size assortment, and then there's your plus- [00:12:00] size assortment. I think the reason why especially in fat activist spaces why the term straight-size is used, even though it was primarily used to designate clothing size, is because I think a lot of people don't identify with the word thin necessarily. I think clothing is probably one of the most obvious benchmarks [00:12:30] of systematic difference and experience with thinner people and fatter people, and so the term straight-size, I think it can kind of let people's guard down a little bit instead of saying, "Oh, well, I don't have a supermodel body, so I struggle too." Instead, it's like, "Okay. Well, let's take a step back. Walking into a mall and not having a single article of clothing be able to fit me, that's [00:13:00] not an experience I have, but let me maybe sit down and listen here." Does that make sense?

Jay Ruderman: I think it does. Let me ask you the big question about how did we get to this point, because I think in the history of the modern world we were always at the point where a very thin woman or man would be seen as, according to the commercial [00:13:30] world, the ideal body type, but we got there somehow, because if you look back in history, I think there were points in time where a full-size body was celebrated as being the way that we would look at a body. But how did we get here where we're looking at super thin, in fact, we talk about going back into the '90s, waif-thin people being super attractive?

Sean Taylor: I'm not an expert on this, but a lot [00:14:00] of this does come from Eurocentric, Puritan ideals, and separating ourselves from people who are other, people who are different, and when we look at size diversity in our country, people who are poor, people who are black and brown, a lot of those demographics are larger people. It's definitely not by [00:14:30] accident that we've gotten here. I think it's just kind of like a tangled web of various oppressions that this is kind of where we are today.

Jay Ruderman: What's your message to brands who are still making excuses and are still excluding plus-size models from their branding?

Sean Taylor: I think more so than even excluding people from their branding, I think just excluding an entire customer base as a whole is just a huge misstep. [00:15:00] When people will hear maybe someone who is talking about body positivity or fat activism or fat acceptance or whatever it is for the first time, they'll be like, "Oh, so just being confident? Just be more confident, and that's the whole issue." But really, this is a much larger feminist, social justice issue. I mean, when we think about the fact that, [00:15:30] like I said, 67% of women, that's two thirds of women in America, when they go into a store, they don't know if they're going to find something their size, and a lot of times these brands, I would say this example is actually worse than that statistic sounds because just because a brand might carry your size doesn't mean that they carry your size in-store.

So, let's say you suddenly have a job interview, or you suddenly [00:16:00] have to represent yourself in court, and you can't find anything appropriate that fits you. That's a problem. Then we have our own internalized attitudes about fat people, their character, combined with the fact that maybe someone couldn't find anything appropriate to wear. You're seriously as a disadvantage in those situations. I think brands are starting to wake up to the fact that they [00:16:30] are leaving out a huge market, and they're ready to collect those dollars. I think something that I would love to see when brands want to make that pivot towards inclusivity is that they are ready to really make a longer-term investment.

I like to compare it to the fact that if every single day at school there's the cool kids' table and they [00:17:00] don't let you sit with them, but one day you can sit with them, but no one tells you that, you're not just going to walk over and sit down at the table, or maybe they tell you, but they've always been mean to you, and they never hangs out with anyone that looks like you. You're not going to feel real comfortable sitting over there. So, my point there is that these brands have to do some serious work in order to win the trust of these consumers, and I think a lot of companies want to [00:17:30] put in, I don't know, not-so-great work out there and assume that people are going to be lining up out the door, and it doesn't work that way.

Jay Ruderman: That's an excellent point. You're a celebrity now, and you're in the spotlight. I want to talk a little bit about bullying and your focus on your own mental health, because you're out there advocating. [00:18:00] You're very public. I'm sure you get a lot of trolls bullying you. How do you deal with it?

Sean Taylor: Not great all the time, to be honest. I think something that I've really tried to embrace and also be vulnerable with my audience about, [00:18:30] I think as there been more fat representation in media, there's almost kind of like this trope of... I love Lizzo, for example, but I think there's a one-dimensional version of fat representation, which is that confident queen, you go, curvy queen, when people just have... No one thinks that the sun shines out of their butt 24/7. [00:19:00] Everyone has down days, especially when you can be receiving harassment online, and I would love to be able to just stand up and be like, "Oh, don't let it get to you. Just don't let something like that get to you. Just be confident. You're amazing. Love yourself."

But it's normal and human to be affected by the things that people say, and I think it's an unrealistic expectation to assume that some amount of internal work is going to keep you from being [00:19:30] affected by the things that people say. It's okay to have your feelings hurt now and then, and it's okay to need to step away and take a break. I think the biggest lesson that I've learned from this, I know a lot of people maybe don't feel comfortable talking about body-related things with people in their lives, and so they have a lot of community online, but what that means is that when you receive any sort of negativity online about your body, [00:20:00] you don't necessarily have a go-to person in your life to talk about it.

I think talking about what you're experiencing online is such an important part of processing it. So, if you're in a position where you're receiving any sort of bullying or harassment online, just take a step away from the phone, and even if it feels like it's a lot to explain or the people around you won't get it, I promise you you're going to feel a little bit better if you have a [00:20:30] conversation with somebody that you love and trust.

Jay Ruderman: Do you ever make an example of the bullying and point it out to your followers and say, "This is what shaming is all about"?

Sean Taylor: Yeah, sometimes I do use harassment that I get as inspiration for things that I post, and I think in part that's because I think that content is still very powerful because a lot of people, when [00:21:00] they're having conversations about size-based harassment, we're still having to prove that this is a thing, that this is real. But the bulk of the conversation is like, "No, that's not true. That doesn't happen. That's not a real thing. Get over it." I don't know. To have the receipts of, "Hey, no. This is really inappropriate," [00:21:30] and to open up a conversation about it, it takes the power out of what's being said, but also, it's a unifying experience because I know there is someone out there that's probably received the same thing, unfortunately.

Jay Ruderman: So, maybe you can help educate us. I want to ask you about the word fat.

Sean Taylor: Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: Is it appropriate to use that term? Who can use that term, and are there words in describing the plus- [00:22:00] size community that we should definitely stay away from?

Sean Taylor: Yeah. Okay. So, I have embraced the word fat. I kind of have reclaimed it as a neutral descriptor, is what a lot of people will say, and that has actually helped me a lot in my self-love and acceptance journey. That might be confusing to some people because when they hear that word they kind of bristle at it. But the [00:22:30] reason why is growing up, I thought that everyone in my life thought that I was fat in a bad way, and they were just waiting to use that word against me, and it felt like it was just kind of like living with an anvil over my head that was just about to drop. I could say things like curvy, or I'm just a bigger person, or fluffy, or big-boned, or whatever you like, [00:23:00] but it just felt like I was just trying to cover up the shame and badness of the word fat.

When I embraced it, it was like, oh. I think it meant that I had to really take a look at what are the beliefs that I am holding against myself about my body, and unpacking those beliefs. There was just a lot more joy and freedom on the other side of that. So, I [00:23:30] really encourage people to try to unpack those uncomfortable thoughts and beliefs and feelings around the word fat. I totally get that that's not something that's going to happen overnight, but when I hear someone in my life say the word fat in a neutral context, I'm actually really happy, and I feel really comfortable with this person because I'm like, "Oh, I know you're thinking about this, and you're doing [00:24:00] that work, and you want to show me that."

So, I feel like tips that I would have for someone in terms of using the word fat, one, I think people's first thought is, "Well, I would never walk up to someone and say, 'Hey, you're fat.'" It's like, well, why would you walk up to anyone and say, "Hey, you're whatever body size"? In any context, that's not really appropriate. So, [00:24:30] you don't have to do that, and I wouldn't do that, and I think I would encourage people to take cues from people around them and the larger people around them. I would never assert onto anyone, "Oh, no, this is the word that you're supposed to use." That's definitely not appropriate, especially if you're in a smaller body, saying to someone in a larger body.

If someone else wants to say they're fluffy, [00:25:00] curvalicious, cool. That's you. If that makes you happy, that's great. If you are like, "Man, this word just really institute comfortable for me to say," something that I would really encourage is... I think it's easier to incorporate the word fat in a neutral way, one, if you're talking about the fat experience as a whole. Talking to someone [00:25:30] in your life, maybe not a fat person, just another straight-size person in your life, and saying, "Oh, I was reading this article, and they were saying fat people get paid however much less than their straight-size counterparts," which is a statistic somewhere, that's a helpful way.

It can also be helpful maybe talking to another straight-size person in your life, or whoever, to incorporate fat as a neutral [00:26:00] descriptor. If you were saying something like, "Oh, yeah. We have this teacher, and she's just this super cool, stylish, fat lady," I think it's easier when you're incorporating some other descriptors that are clearly positive, that you're like, "Okay, wait. This is neutral," and people around you know that it's neutral. Yeah. Those are just a couple tips, but definitely defer to the [00:26:30] people around you.

Jay Ruderman: So, let's get back to The Circle, because it really propelled you, I think, into another level of recognition. Just for those who haven't seen it, let's give a little bit of a synopsis about what the show was, what it was set up to be.

Sean Taylor: Yeah. So, Netflix, I think, has been doing a lot more reality [00:27:00] TV. It was actually a show that first started in the UK, and it blew up, and so Netflix scooped it up and started doing it for some different countries, the US being one of them. Like I said, it's just this reality game show that is a competition where you want to be essentially the most liked are at the end of the [00:27:30] game.

Jay Ruderman: You applied for the show, and you got on it. Tell me about your strategy, about pretending to be your friend Colleen instead of your real self. Actually, your bio was you, but the picture you used was of your friend Colleen.

Sean Taylor: Yeah. So, I wanted to be myself as much as possible, but I also wanted to be true to my own life experience, [00:28:00] and that is that I don't really trust that any room that I am walking into is going to be free of fat phobia, and especially when $100,000 are on the line, like I said, working for a plus-size fashion company in social media, I've just seen terrible, terrible, unprompted comments from strangers online just in response to just seeing a fat person. [00:28:30] I thought a lot about, "Okay, what would really make an impact?" and I took that very seriously. I don't know. I thought that probably a lot of people would relate to this, but also, it would spark a lot of conversation in terms of who really gets to fully be themselves risk-free, and who has to be a bit more thoughtful in terms of how [00:29:00] they share their lives and their truth. Yeah. So, I chose to use pictures that weren't mine from a thinner friend, and then ultimately ended up revealing to everyone who I actually am.

Jay Ruderman: So, that's the part I wanted to get into, and it was a very, I think, poignant part of the show. What made you, while you were in the show, decide to reveal [00:29:30] who you are and to put a picture of yourself as you are?

Sean Taylor: So, I knew that if I could find people in The Circle that I trusted, then I would want to share that with them. I think a lot of times... I don't know. I think a lot of fat people have had the experience of people will meet you, and they don't [00:30:00] see past your size or who you are. They just don't really have the imagination for the fact that you could be a very talented or smart or funny or cool person. It's just like, "Oh, you're just big." So, I wanted people to really see me and who I was before making an assumption about my size, and I thought a lot about the fact [00:30:30] that didn't want people, especially young people, to watch the show and walk away with the message that if you look like Sean, then you should just hide that fact. I wanted to be honest about my life experience, which is that it's not always nice out there being in a larger body online, but at the same time, embracing who I am [00:31:00] is an extremely powerful thing.

Jay Ruderman: So, when the contestant that you did reveal yourself to, I remember their responses, and they came back and they said, "You're absolutely beautiful." What was that experience like to you? Was it surprising or uplifting, or both?

Sean Taylor: I thought it was nice. I don't know. I think when they responded that way, I think there's a gut reaction [00:31:30] that's kind of like, "Oh, well, you're great. You didn't have to do that," and I think, of course, I didn't have to, but it also is just, again, based on my life experience. It just doesn't always feel very safe fully being yourself. So, [00:32:00] I was glad that people were willing to really hear the truth of that, and embrace the fact that, okay, I see that her being herself maybe took a bit more courage.

Jay Ruderman: So, after you revealed yourself, there were articles all over the internet hailing you as a body-positive icon. Can you talk about that experience and what it was like for you, and also, [00:32:30] was there backlash?

Sean Taylor: Yeah. So, there was definitely a mix of, especially in the show prior to me revealing myself, some people had negative opinions, but also, it was funny. A lot of those people actually weren't fat, and I had a lot of people who would be like, "I know exactly why you did what you did, because this is... I realized I'm doing this in some way or another all the time in my life," and I think that's who [00:33:00] I really did this for. So, it was really amazing just to have... I don't know. All of it was really beyond anything that I could have imagined, and as someone who was already hyper-online and really engaged in fat-positive spaces, to have people to the at I've looked up to throughout the majority of my adult life know who I am and recognize [00:33:30] anything that I have done and say, "You did a good job," that was beyond validating.

Jay Ruderman: Watching the show and seeing that you're in an apartment and there are cameras following you all over the place, I would find that very intimidating, but what were your hopes and fears going into the show?

Sean Taylor: Well, being on reality TV, no matter who you are, is pretty scary, especially because you just don't know how they're going to end up editing things. [00:34:00] So, that was the real scary part, was just like, "Okay, I'm going to film this, but then who knows how it'll all turn out?" It's also just very intense having the experience with social media where you can see the world responding to you in realtime. It's a lot of feedback on yourself to get at once.

Jay Ruderman: So, after The Circle, your social media [00:34:30] presence grew tremendously. Maybe you could talk a little bit about the mission of your platform.

Sean Taylor: Yeah. So, it's a little cliché probably at this point, but the phrase be who you needed when you were younger is just a really big motivator for me, and above anything, I want to be a person and a place online where people just know that they're not alone in whatever they're dealing with. I [00:35:00] talk a lot about fashion. I talk a lot about clothes. Since I've worked in plus-size fashion, I talk a lot about finding specific pieces and really getting nitty-gritty into how to find stuff that really fits you, and then also, I just share fun things in my day-to-day life, including my dog.

Jay Ruderman: Dogs are wonderful. I have my own Teddy. So, what can [00:35:30] straight-size allies, what role can they play in helping to combat fat phobia?

Sean Taylor: Yeah. So, I think the biggest thing is to... I think the first step is being honest with yourself about whatever beliefs you might be holding against yourself, where your value lies, where your worth lies, what is valuable or a flaw [00:36:00] about yourself, because I think so much of how we treat other people stems from how we feel about ourselves. As someone who will get a lot of messages, I can see very quickly when someone is responding to me in a way that is something about me living my life and being happy in the body that I'm in was just very triggering because of whatever mean beliefs you're holding [00:36:30] against yourself. So, the first step is to really be doing that work.

I would say another step is to really try to diversify the type of media that you're consuming, and on social media that's super easy. Unfollow the people that have the toxic diet-related beliefs, and just start following and liking a couple more people that have something different to say, and then next, again, social media makes it very easy in this regard. If there is a brand or [00:37:00] some kind of media or something that you think isn't doing things right, as someone who was a social media manager, those companies care about that, and they listen to that. So, if there's something that you think isn't right, even just a comment can definitely make a difference.

Jay Ruderman: Exactly. You talked about your experience on The Circle, it reminded you as coming out as fat to your family and friends. Can you talk about [00:37:30] what that was like?

Sean Taylor: Yeah. So, I think a lot, that's a phrase that I've heard other fat people use, and it's kind of like an experience that a lot of fat people have had where you might be in relationships with people in your life who are constantly operating with you under the impression that you want to lose weight, that you are in the process of trying to lose weight, that [00:38:00] you're unhappy with where you are now, and that you're desperate to change. I think at some point in my journey I had a conversation, various conversations with people in my life that were just like, "Hey. Actually, this is, I think, who I am. I've dieted throughout all my childhood. I don't see this changing, and when you say X, Y, or Z, that kind of hurts." So, [00:38:30] I was surprised by how being on The Circle is just felt very vulnerable, and bringing me back to that moment, because it is a very vulnerable thing to say, "Hey, I'm maybe not what you expected, but I do want you to still give me a certain amount of respect and kindness."

Jay Ruderman: So, Sean, I want to ask you a question that's very personal to me because I have four teenagers.

Sean Taylor: Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: The people around us really shape how we see ourselves, but what advice would you give to parents or adults to create an environment of self-love and not based on shame?

Sean Taylor: Well, I think specifically when it comes to our bodies, I think children and young people are so perceptive, and they catch on to what you're doing and how you talk about yourself and how you talk about the people around you. They pay attention to the media that you're consuming. So, I think it's really important to be extending that radical acceptance and kindness towards yourself, and I think kids really notice and pay attention to that.

Jay Ruderman: So, can you talk maybe a little bit about some people that you feel are your favorite plus-size influencers, writers, filmmakers?

Sean Taylor: Yeah. Well, if you haven't heard of her, I really love Aubrey Gordon. She went under the pen name Your Fat Friend for a long time. She's written a ton of incredible articles and a book, and I would say probably is one of the thought leaders, true thought leaders of this moment right now, and she also has a podcast that I really love called Maintenance Phase that is really about unpacking a lot of, I don't know, the diet and wellness industry that I've learned a lot, and also, I think they're really fun and entertaining. That's definitely my favorite, and probably one of the best entry points who anyone who's looking to learn more on this topic.

Jay Ruderman: What about some of your favorite organizations that are working to tackle fat phobia?

Sean Taylor: I really love Project Heal. So, Project Heal is an organization that is working to help people with disordered eating. Unfortunately, a lot of the disordered eating space is really exclusive of fat people, and fat people deal with eating disorders as well. I think when a lot of people think of disordered eating, they think, "Oh, that's just something for rich, thin, white high school girls." They don't think of just people in larger bodies or people of different races, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different genders. This organization is doing a lot just to make sure that people who need it are getting care, and also just provide additional education.

Jay Ruderman: So, what's the advice that you would give to your younger self now, where you are in life?

Sean Taylor: I think something that I feel like I'm reminded of over and over again in life is that what's for you isn't going to miss you, and when you are... It's kind of like when one door closes, another one opens. Whenever the boy or the part in the play or whatever it is that rejected you, it just wasn't meant for you, and that something better is truly around the corner, so don't go changing yourself trying to appease whatever that thing that is going to let you truly be you and truly shine is out there. So, just stay really true to that.

Jay Ruderman: Finally, Sean, what's next for you? What are your hopes and dreams, and what are your plans that you can reveal at this time to us?

Sean Taylor: Yeah. Well, I recently moved. I lived in New York City for five years. I just moved. I grew up in Virginia. I'm currently living in Richmond, Virginia, and one of my big words for 2021 was community. I recently started an in-person and digital community called RVA Fatties, and we had one of our first meetups, and I think I just want to be creating... I've been so fortunate to go to so many spaces and events where people who looked like me were being celebrated, and I didn't feel other, and that did wonders for my own personal growth. So, I just want to be able to give that to other people in my community.

Jay Ruderman: Could you see yourself getting into acting, modeling, maybe creating your own brand?

Sean Taylor: Yeah, I definitely could. I could definitely see myself doing that down the road. Yeah.

Jay Ruderman: Yeah. Well, I want to wish you a tremendous amount of luck. This was such a pleasure, talking to you. I learned so much, and just want to wish you a great year ahead.

Sean Taylor: Oh, thank you so much. Thank you for having me.

Jay Ruderman: Thank you. Be well.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast? Be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

Jay Ruderman: All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with, Jay Ruderman.

‍

Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. Christine Simmons' entire career has been built around the idea that we can achieve equality in any industry. [00:00:30] She first began working in Supplier Diversity at Disney and NBC Universal, where she helped expand opportunities for businesses owned by underserved communities. She then went on to be the Executive Vice President of Magic Johnson Enterprises, where she led the operations of the WNBA’s LA Sparks throughout their first season. She would go on to become the team's president for five seasons. In 2019, Christine, [00:01:00] made history as the ever black and female chief operating officer of the Academy of Motion, Picture Arts and Sciences. She and her team lead the first Office of Representation, Inclusion and Equity. She brings a new perspective to the Academy as an innovative thinker, where she plays a key role in supporting the organization's new standards for diversity in front of and behind the camera. Christine, welcome to All Inclusive.

‍

Christine Simmons: [00:01:30] Thank you. Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Thank you for being here. I just wanted to tell you that in preparation for this, I watched your address at the Velocity Conference and I was struck by something that you said in end, which I say all the time to my staff about, this is all about joy. This is all about doing good, but also bringing joy into our lives. [00:02:00] And maybe you can talk a little bit about that because I think that's missing and in our world, in the rat race of trying to accomplish things, we overlook the importance of joy in our work.

‍

Christine: Yes, I agree. And you know what, Jay? The other thing that I think is really important, especially in this time where we're all really reconciling with our passion to the point of this entire podcast, about being all inclusive. Using joy as almost another [00:02:30] act of resistance, especially for those of us who have faced so much adversity, whether it's those with disabilities, or whether it's those from historically underutilized communities or underserved communities, you don't see us just joyfully successful, just joyfully having fun.

‍

And even that, just the image of that and the empowerment of that and giving platform to that and that image in that story and that, that in itself is just this active resistance that is just rooted in joy, not in [00:03:00] pain, not in adversity, not in our challenges. And so that's really lately, it's in my shift, where's the joy? Let's highlight that. Because we've all talked about adversity for a long time and we're tired. Let's celebrate some wins, let's have some successes and let's show of the world what joy looks like. And then I think you always have a better outcome in that regard. I appreciate being aligned in philosophy with a brilliant person like you in that regard, for sure.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Well, [00:03:30] thank you. And it's such a powerful message that I wish other people would adopt. And you're right, we have been going through a very difficult time with the pandemic for an extended period of time. But I wanted to talk to you, you've used the term that you failed up in not getting into medical school.

‍

Christine: Yeah.

‍

Jay Ruderman: But you've had this fabulous career where you're the COO of the Academy. What do you mean by that, failing up?

‍

Christine: [00:04:00] Well, for me, it was taking back the term failure. And I think so many times you start internalizing some of this stuff. And you internalize what society wants you to think about, what it means not to achieve a goal. And so what I started to look at, and it took me a long time, I would say maybe, I didn't start actually saying I didn't get into medical school until five, 10 years ago and I'll be 47 this year. I would say, "I decided to go another way." And while that also [00:04:30] is true, I decided to go another way, because I didn't get into medical school. But what I really did was looked at, okay, well, why did I not get in? Number one. What's the lesson you learned? And then also more importantly, how did I reinvent myself?

‍

And so each time, and even before medical school, I was a three lettered athlete in high school. But I had had two major knee surgeries before I'd even graduated from high school and then had another one when I went on to college. I couldn't pursue my athletic career that I wanted to. I even wanted to, at one point, be a model [00:05:00] and that didn't work out for me. And then when I didn't get into medical school and I had thought that was all that I ever wanted to do and all that I ever could be, to be able to reinvent myself from there actually made me stronger. It made me smarter. It made me more, and I used this term, gently resilient, because we do have to have a certain level of resilience. But I think at some point we do have to also not always have to be resilient.

‍

But that being said, it made me realize [00:05:30] that there are other options. And because that door, we've always heard one door closes and another window or door opens for you. And that's what happened for me. And so when that closed, I took from it, all of the beauty, the service, the desire to still empower and to uplift underserved communities, which is what my whole goal was in the first place because my goal had been to do a joint MD/MBA in open nonprofit health centers across the country. Especially in [00:06:00] the areas that are underserved and underinsured because I wanted to be an ER doc and a lot of times you see those communities using the emergency room for their primary care because they don't have primary care.

‍

And so that was the whole philosophy around it. And then when I didn't get in, I was, okay, so now what? And now how do I continue to hold dear, hold true, those aspects of who I am and what I love and how I want to show up in the world, and then reinvent myself? And so I did so through [00:06:30] my career and trying to find ways, through business, through entertainment, through sports, through finance, through all of these ways, to be able to still uplift communities in a different way. And so when you fail at a task, or you don't meet a goal, it doesn't make you a failure. It just means that you now have, one, you've tried and you've tried to do something new in different or bigger and better, which I love as well. But that being said, you also then have the opportunity to be successful at something else.

‍

Jay Ruderman: [00:07:00] Sure. And I've heard you give interviews and you talked right now about the importance of giving back and activism. And I remember you saying in a previous interview that maybe you put too much time into activism. But my belief is, I'm an activist. And I think if you're an activist, you're always an activist and it really motivates you. Can you talk about this passion for giving back and how it plays a role [00:07:30] in the work that you're doing right now?

‍

Christine: Yeah. And I love that Jay, because you find your alignment. Because that is who I am, that is who you are. How do you align that with either your career goals or your philanthropic goals or all of those other things? And the thing is, I just wasn't in alignment. I had to get in alignment with where my true passion was. One of my dear friends, mentors, and former bosses, she used to say, what's your default? What do you default to? And my default was always giving back. My default was always in the community. My default [00:08:00] was organizing and protesting and marching down brew Bruin Walk in protest if you will. And so when I joke about that, it's because most of my peers and colleagues were probably studying 30 to 40 hours a week while I was both working and protesting and so in the community.

‍

But to your point, activism shows up in so many little ways that have big impacts. A lot of folks think if they go into corporate America, that they can't be an activist. [00:08:30] They feel if they go into entertainment, they can't be an activist, but for a platform. And we even talked about joy as an active resistance. There are different ways. And I think you have to really understand, what impact do you want to make? And then activism is simply an intentionality of every decision you make leading towards that greater good, that greater goal, that is bigger than yourself, in my opinion.

‍

And that can happen in your day to day job. That can happen regardless of title, [00:09:00] you don't have to have a C in front of your title, nor do you have to be part of a 501(c)(3) to be an activist. You don't have to be marching to be an activist. It literally is the soul of who you are for those of us. And usually, activism, empathy in service, all of those things come hand in hand and you can apply those philosophies and characteristics to any job, any career, and any path that you may choose.

‍

Jay Ruderman: You've talked a lot about your mother [00:09:30] and the role that she played in your life and raising four children. And you talked about going into school and saying, "Well, I either had to be a doctor or a lawyer."

‍

Christine: Yeah.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Why did you feel like there was no other option for you at that time?

‍

Christine: Yeah. And I think it wasn't that per se, because my mom was not a doctor nor a lawyer. In fact, she actually worked at Letterman State Hospital for most of my career with the developmentally disabled community and helping [00:10:00] them live more independent lives. But I think that as I defined what society tells us success is, and I have this distinct memory of $100,000. If I make $100,000 a year, then I am successful and I'm winning at life. And I knew that there were two ways to do that, just because that's what I saw. That's what you see on TV or in movies. And also there was a very specific path. There was a blueprint to how you get there. And so, because my mom was always working [00:10:30] and she was raising us four crazy girls on her own, and she didn't go to college.

‍

My mom dropped out of school when she was a senior year in high school and then went back and got her GED. She knew nothing about the college process. One of my older sisters had gone off to school, but she graduated much later. But nonetheless, that whole process of what college was of what finding a career path was, I didn't have a lot of people around me who were doing a lot of different things for me to be able to not only understand what that job was or that career path [00:11:00] was. But more importantly, I didn't see a lot of black women. And although my mom is this most beautiful, skinny blonde, white girl, I'm mixed and biracial. But obviously, very brown skinned.

‍

And so I didn't see a lot of black women in those roles. And that, that was something that I could achieve or knew how to. In fact, the reason, and I always give her a shout out because one of my dear friends in high school, her mom was a teacher. She also was black. And she had been [00:11:30] in honors classes her entire Scholastic career. And I was a junior in high school and she was, "Chris, why aren't you in honors?" And I'm, "What's honors?" And so because her mom had been exposed and she had been exposed, then she knew that, that's what you needed to do to be able to get in to a really good school. And so Kamaria Ward Henry is my girl. And she is the one who exposed me to that. And actually we both ended up going to UCLA after that.

‍

I think it's [00:12:00] exposure. It's representation. It's being able to see it, it's being able to understand. And then also knowing though that you don't have to have a blueprint. And I think my career retrospectively tells you, you don't have to have a blueprint because it certainly wasn't linear. But the ability to be able to look at this opportunity and then apply a skillset to that, and then look at this opportunity and apply a passion to that, but then figure out your career path while you're finding your center and staying true to who you are. [00:12:30] That was my entire journey. And so that's why, I think, I've always said that. And so now I feel so blessed to be able to have had all of these different jobs that I literally didn't know that they existed.

‍

I knew there were sports teams. I knew there were studios. I knew there were networks. I knew there were awards shows. But you never know what goes on behind the scenes, on how the magic is made. And so now that I've had the opportunity to pull that curtain back and be able to see it, when I went to go work for, Earvin, at Magic Johnson Enterprises, I didn't know how you buy a sports [00:13:00] team. I didn't know how that worked. And now I do, and I can be able to enlighten and share that information with other people who may or may not look like me.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Actually, you've talked a lot about UCLA and how important UCLA was to you and your life and still is, and how your advocacy and your passion for empowering others started at that time. But how do we do a better job right now at supporting the next generation of leaders [00:13:30] and empowering them to follow their passions?

‍

Christine: Just show up. Be present, have a conversation. And I think a lot of folks get intimidated by the term mentor or mentorships. And so really, being a mentor is having a conversation, being able to answer a couple questions. And I think the way you show up and make sure that you're giving back at any point in time, again, I think we're going to say this probably 8 million times this morning, [00:14:00] Jay, is bigger than me, know that it's bigger than me. Go into everything with that intentionality that it's bigger than us. And that, that will come back to you when you put it out there. But that's what UCLA did for me, it laid that foundation, both on how I could receive back, but also give that back to the world.

‍

And that's where I really discovered my love and passion for service and for activism, but then also for mentorship because I had great mentors then, and I've been able to pay that forward now. It's critical. Social [00:14:30] capital is amazing. It not only exposes and educates, but it also allows you to be able to change people's trajectories and help them overcome obstacles that they may not necessarily need to go through per se. A lot of us older folk talk about paying your dues, and trials and tribulations, but I don't think that's necessary all the time. I think that you can learn lessons without necessarily having to experience adversity. And I think that's what mentorship does too.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Right. It's [00:15:00] so important to play that role. I'm going to ask you a question. I don't want to put you on the spot, but we did a PSA on authentic representation of disability in entertainment. And Octavia Spencer, did the PSA, talked about the first time she authentically saw herself represented in TV or film. Do you remember the first time growing up that you saw yourself on TV or in film?

‍

Christine: [00:15:30] Yes. My gosh! It's so funny you say that because while there was a lot of different times I've seen black women or all of that, I remember distinctly, it was, God, what was the movie? The Rock. And it was the one where he goes back home and he has the big stick. I have got to remember what the name of it was, but I remember seeing it because he had biracial parents. And for [00:16:00] me, even though my parents got divorced when I was seven and then I reconnected with my father once I was older. But for both the period of time when they were together and then also the period of time when weren't, me growing up in this beautiful brown skin with a very, very, very white mom, it was always a weird space for me and really trying to see where I fit in the world and to be able to see that on screen, I was. "Wow! [00:16:30] Okay. This really is okay."

‍

And especially because I'm a generation where it literally just became somewhat okay, where people are comfortable with interracial relationships. I mean, yes, we've been here for a while, but folks still have challenges with it sometimes. And so I remember seeing that on screen, I was, "He's mixed like me." And then also fast forward to when, Barack Obama, was elected president, I was, "Again, biracial."

‍

[00:17:00] And so there's so many intersectionalities of our backgrounds and how we show up in the world. And so for me, those two things, because I've always had this interesting place in the world where I was too black for some, too white for others, too this for some, too that for others. And trying to find where you fit in that world. But then when you finally see it, both in office or on the big screen, is a really, really [00:17:30] beautiful thing that says, "Okay, I belong."

‍

Jay Ruderman: And I think more of us have to take recognition of that and understand the power of that, the power of representation. But on the converse side, how did the lack of representation influence you growing up?

‍

Christine: It was both a blessing and a curse. Because the curse obviously is you feel sometimes as if you're the only one that you don't belong. But I think the blessing of it is that [00:18:00] you learn to find your way, and if you put it in the right perspective, then you make it a priority to make sure that other folks don't feel that way too. And I think that was ultimately the path that I took. Definitely, there were some times when you feel a little alone and you're trying to figure things out. But for me it became, "Okay, well, then let me go figure this out." And one of my favorite things is creative solutioning, whether [00:18:30] it be in the workplace, in your personal life, all of these different things, because you find such beauty in the unknown, because you've now created something new you've creatively solutioned. And so now creatively figured out a way for me to show up in the world, which could be something that another young girl or young man does as well.

‍

And takes pieces from that and then says, "Okay, well, this part doesn't fit, but this does, so let me create a solution how I show up in the world." [00:19:00] And so I think those are all aspects of the blessing. That was the lack of representation for me to be able to create that for somebody else. But it's also heavy sometimes. And there is pressure that for those of us that are as intentional as you and I are about the bigger picture, I carry that weight every single day, and I want to make sure and I'm intentional. And I know on those days that I'm tired or [00:19:30] I don't know if I have it to give, I think about, okay, who's looking at me, or who else can I do this for beyond my beautiful son, Christian? But all of those other folks out there.

‍

And I think that's the blessing of it, but I hope we get to a point where you and I don't have to have that conversation soon. And we are truly all inclusive and it's just a conversation about joy.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Right. Well, it's such a powerful message. And now you're in a position [00:20:00] where you can actually influence how things look, which we're going to get into in a little while. But maybe you can talk about some role models that you had growing up, people that really sh shaped the view of yourself?

‍

Christine: Yeah. Well, I say it over and over and I'll say it over and over again, my mom. Anita's fantastically resilient. She is such a beautiful, feisty soul. She literally raised four crazy independent women on her own. [00:20:30] And I don't know how she did it. I'm struggling with my one and she had four of us. And so my mom obviously was one. Growing up, I think there wasn't whole lot, but as I got older, obviously, Earvin Magic Johnson has been a phenomenal influence on my life. And I love the ones that fly under the radar. There's women like, Cassandra Charles-Gerst. She was one of my bosses early [00:21:00] on in my career. She led Supplier Diversity for United Technologies. And she actually gave me my real opportunity after I didn't get into medical school and helped me find that passion.

‍

There was Dylan [inaudible 00:21:14], she was the one who I mentioned earlier, who said, what is your default? And I worked with her while I was at Disney. And so these phenomenal women that fly under the radar are constantly doing this work that nobody ever sees or knows about. I think those were all phenomenal role models that [00:21:30] through my career, I've been able to pick their brains. And then there's a lot of other brilliant folks who have exposed me again to the bigger aspects of the world and how to make an even larger impact.

‍

I always pick from different ones, I love and adore the work that Ava does, Ava DuVernay and how she shows up in the world and how she tells her stories. Cicely Tyson, literally one of my favorite phrases in life is strength in grace. And if you close your eyes [00:22:00] and you think about that phrase, you literally can't think of anybody else, but Cicely Tyson. Those are those types of women and how they showed up in the different times that they showed up, in the different environments that they showed up and how they defined being a powerful woman in their own right and realm. For me, I've learned to pick from each of them and find a piece of that, that makes up this mosaic that is before you today.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Well, you've had [00:22:30] these wonderful experience of interacting with people who are real icons, that most of us do not know Magic Johnson, we know to be a wonderful person, but you've gotten to know him personally. And it sounds like he's really been an inspiration to you, in addition to being a colleague.

‍

Christine: Yeah. I first met, Earvin, on the campus of UCLA, which is hilarious because I was working [00:23:00] on campus. I just graduated. I was working on campus, but I was still trying to get into medical school. He'd opened his clinics across the country. And so I wanted to pick his brain because I had too wanted to open my clinics. And so we connected, and at that point in time, it was right when a lot of the NBA players were unfortunately losing a lot of their wealth. And so when he did give me the opportunity to be able to pick his brain about the clinics, we also connected a lot about, how do we help these athletes use their platform [00:23:30] in the same way that Earvin did? And that it's important to be able to change their trajectories and help them maintain and create more generational wealth in their communities.

‍

And that was one of the philosophical points that we connected on very early on. We parted ways. And then when I was at Disney, again I was charged with increasing the amount of money that we spend with a number of different areas. But one of them specifically, one of my specific goals was black on businesses. [00:24:00] And of course, Earvin had been doing a lot of work in that space. And so I reached out. I'll never forget. And I took my boss, my boss's boss from Disney. And we set up a meeting with him and he said, hello to my boss, "Nice to meet you." And my boss's boss, who was the acting chief procurement officer at that point at Disney, "Nice to meet you." And then he said, he's, "I know you."

‍

And he grabs me. Uncle Earvin's forehead kissed me. And my boss and my boss's boss are looking at me crazy, "You know Magic [00:24:30] like that." And I was just, well... But that being said, he is that endearing. He always remembers a face. He always remembers an interaction. And he definitely remembers people. And it's amazing given that gazillion people that he meets every single day. But what's most beautiful about, Earvin, I think is his heart. And in fact, it was always so beautiful that oftentimes those of us that worked for him on the business side of things, he would go and he'd be, "We're going to do all of these great, beautiful things." And then we all had to figure out how to make it [00:25:00] happen. And so after a while we were, okay, we need to figure this thing out.

‍

But his boldness, his vision for economic empowerment within underserved communities and specifically within the black community, from an early point in his career, he used to tell stories about how he'd be on the basketball court and when they were, and I think part of this might be a little embellished, but that's okay. It always makes for a good story, but he would talk about when they were blowing people out at the Lakers on the court, he would sit there and chat with the court side seat members who were usually icons [00:25:30] and titans in business, and then formed those relationships with them. Then when he knew that he wanted to do a lot more beyond basketball and he had begun laying that groundwork while he was there. All of those are beautiful lessons that I learned from, Earvin.

‍

And again, when we talk about relentlessly reinventing yourself, he started as a basketball player. Then he was one of the first ones to start really owning name and likeness, if you will. He really set the foundation for most athletes in that regard. Then he went [00:26:00] on to his endorsement deals. Then he went on to his licensing and retail and his brick and mortar, which I think a lot of people probably know him best for in the business world then at Starbucks, his TGI Fridays, his 24 Hour Fitnesses, those at the theaters as well. And then from there, he reinvented himself again, because that was right around when the recession hit. And he said he realized he knew he had to diversify his portfolio. He started creating joint ventures and strategic alliances with various [00:26:30] B2B businesses. And that's when I came into play.

‍

He recruited me to come work for him. And we had a staffing company. We also had a food and facilities management company. In fact, he still has that company. And that's actually how we connected because he bid on a contract at Disney to feed our employees back of house, both at Disneyland and Disney World. And he held onto that contract for quite some time. Then he went on to supply chain. He even owned a burger, a meat company, a beef company that supplied the beef [00:27:00] to Burger King for your Whoppers for quite some time. And now he's again, reinvented himself to go into infrastructure funds to insurance companies, and of course, to sports teams. That being said, that type of reinvention and to be able to see that and how it works and to see someone who looks like you to be able to transcend and change their trajectory, all the while, and he always said this, we're always giving back.

‍

There was always some type of philanthropic [00:27:30] aspect of what we did, which also I love because I feel like, yes, we can all do good with our 501(c)(3)s, but you can also do a lot of good as well, just in regular organizations and corporations too. And that's what he did every time he did a deal. Those are all the things that I love and appreciate and respect him for. And I'm so grateful that I had the opportunity and privilege to be able to be exposed to and look for.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Well, he sounds like an amazing individual, [00:28:00] super successful and a privilege for you to have spent the time with him. I know you've spent most of your career in entertainment and we're going to get back to the Academy and where you are now. But you spent five seasons working as the COO of the LA Sparks. And what you learned from that experience.

‍

Christine: I love the Sparks so much. I still do. It's a beautiful legacy of a brand yet it was young. [00:28:30] And it still is. As a sports league goes, 25 years this year in the league is still young as a sports team. And I learned so much about taking a legacy, reinventing it, again, I think that's going to be another one of our keywords today, but reinventing that brand and refreshing it so that way we can look at the world differently. And what I mean by that is, yes, it's a Women's League. Yes, it's [00:29:00] about women's basketball. Obviously, there's some advocacy there that has to happen just by the nature of the business. But what we found in that, and I think it's a true lesson with where we are in the world right now, is that when you invest in these diverse communities, when you focus on them, when you target them for true partnership, it can truly reap its rewards.

‍

And so what we did is, rather than going the traditional sports route of [00:29:30] constantly trying to convert your hardcore basketball fans, the guys that are following, Magic Bird, Kobe, LeBron. We had tried to convert those folks. In the same time that we spent trying to convert them, we said, you know what? Let's look at other markets. Let's look at those socially conscious millennials who are really focused on where they want to spend their money, but still want to have a really good time and have some good disposable income. Let's talk to those families, [00:30:00] those moms and dads who maybe are a little tired of watching Pokemon. Wait, that might just be me, but have a great place to go and spend some good time with their kids as a family. A family friendly environment.

‍

And then also let's target those folks, typically women but not always, those that identify as women. But those that may not necessarily be basketball fans, but are fans of women's empowerment [00:30:30] of advocacy. And of all of those things, let's make it a fun environment, will make them Sparks fans. And then they may come around and be basketball fans. And in doing that, in targeting those three populations and target demographics or psychographics even, we were able to lead the league in ticket sales. We won a championship. We led the league in attendance as well. We revamped the brand. Our ratings were 30% higher than other male professional [00:31:00] sports teams on our same network. And so we found success in not taking the NBA's model and throwing a pink bow on it, or all of those things. But really thinking about what does this mean to each individual and how can we translate that into our business, operationalize it? Because once you operationalize, it's not an initiative, it's not a marketing campaign, it's simply who you are and how you do business. [00:31:30] And I think that's what really is the key to true, impactful and sustainable change.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Do you see women's sports leagues growing in America and around the world? Do you think there's a bright future for these leagues?

‍

Christine: I really do. I really do. In fact, there's a documentary coming out, I believe, on what the women's soccer team did. But 100% you're absolutely seeing it. I think there's two things that are happening. One, [00:32:00] you have a amazing empowered women who are pushing the envelope and no longer settling for anything less than equity. And that's key, because for a long time we would settle and we would just take that which was, okay, we'll give you this little piece or that over there. No, we're looking for equity. And then I think that, and also to correct the inequities that have been for so long. I think the other beautiful thing is that we're getting a lot more enlightened [00:32:30] men or those that identify as men that say, you know what? There's nothing wrong with this. And we're raising them.

‍

Even my son, it was funny because he started going to Sparks games when he was three years old. And he started playing ball too with boys and girls. And so men sports guys would come be, "Who's your favorite player? What's your favorite team?" And he'd be, "Sparks. Candace Parker." And they would look and, "No, no, no, who's your favorite basketball team." And he look at me, confused. And he's, " [00:33:00] Mum." And I'm, "They mean men's basketball sweetie." And he was, "Okay, Lakers, Kobe and LeBron." And so to be able to expose kids, boys and girls, that basketball is basketball. We don't make a distinction between Olympic basketball or college basketball or the big three or any of that. It's basketball. It's just the different rules and the different people that are playing it, but it's all still basketball.

‍

[00:33:30] And so if we start that foundation early and then especially those people that are raising those kids, are raising them in an enlightened way. Then we have a really, really bright future. I think the third piece of it that we still have a lot of work to do on is the general ecosystem. We talk a lot about equal pay and this goes for talent in the entertainment industry. This goes for athletes in the sports industry. But what is the ecosystem? The sponsorships, the media deals, the masters, the ownership, all of those pieces of it. We have to hold everybody [00:34:00] accountable because, typically, it's not the team owners. It's not the players, it's not the talent. It's not what people think is the most obvious.

‍

It's, okay, well, those media rights deals that we're talking about that are hundreds of millions of dollars for some and zero for others. Why isn't there equity there? And when we talk about sponsorships, when we talk about media exposure, when we talk about journalism, and how many folks are covering these [00:34:30] different folks and their talents that they have, all of that has to also happen, so that way those leaks can truly thrive and be successful as well.

‍

Jay Ruderman: But you, obviously, remain really passionate about women's basketball. But I want to transition to your role as the COO of the Academy and running the first ever Office of Representation, Inclusion and Equity. Can you tell me about what you and your team are working on?

‍

Christine: Yes. [00:35:00] We're so excited and we brought on the very talented, Janelle English. We brought her over from the Discovery Channel and she's been amazing leading the office for us. But there's so much, Jay, and I think that's the key because there's been passion and there has been initiatives prior to my coming here and much work that had been done prior to. But that being said, we needed to look at it holistically. We needed to look at it operationally. We needed to make [00:35:30] sure that we had the discipline. There's an entire industry around diversity, equity and inclusion as we are seeing now and aspects where you know, which levers you can pull and what impact that will make. We're doing unconscious bias training for those committee members who bring in members who will be part of our Academy family.

‍

We've called the initiative Aperture and we chose that word because we are looking to broaden the lens through which excellence is recognized. And that's really important because if we're only looking [00:36:00] through this tiny little lens, we've missed all of the beauty and excellence and stories and artists that are out here. And I think we as filmmaking community can really relate to that. That's part of the changing hearts and minds, having really honest conversations about where we've been, about who we are and about how we stand in this industry. We're default leaders, and we also get the negative. We saw that with Oscar Silhouette, and some of the other challenges that have come with our industry, we're going to get [00:36:30] the negative aspect of it. How can we not be reactive and actually be proactive leaders and understand our role and how people view us in the industry?

‍

And so the Academy and the board has really taken that to heart. And so in doing so, things like our inclusion standards for best picture, which we have implemented. We're really, really proud of those. The board and our committees have done such an amazing job. And of course, the staff that have been working diligently to put this thing together. [00:37:00] And also learnings from our colleagues, that was another aspect of our mindset that we had to shift. Historically, we typically would just announce some things that we would do and let the world react. This time we really wanted to be collaborative because we wanted to have a sustainable impact across the entire industry. We are so grateful for the lessons learned from our brothers and sisters at [inaudible 00:37:23]. We went and talked to the major studios, the mini studios, to the guilds. We talked to all [00:37:30] different folks to help us understand how we can really make sure that what we're doing has an impact.

‍

And so those inclusion standards are really focused on four standards, but ideally, the long story short is that we want to make sure that there's diversity representation in front of the camera and behind the camera, as well as in the pipeline. And so that way we can continue to ensure that everything that we're looking at has that broader lens of excellence, if you will. But more important, we [00:38:00] have to acknowledge, we don't make movies. The studios are making movies and independents are making movies. And so when they get to us, we want to make sure that people understand that this is also excellent. There's lots of different ways that excellence can be seen.

‍

And so continuing to diversify our membership base, continuing to look at the awards is key. And those are all the cool sexy ones that everybody wants to read about. But some of the stuff that's just as important because when you do this work, you have to change who you are, like we talked about. [00:38:30] If you're an activist, how do you make that activism happen in every aspect of what you do? We want to make sure that we are walking the walk internally. And so that's everything from our internship programs, which we are so honored to have a partnership with you on and the Ruderman Foundation to our suppliers. We launched our Supplier Diversity program this year, which we're very excited about to ensure that our vendors and our suppliers are diverse as well. And that we're doing those that we're doing business with are marketing.

‍

Where are we spending our marketing dollars? [00:39:00] Making sure that we have really good authentic relationships with the media, especially multicultural media outlets, so that way they too, can get some exclusives or get spots on the red carpet, because all of that's important. Again, back to the entire ecosystem, how can we affect to change in that entire ecosystem all the way up to our investments committee, which is shared by the incomparable, Melody Hudson? But we were able to direct almost 200 million to diverse portfolio managers out of [00:39:30] our investments. These are ways that we're making sure that we're walking the walk internally, all the stuff behind the curtain that nobody knows happens at this organization, but is so important. And that's inclusive, not only of our ethnic backgrounds, our international outreach, those with disabilities, our LGBTQ family, all these aspects of who we are and how we show up are so important to make sure that they're integrated in every aspect of what we do from our staff to our collections at the library, [00:40:00] to our collections of the archive. And of course our beautiful museum, that's going to be opening later on this month.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Well, first of all, you're doing so much and so comprehensively. But I'm also impressed that the Academy has really empowered you and your team to really make a difference. And we talked about the standards for best film, which in some sense, for many people in the industry are controversial. But don't [00:40:30] you feel that TV film entertainment, really, shapes public attitude, and in some ways more than most industries have an impact on how we see each other as Americans and also as citizens of the world?

‍

Christine: 100%. And again, I can not give enough credit to our Board of Governors and all of our artists and our Academy members. And of course, our CEO, [00:41:00] Don Hudson, our President, David Rubin, have all done so much hard work on this. And we, as the staff are there to help execute, of course, but to stand firm in it because you're right, there was a lot of criticism, and especially when we're talking about art. Art is subjective. Art is an expression of oneself. And so it's very tough. We have to walk that line of not limiting or censoring anybody's artistic expression or their story. And that's not what we're doing. We're not telling people [00:41:30] what stories they can or cannot say. But what we are saying is that if you're not painting with every beautiful color in your palette, then you may not have as beautiful of an art piece there.

‍

And so we want to make sure that folks are tapping into every single color in that palette. That way we can create even more beautiful art. And I think if we shift our mindset to all that opens up in possibility versus that, which we're losing [00:42:00] and the potential loss that one individual may have, I think that's when people see the opportunity and the beauty and the joy that lies there in. And so, yes, kudos, again, to the born's instinct fast in it to your point, to be able to empower us to put the tools together so that artists can utilize those tools as well. But also, hats off to the artists that are embracing it and are now telling these stories that we've never seen told in the ways [00:42:30] that we've been seeing them show up. And that's a beautiful thing too, and it just makes our filmmaking community strong.

‍

Jay Ruderman: It is beautiful. I want to talk about you personally as the first black and female COO of the Academy, must be a lot of pressure to be the first. How do you deal with that?

‍

Christine: It is because it's important that I'm not the last right. We heard, Kamala, say that. We've heard a lot of people say that. [00:43:00] That's why it's important. It's not important because, Christine Simmons, was the first. It's important because if, Christine Simmons, is the first and the last, then I have failed and we have failed. And also that it's not just the first black, we need everybody. We need everybody to be able to hold these positions, to hold space at this level. That way we all have those lived experiences that will inform those organizations decisions, that to our earlier point, [00:43:30] influence the world literally. To me, it does weigh very heavily on me because I know that I cannot fail and that it is important that we continue to break down all of these barriers.

‍

Again, all of this is just simply towards the mission of our organization so that we can create the processes. I can lend my expertise or [00:44:00] the ability to operationalize the good, so the artists can be celebrated. And the art, in the legacy of filmmaking, can be preserved, all of it. It does weigh heavily on me, but you surround yourself with amazing people, with like-minded folks and just to stay in the positive and do the work. And I love the work, but more than the work, I love the outcomes and the impact, and that inspires me.

‍

Jay Ruderman: [00:44:30] You are working in a community that is an artistic community. That is very outspoken. They're activists also. Talk a little bit about some very prominent campaigns like Oscar Silhouette, the Me Too error, how that impacts your work as being the CEO of a leading organization within the entertainment industry?

‍

Christine: [00:45:00] Yeah. I wasn't here for Oscars Silhouette, and of course, Me Too has definitely started and evolved both before, and while I was here. I think that those campaigns while challenging for the organizations that are being affected, challenges to be better though. And it challenges us to grow. And it calls the question and you always have to have folks that call the question. I often refer [00:45:30] to this work and it's analogous to, again, back to my mom world of when you have a kid, they constantly ask you, "Why?" And so when you're doing something, you have to ask the organization and everybody in it will, why are we doing that? And if we're doing that, just because we always did it that way, or we always did that, then maybe we want to challenge that because innovation will come from that.

‍

When you have an Oscar Silhouette, we do have to challenge ourselves to look inside and say, okay, how do we evolve? When [00:46:00] our industry has a moment like Me Too, we have to look and say, okay, well, how do we deconstruct all of the reasons and the ways we got here and understand it, but do so with compassionate empathy but also help evolve? Oscar Silhouette, Me Too, isn't an attack on any one group of people, but it is a way for all of us to ask more questions and to be able to evolve who we [00:46:30] are and where we are. And a lot of it starts with transparency. And that's what we're also seeing with a lot of our organizations these days and what the general public is looking for is transparency.

‍

And making sure that they understand exactly the why, because transparency leads to representation and equity. It really does. You can't have representation and equity without transparency. And so being able to be a part of that to be able to put [00:47:00] a price. I've always talked about process. I'm a personality, yes, you are passionate about this, and I am passionate about this. But if you and I leave and we go and retire on some beautiful island somewhere, because we won the lottery, how do we make sure that this work continues? And so how do we put in operational aspects that support equity? Whether it's standards of conduct that help combat accusations, whether it's supporting organizations like the Hollywood Commission [00:47:30] of which we are a member as well, which are working to fight against abuse in our industry, if you will, alongside, again, incomparable Anita Hill. Or whether it's Oscar Silhouette. And we really have to talk to ourselves and say, okay, what is happening and what's what's going on? That way we can fix it and fix it faster.

‍

Jay Ruderman: I believe that the Oscars set the standards for [00:48:00] the industry in many ways in terms of the award shows. What are the action plans that are going to promote equity and inclusion in the industry?

‍

Christine: Sure. That was key. When we set out on this journey, one of the conversations we had, and that I shared was that if we do this, it cannot be performative, it actually has to be actionable. That's indeed where the inclusion standards came out. It's also the different things that we're putting in place so that way we not only look [00:48:30] at the next class of members to ensure that they're diverse, but also the pipeline coming up behind them. Also, you get the criteria. Let's make sure that our criteria for getting into the Academy, becoming a member, also provides an opportunity for all. And doesn't reinforce any inequities that have been in the industry that maybe we didn't create, but we might be reinforcing. Let's question those, let's look at them, and then let's continue to evolve and make sure they're as equitable as possible.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Right. Well, I think what's coming [00:49:00] out in our discussion, which I think people are going to be happily surprised is that the Academy is really on top of change, and really, has made that an internal goal for the Academy. Christine, the Ruderman Family Foundation is really proud of our partnership with the Academy. And I did notice this last award ceremony was much more inclusive than they have been in the past. Do you see plans for people with disabilities [00:49:30] to be authentically portrayed both in front and behind the camera?

‍

Christine: That is the dream. That is the goal. And whatever we can do to influence that, is already in the works to be quite honest with you. Yes, we were very intentional about it. We partnered with Google. We are making sure that we had the video descriptions. We literally, reinvented. We worked with our production team to reinvent the ramp. That [00:50:00] way, the way that everybody accesses that stage is the same. And ultimately, that's the goal. We want just the normal, beautiful, successful joy that we saw on the red carpet with the Crip Camp team. My gosh! It was the most beautiful red carpet moment ever to be normal. And for us not to even have this conversation, so that way everybody can just see what's happening now. We still have a lot to learn. There were some challenges that we had, and we want to make sure that we... But we are so open [00:50:30] and we want it to be great, because without that, again, you don't have every single aspect of this beautiful artistic community. That 100% is the goal. And we are continually working to make sure that happens.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Christine, it was a pleasure talking to you. I'm sure we'll talk again.

‍

Christine: Yes.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Thank you so much. And thank you for being a guest on All Inclusive

‍

Christine: Jay, thank you for having me. Thank you for the work that the Ruderman Foundation does. Thank you for your partnership. It was an honor. Have a great, great day. Thank you.

‍

Jay Ruderman: Thank [00:51:00] you.

‍

All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast, [00:51:30] be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

Voiceover: (00:03)All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.Jay Ruderman: (00:13)Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive. A podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. Fran Drescher almost needs no introduction. She's famous for co-creating and starring as Fran Fine in the nineties, sitcom the Nanny. And of course, for her iconic voice. As of this past June, she is also a 21 year uterine cancer survivor. In 2002, she published the New York Times best selling memoir Cancer Schmancer, which chronicled her journey through multiple misdiagnoses and survival.Jay Ruderman: (00:53)In 2007, her book morphed into the Cancer Schmancer Movement with a mission to transform the nation's healthcare system through prevention, early detection and policy change. Though a fierce and outspoken healthcare advocate, Drescher never comes up short on positive thinking. She believes being famous and surviving cancer has given her a platform to help educate people on early detection and live longer. Or as she likes to say, "The best gifts come in the ugliest packages." Fran, it's a pleasure to welcome you to All Inclusive. Let's begin by talking about the cultural moment The Nanny is having on HBOMax. Why do you think 28 years after the first airing that it's resonating with new generations?Fran Drescher: (01:33)Well, you know, timing is everything. And I think that the Nanny happened at a particular time when the internet was just beginning to happen and the kids that grew up watching it, who are now the millennials, were the ones that kind of drove the beginnings of social media. They really had a lot of nostalgia and love for the show. And so as they got older, they began to appreciate some of the jokes that went over their heads. They began to appreciate the costumes. I'm sure they enjoyed seeing, but didn't really grasp what a truly stylish show it was. And they probably didn't grasp the sexual tension between the nanny and her boss, Mr. Sheffield.Fran Drescher: (02:39)I think the millennials and their addiction to social media and the fact that the show has never been off the air since 1993, and now that it's finally streaming on HBO Max, so they could binge it, watch it whenever they want and commercial free, they're sharing it with their kids now. And it's just an incredible phenomenon that I'm extremely grateful for and very proud to have been the creator and the producer of. So it's just wonderful.Jay Ruderman: (03:25)Well, it's a really funny show and you are wonderful in it. I want to talk about when you co-created it with your then husband, Peter Mark Jacobson. How did the idea come about for the show?Fran Drescher: (03:39)I was on a trip to Europe and on the flight over was the president of CBS. I kind of started chewing his ear off about how he should listen to ideas for shows for me that Peter and I had. Because I have a very unique brand of comedy and I don't think just waiting for the right script or audition is quite going to do it. And nine and a half hours later, he threw up his arms and said, "Okay, when we all get back to LA, you'll call my office and I'll set you up a meeting with the head of comedy development." And then I ended up walking around the streets of London with my girlfriend Twiggy's daughter, who was just a proper little British school girl at the time. Maybe 11 or 12. And at some point she said, "Oh, Fran, my new shoes are hurting me." And I thought, what the hell is she telling me for?Fran Drescher: (04:44)And then I thought, I didn't feel like going back yet, so I told her just step on the backs of them. She says, innocently, "Won't that break them?" And I said, "Break them in." And I thought this is a very funny relationship because I'm not being the typical caregiver. I'm not telling her what's good for her, I'm telling her what's good for me. And I couldn't get that idea out of my end. In the middle of the night, I called Peter because it was like nine hours earlier in LA and I said, "I think I got the idea for us to pitch to CBS when I return." I said, "What do you think about a spin on the Sound of Music only instead of Julie Andrews, I come to the door?"Fran Drescher: (05:39)He thought for a moment and said, "That's it. That's the show we'll develop as soon as you get back and then we'll pitch it to CBS." And the rest is TV history.Jay Ruderman: (05:50)I remember you saying either an interview or recording about seizing the day. So I think, can you talk a little bit about your philosophy about going for it in life?Fran Drescher: (06:02)From a very young age, I started to appreciate the life lessons that experience was teaching me. And when I was still a teenager living at home with my parents, I had a commercial audition to go up on. From where we lived in Queens, I had to take two buses and a train to get to this audition. I spent a great deal of time putting on my makeup perfectly and blowing my hair out like Farrah Fawcett and all this. But when I got there, I didn't feel confident. They wanted me to like sing and dance with a paper bag over my head because I think it was for a Jack in the box commercial. And so I kind of got in my own way. I didn't really give 100% because I was embarrassed a little bit.Fran Drescher: (07:04)On the train ride and two buses to get back home, I was beating myself up. Why did I do that? Why did I go to all this trouble just to end up getting in my way when I was finally at the audition? I said, this feeling of regret is profoundly worse than if I had just dived in and did it. And I said, I'm never going to do that again. Ever. And so I recall that 17 or 18 year old girl still living at home of my parents, when I saw the president of CBS walk on the plane. I thought to myself, carpe diem, seize the day. Because if this is divine intervention, and if I don't take advantage of this moment now, I will have profound regrets. And I already know I hate feeling regretful. So I'm just going to dive in the deep end and convince this man that I know my brand of comedy better than any writer he's going to be working with.Jay Ruderman: (08:14)It's a great life lesson. And because there's a lot of talk about the Nanny being ahead of its time. In fact, there have been several articles that have lauded the Nanny about being sexually liberated. Was your intention when creating the character of Fran Fine to have her as a sexually liberated woman, as a feminist?Fran Drescher: (08:38)First of all, we write what we know. I happen to come from a family of mostly women and they're all very comfortable with their sexuality and sensuality. Starting with my great-grandmother, my grandmother, my mother, I have a sister, my mother has a sister, we're a bunch of women that are comfortable in our own skin and comfortable being women. And we don't take no shit, but on the other hand, we're comfortable with our sensuality. So when we wrote it, both Sylvia and Yetta were very comfortable in their own skin, in their womanliness. It was what it was.Fran Drescher: (09:38)So I don't think we were particularly thinking in terms of, oh, we're going to create a character who's a feminist or who's sexually liberated. We just wrote what we knew and what was truthful to us.Jay Ruderman: (09:57)You also mentioned about Fran's wardrobe and what were you trying to convey about the iconic wardrobe that Fran Fine wore on the show?Fran Drescher: (10:11)Well, Peter and I understood very clearly that this was a star vehicle for me and that I'm a woman with a great deal of style, that wears clothes really well and that television is a visual media. So we wanted the character to put on a fashion show in every episode. We knew that going in. We even designed that circular staircase to accommodate her entrances. And so this was by design. But I had just finished a CBS series that was very short lived with Twiggy and Julie Hagerty, which was where I met Twiggy and how we became friends. And that was called Princesses. On that show, there was a woman second in command to the lead designer who I found to be extremely impressive. Her name was Brenda Cooper.Fran Drescher: (11:27)I said to Peter, "She really understands how to dress a woman from the undergarments out so she looks her best. If we ever do get a TV show up and running," because I had already put that out to the universe and I was manifesting it, I knew that I really needed to be in charge, that I was more talented than some of the people I was working for and it wasn't that satisfying. I really needed to manifest getting on the inside in a big way. And so I was already collecting people in my head, anticipating it happening. She was one of them, as was Anne Hampton Calloway who wrote the famous theme song.Jay Ruderman: (12:27)Yeah. I was going to ask you about the theme song because it's one of the most famous in the history of sitcoms. How did that come about?Fran Drescher: (12:34)I went to a cabaret in the theater district of Manhattan and she was performing. It was a friend of mine, Todd [Graff 00:12:46], who's a writer and director who took me to this cabaret show that she was headlining. And I was blown away by her. I thought, she's singing songs that she wrote and I'm not used to hearing original music in cabarets that I really think are great. I mean, she's written songs for Barbara Streisand. So I thought, wow, if ever we need someone to write music, I'm going to get her. I started to just collect people that impressed me, including the company that animated a commercial that ended up being the company that did the animated opening titles.Jay Ruderman: (13:40)It's like a very holistic view to life. Everything adds on it itself.Fran Drescher: (13:48)Yes, exactly. And when you want to manifest something, you start living it and eventually the pieces come together to create a whole picture. But you can't get in your way ever. Opportunity is constantly knocking at your door, you have to have the tenacity to not only recognize it, but then Carpe diem, seize the day.Jay Ruderman: (14:23)Right. One of the great things about the Nanny is how unapologetically Jewish you are in the show. And in light of antisemitism on the rise today, can you talk about your efforts to keep Fran Fine as Jewish on the show?Fran Drescher: (14:41)Well, the character was always written as Jewish because it was created for me. And then CBS called when we were writing the pilot script and said that they have an opportunity to pre-sell the entire series to Proctor and Gamble. The only thing is they want the character to be Italian, not Jewish. Now, again, here's this concern about feeling regret because I know myself. And although this was my big break, I knew it was going to be my big break. If I didn't stand firm on how this character must be written and the show failed, I would have a very difficult time living with the fact that I didn't do it my way.Fran Drescher: (15:41)Whereas, if I do it my way and I fail, I think that would be easier for me to live with because I did my vision and I felt in my heart it was right. But to do it for no good reason, just to kind of get it on the air and not stand firm to the vision was not an option. I really dug in my heels and said, "I'm sorry, but the character of Fran Fine must be Jewish." It's an extremely fast medium, writing, performing, it's all very fast and there's no time for us to do it with an Italian character being because I'm not Italian. And we can't write Italian with the richness of specificity that is our brand of comedy.Jay Ruderman: (16:43)Well, Fran, you're a very strong person. I want to talk a little bit about your activism and your journey in founding Cancer Schmancer. I understand it took eight doctors and two years to finally determine that you had uterine cancer. Can you talk about that journey?Fran Drescher: (17:01)Well, again, this kind of plays into the fact that I challenge the status quo constantly. I am a visionary. I like to be in the leadership role. I'm not afraid to reinvent the wheel. I'm not afraid to walk away from something that does not feel right to me. So that personality within me saved my life frankly. Because we are living in a time where doctors are bludgeoned by big business health insurance to go the least expensive route of diagnostic testing. So many doctors, and certainly the eight that I saw, subscribe to the philosophy, if you hear who's galloping, don't look for zebra, it's probably a horse. But if you happen to be a zebra, you're going to be screwed. And I slipped through the cracks every step of the way, because I was too young and too thin to be a candidate for uterine cancer. Even though one in four women or 25% of the women who get uterine cancer are young and thin.Fran Drescher: (18:39)That to me, warrants ruling it out before you start treating them for the more benign possibility which for me, was peri menopause, is what they assumed it must be. Doctor number one said, :Oh, well, you're too young for an end endometrial biopsy." At the time I didn't say, well, why? What would that prove or disprove? I was just thrilled to be too young for anything. I was 40 at the time. By the time I was 42, doctor number eight gave me one, because after trying over the course of those two years, four different hormone replacement therapies for a condition that I did not have, the last one, doctor number eight gave me a hormone that had estrogen in it, which is literally like taking poison if you have uterine cancer. And I started immediately bleeding 24/7.Fran Drescher: (20:02)When I called her up, I said, "This cannot be right for me." She said, "Well, I'll give you an endometrial biopsy, but it's probably just not the right hormone combination." While she's giving me this endometrial biopsy, which is a very uncomfortable but very brief test, she was saying to me, still convinced I was perimenopausal, and I had like five minutes of fertility left, that I should definitely freeze some embryos if I ever want to have a biologic child. Three days later, she called me and said, "I'm very surprised, but you have adenocarcinoma." I said, "What's that?" And she said, "Uterine cancer." I literally dropped to my knees and wept because I thought, I knew something was wrong with me. I hoped it wasn't cancer, but I've had this a long time and I may be at an advanced stage.Fran Drescher: (21:12)But you have to be lucky with even the kind of cancer you get and I was. Because unlike ovarian cancer, which is very aggressive and spreads its seeds very quickly, uterine cancer grows very slowly and keeps building on itself. So it just the tumor gets bigger and bigger until it starts to penetrate the endometrial wall and eventually reaching a lymph node where, it might spread. But that wasn't the case with me, even after two years and eight doctors, I was still in stage one. Which means the tumor was just resting on the uterus and not penetrating the endometrial wall.Jay Ruderman: (22:08)I know that you have a statement that I've heard you say a few times, get it on arrival, good chance-Fran Drescher: (22:18)95% survival.Jay Ruderman: (22:20)95% survival. So I guess I would ask you, the women who are listening to this show, what should they look out for and why do you think people ignore early warning signs of cancer?Fran Drescher: (22:33)Well, women tend to put their families before their own needs. This is classic of certainly my generation and it's lot. Many women work and still they are the principal caregiver to the spouse, the elder and the children in every home nationwide. So, at the earliest and most curable stage, which I call the whisper stage, you may feel something seems unusual, irregular, abnormal, but you can dismiss it because it's not that bad and you have a lot on your plate already, and maybe it'll just correct itself and go away. Unfortunately, in most cases, that is not what happens. And so we at Cancer Schmancer, have been trying to pivot women's thinking to realize that they have to put their health and wellbeing first, because they're useless to their family if they're six feet under.Fran Drescher: (24:03)So you can say to yourself, Oh, it's probably nothing and I got to get the kids off to school and I gotta get to work and everything like that." You could say that to yourself and keep your head in the sand. But really what you have to say is this may be nothing, but God, forbid it's something, I have to catch it at the whisper stage. So I'm going to make a doctor's appointment. I am going to go and check this out. And I'm also going to be my own patient advocate. I'm going to transform from being a patient, which already the word implies, passivity, to a medical consumer. I'm going to go online and do a little research and see what this might be and what tests could be that are available because all too often, they're not even on the menu at the doctor's office.Fran Drescher: (25:16)There are things that we encourage women to ask for when they go for their gynecologic exam, that is not part of a normal gynecologic exam. And that is completely predicated on big business health insurance and has nothing to do with what the actual patient needs are for a thorough exam.Jay Ruderman: (25:46)What would be your advice to doctors or health professionals in terms of how can they better listen to their patients?Fran Drescher: (25:54)Well, I think that first of all you need time. You need to know that the patient actually knows more than you're giving them credit for. You need to ask more questions and you need to look at the whole body as a complete system and not just the end symptom. You must pivot towards causation. Which is rare to find a doctor as that and why I tend to go to functional medical doctors. Because they have that extra layer of training where they know if for example, and this is a very simplistic example, but if you have chronic acne or seborrheic psoriasis or any kind of skin condition, it behooves them to look at your liver because skin is liver. It behooves them to look at your hormones, particularly in women because a hormone imbalance will show up on your face. So, that didn't happen with me and this is all stuff that I've learned the hard way.Fran Drescher: (27:22)But the body is a system. If you are having emotional problems, mental issues, anything that has to do with your brain, it behooves you to look at your gut and see what kind of microbiome you have in your gut. Because gut is brain. Likewise, if you're getting sick a lot, even two colds a year would be considered too much. You need to check out your gut, because gut is also immune system. And at Cancer Schmancer, we have a very progressive radical program called Detox Your Home. Most people don't know that the home is the most toxic place you spend the most time in. More than living across the street from an oil refinery. And ironically, the place we have the most control over. But we're so brainwashed by advertising and big business manufacturers that compromise our health and the health of the planet for the almighty dollar that we have to become more mindful consumers, because what we buy is our vote and what we don't buy becomes our protest.Fran Drescher: (29:05)We have the capability to clean up everybody's acts because money talks and the only language big business understands is the bottom line.Jay Ruderman: (29:20)So what would be your advice to the consumer? What are they looking for and how do they educate themselves to rid more toxic items from their home?Fran Drescher: (29:31)Only eat organic food, number one, because otherwise you are what you eat. And if you are eating an animal or a plant that has tons of chemicals or antibiotics in it, if the animal is living a Dickensian life of misery and enslavement and being fed GMO grain when that's the not even natural to the animal's diet, or they're full of antibiotics or growth hormones, you're eating that. That's what's going into your body. Don't do it. We have to have an end to industrial farming. We need the farm bill to pivot toward encouraging these farmers that drank the Kool-Aid in the 20th century to get out of the agro-chemical industry and to start learning regenerative farming. That's what our tax paying dollars should go to, because everything else is a downward spiral towards destroying our health and the health of the planet and the water beneath the soil.Jay Ruderman: (30:54)Very powerful and really important. I hope people take that in. In 2002, you wrote your bestselling book, Cancer Schmancer. How did it come from being a bestselling book to being a movement and then a foundation?Fran Drescher: (31:11)Well, I started the book because I, in earnest, didn't want what happened to me to happen to other people. And it was a very cathartic process for me, I actually wrote four versions of it, longhand, until I finally struck a chord where it was useful information delivered in the more familial voice that my audience has become accustomed to. It did become a New York Times bestseller and helped more people than I can count. People said to me that they made those words, Cancer Schmancer their mantra when they were going through their own bouts cancer. And it was a fast read and an informative and empowering one that made a big difference in a lot of people's lives.Fran Drescher: (32:15)So when you're a celebrity and a cancer survivor, who has a New York Times bestselling book, you're invited to go speak publicly at many major events. And I did that. And in my speaking, and on my book tours, I realized that I was not unique. I was one of millions of Americans who are misdiagnosed and mistreated. As an unfortunate consequence for many though, thank God, not me, late stage cancer diagnosis is the price they pay for a medical community that does not delve deep enough, that does not give the patient enough time, that does not look for causation. So, I realized that the book was not the end, but just the beginning of what has become a life mission.Fran Drescher: (33:17)I said, I'm going to start a movement. A nonprofit called the Cancer Schmancer Movement, but we're a three prong organization. We're advocates, activists, and it's prevention. It's early detection and it's advocacy. So the organization divided into what's a 501 C-3 and C-4, which means that we could go to Washington. We can lobby, we can make laws, and then also we can get donations for our programs that are tax deductible dollars. So that's the kind of just subtle difference between the movement and the foundation. But I always refer to us as the Cancer Schmancer Movement, because we're all about waking, shaking and educating you to change the way you are and let's shift this paradigm from a sick care system to a truly healthcare system.Fran Drescher: (34:45)And that's one of the very sad, unfortunate, missed opportunities with this whole pandemic. That no one on the national broadcasts or in the high levels of government is really trying to use this as an opportunity to educate the public on how to not compromise your immune system by living an unhealthy life and buying unhealthy cleaning products, personal care items, and gardening products that are constantly eroding our immune system and making us more vulnerable to all kinds of disease. But you see, because that would cut into someone's profit margin, and because big business really pulls the strings on many of our elected officials, it's nearly impossible to break this cycle. This unhealthy paradigm.Fran Drescher: (35:57)And it's only organizations like Cancer Schmancer Movement, and the partners that we align with who are mostly frankly, environmental groups. Because if you are in an unhealthy environment, you will eventually be unhealthy. And so there's no wiggle room with how you live equals how you feel.Jay Ruderman: (36:22)What's the best way for people to get in touch with Cancer Schmancer? To go on the website, if they're interested in getting involved?Fran Drescher: (36:29)Yes. Info@cancerschmancer.org. Everything gets looked at, everything gets read. It's an excellent way to reach us and we're always interested in anything that are fighting the good fight. Because it's really about grassroots movement and reaching people and waking them up to realize that they wield a lot of power. And it can be very overwhelming when you think about how many things are wrong in this world. I would say every single thing at its core, is driven by greed. So that is a very deep rabbit hole. But who's fueling that fire? Who's fanning that flame? Mindless consumerism. Who's supporting big business. Who's ruining so many things. From our health and the health of our families, to the planet, the water, the air, everything.Fran Drescher: (37:58)Listen, I'm not against making money, but making money at the expense of all things of true value is a sociopath. It's completely maniacal. What kind of a fool ruins the microbiome in the soil where the food comes from, or the water below that? Because they're using glyphosate that is water soluble and pollutes everything all the way down to the very watershed in our earth. Or ruins the ocean. We have to stop using single use plastic, and we have to do I now. Everybody can start altering their lives by reading labels. And if you don't understand any something on the ingredients list, don't buy it. Because we should dial it back to a time when it's whatever we eat or buy should have nothing more than what might have grown in your grandma's garden. Period. End.Jay Ruderman: (39:18)Fran, you're very passionate and you've had a tremendous amount of success as an activist. You've talked in the past about the fact that you've identified or you have always identified with marginalized communities. How have these experiences shaped you as an actor and an activist? I mean, was this from a very young age, did you always feel this way?Fran Drescher: (39:43)I do think that I have a gift to articulate on behalf of those who are marginalized and to fight on the side of what's correct and good. I mean, I feel like I have the tools to do it. That was a gift from God and I don't want to waste them. By the same token, I feel like I got famous, I got cancer and I lived to talk about it. So I'm talking.Jay Ruderman: (40:23)I want to talk about briefly your activism through art. The Nanny is cherished by the LGBTQ community. There's talk about the show being ahead of its time. How did you use the show to uplift that community?Fran Drescher: (40:34)In the nineties I think that many of the humor was at the expense of people. We never did that on the Nanny. We celebrated people over and over and over again. And we were always very accepting. the characters were very accepting of the diversity within the human experience. That was unusual for that decade, quite frankly. But Peter and I always wanted to do... I like being self deprecating, I don't like humor that puts other people down. And so we never did that. It's an easy pot shot and we had to always corral our writers to not go there. We really never did. Even in the regard that I thought that the show was actually too white. And so we gave grandma Yetta a boyfriend and that boyfriend was Ray Charles.Jay Ruderman: (41:58)I remember that.Fran Drescher: (41:58)He had a whole family that was Brian Gumble and Coolio and Whoopi Goldberg. And nobody was doing that either in the nineties. You had casts that were predominantly black and then you had casts that were white. But you very rarely saw interracial relationships. I don't think you ever did actually, except on our show. And even though it was an eight o'clock show, much like Mr. Rogers, we, in a very kind and unchallenging way, normalized what was really not being normalized in that decade.Jay Ruderman: (42:50)There was an episode of the Nanny where Mr. Sheffield hires a PR person, everyone thinks the two of them are gonna get together but it turns out that she's gay and this episode was truly ahead of its time. Do you remember the response that you got to that episode?Fran Drescher: (43:07)Well, I remember the scene when she's hugging me and she doesn't let go and she's stroking my hair and I said, "I'm letting go, but you are not why?" I mean, look, we were very aware that very early on in the series, the gay bars were having Nanny viewing parties on the night that we aired. And the bars were making big business just by putting that on their TVs and everybody was enjoying watching the show together. And then in the pride parades and wig stock and Halloween, the character of the nanny was constantly being copied by drag queens. That made us extremely happy, because Peter and I, have always known that where the gays go, the rest follow. In style, in attitude, in enlightened thinking, I mean everything. And so when they embraced the show, we thought, oh my God, we've hit the bullseye.Jay Ruderman: (44:39)Do you feel that you and Peter, when you wrote the shows that there was a deeper message, even though it was comedy, there was a deeper message behind your shows? Like when you-Fran Drescher: (44:49)Definitely. Definitely every single show that I do has what I call a global message. The global message of the Nanny that we pounded, not only to every episode, but in our writer's room was, it doesn't matter what you look like or what you sound like, it's what's in your heart that counts. Now when Peter and I did Happily Divorced, the global message for that show was, everybody has a right to live an authentic life. And that was exemplified episode after episode, because we remained in love, as Peter and I continue to be. Even though he's gay and I'm not.Jay Ruderman: (45:44)Well, that's beautiful. I hear that Nanny, the musical is coming out on Broadway. Is there anything you can tell us about that?Fran Drescher: (45:52)Well, it's coming out great. We're working with Rachel Bloom who's writing the lyrics and there's a big backup on Broadway for theater. So we just keep writing and approving and she gets writing more songs. We're not ready to go on the stage yet. So, it's a very unusual time and no one has ever experienced anything like this before.Jay Ruderman: (46:23)Right.Fran Drescher: (46:23)But for us, it just gives us more time to perfect it and keep writing for our beloved characters. Because for many years, we didn't write on the show. It was done and it was just in reruns. And even though that were true, Peter and I sometimes would say, "Oh, that would've been so funny on the Nanny, if we were still in production." I'm saying like 15 years after we stopped making it, we were still pitching jokes. So now that we're writing for that world again, it's so fun and so satisfying and we love it. We love the characters and we love Fran Fine and Mr. Sheffield and we love the opportunity to write it for the musical theater. Which is opening up to all kinds of possibilities that you can do in the theater that you really could never do on the small box.Jay Ruderman: (47:28)Right. Is there a role for you on Broadway?Fran Drescher: (47:30)In the Nanny?Jay Ruderman: (47:31)In the Nanny.Fran Drescher: (47:33)Well, I mean, it's not my plan to be in the show, because I want this to stand on its own with a superlative cast as does our lead producer [inaudible 00:47:47] Productions. I mean, this should be able to go around the world with different casts and countries everywhere. It should be able to be done at high schools and junior highs everywhere. It's going to be great on its own, but of course, yeah, I could probably play Sylvia if I wanted to, but I really think that there's no shortage on really excellent actresses who could play the mom and the grandmother. The real challenge will be finding Fran Fine, who can be funny and gorgeous and has a great voice. And somewhere out there is the next Barbara Streisand and we aim to find her.Jay Ruderman: (48:36)That'd be great. Fran, it's been a pleasure having you. I just want to say this past June, you celebrated 21 years being cancer free. What are some of the most important lessons that you learned through that journey that you could leave with our audience?Fran Drescher: (48:53)Well, I certainly to honor your body. Never dishonor your body because it's going to come back to bite you on the ass. So just honor your body. If you're tired, lay down. iI you're stressed, meditate or take a brisk walk or start looking in the moment to notice leaves on a tree or a bird or a cloud floating through the sky, and that'll take you out of your stress faster than anything. Because the most important thing is, understand and how to bolster your immune system and understand what compromises it. Your immune system is the most perfect operation. It's a system in your body designed to keep you healthy. To kill cancer cells, to attack viruses, to clean up bad bacteria overload, all of it, but you have to help it. We live in very toxic times.Fran Drescher: (50:07)So please go cancershmancer.org, sign up, it's free. You'll get my emails and they're all informative and motivating and it's a very optimistic, empowering organization that's going to open your eyes up to how you can live more healthfully for you, for your family, for your pets, for the very planet on which we live that feeds and supports all life.Jay Ruderman: (50:41)Thank you so much, Fran. It's been a pleasure. [inaudible 00:50:44]Fran Drescher: (50:45)How sweet of you? Thank you. And also you can learn all about that@cancerschmancer.org also. And if you're a Mahjong player, participate. It's going to be a lot of fun.Jay Ruderman: (50:59)Sounds like fun. Thank you.Fran Drescher: (51:00)Thank you.Jay Ruderman: (51:04)The Forward, one of the most influential American Jewish publications has just launched a podcast, we can't wait for you to hear. A Bentel brief, their historic advice column has been updated for the 21st century now in podcast form. Hosts Gina Green and Lynn Harris are two very different moms who join forces to tackle modern life dilemmas about everything from being social after 16 months in quarantine, to worrying about a family member who has been politically radicalized. I loved the first episode, Mr. Not Dad. Regina and Lynn respond to a single man in his fifties, grieving his lack of partner and children. The show brings in archival material and great experts, such as community leaders and social workers. Find it wherever you listen to podcasts.Voiceover: (52:00)All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple podcast, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast, be sure to tweet @jayruderman.

Speaker 1: (00:03)All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation, and social justice, with Jay Ruderman.Jay Ruderman: (00:13)Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive. A podcast focused on inclusion, innovation, and social justice. In the late 1980s, there were an estimated 200 lesbian bars across the United States. Now, there are only 21 remaining. These bars, often the only safe space for lesbians and other members of the LGBTQ community, are disappearing at an alarming rate. The ones that have remained open are also struggling more than ever in the pandemic. Last year, Erica Rose, an award-winning director focused on queer and female-driven storytelling, became concerned about the future of these spaces for her community. She and fellow director, Elina Street immediately jumped into action and created The Lesbian Bar Project, which resulted in a viral fundraiser and documentary to celebrate, support, and preserve the remaining lesbian bars in the United States. Today, I'm speaking with Erica. Her films have screened at the New York Film Festival, The Tribeca Film Festival, and many more. Her film, Girl Talk has amassed over 15 million views on YouTube.Jay Ruderman: (01:33)Lesbian bars have been incredibly important in the filmmaker's journey as a queer woman. When Erica moved to New York City for college in 2009, she said the famous West Village lesbian bar, Cubbyhole knew she was gay before she did. Erica, welcome to All Inclusive. Thank you for being our guest today.Erica Rose: (01:55)Thank you for having me. So happy to be here.Jay Ruderman: (01:57)So, I was able to watch The Lesbian Bar Project and I was really impressed by the quality of the filmmaking. I just want to start off by asking you on a personal level, how did you decide to become a filmmaker?Erica Rose: (02:10)I remember I wanted to be a filmmaker since I was 10. I was raised by two therapists and they were very, very adamant on introducing me to art and culture and film. And my dad was like, "Okay, you need to be literate and Scorsese by the time you're 12." So I was introduced to Mean Streets and Taxi Driver and Raging Bull probably at too young of an age, but that's cheating either here or there. So I was kind of transfixed by filmmaking. And there weren't that many women that I knew of that were directors. There were spattering of a couple of examples, but for the majority of my childhood, I didn't really see anyone who looked like me behind a camera. So it wasn't until I got to high school and kind of was doing self-education of like, oh, hey, there's filmmakers like, Mira Nair or Sally Potter or Jane Campion who were making waves and they happen to be women.Erica Rose: (03:15)So from there, I was just making my own stuff completely self-taught. And then I got into NYU film school and worked my way up. And after I graduated, I had done a lot of working for other people. And basically when the pandemic hit, I knew that I needed to focus on my directing career. I had pretty much exhausted all of my energy servicing other people's visions, and I figured it was time to service my own.Jay Ruderman: (03:50)Well, I really like your work. And I want to just jump into your latest work on The Lesbian Bar Project. And maybe we can start with the history of lesbian bars. From what I understood in the 1980s, there were around 200 lesbian bars. Now, there are something like 21. How did that happen?Erica Rose: (04:14)It's hard to pinpoint one reason, but we've been able to identify a couple of mitigating factors. So, gentrification is affecting our coastal cities especially, and all businesses owned and operated by marginalized people are affected by gentrification. So lesbian bars are definitely in the midst of not being able to afford rising rents and exorbitant taxes and just all around a kind of city that doesn't necessarily have the space for them. And so gentrification it's like a huge issue. In general, lesbian bars never occupied the same kind of space in real estate that gay bars did. There was a brief period in the nineties, in New York, where Park Slope was called, affectionately, Dyke Slope. And it had a kind of like a lesbian epicenter, but that was really, really fleeting. So besides that, lesbians never really took up neighborhoods in the same way that gay men did. So because of that, our space was already limited. So we were working off of, existing in spaces, that were discrete or hard to find, or not necessarily completely obvious. So that definitely affects how visible and accessible these spaces are.Erica Rose: (05:45)Assimilation plays a huge factor into it. I think that when gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court in 2015, I think the most privileged members of our community were kind of swept away with a bit of complacency. I have the immense privilege that I can walk down the street in my neighborhood and go to a bar that's not necessarily LGBTQ and feel safe. And that is because of the incredible work of the generations before me. But what's lost there is that, there's a feeling that if we accept that, if we accept that we don't need specifically queer space, we're essentially saying that space in general can be heteronormative or should be heteronormative and I'm against that, because that doesn't reflect our population. Our population isn't just straight, it isn't just binary. And our bars are not just bars, they're cultural epicenters and spaces for intergenerational dialogue and for queer friendship and obviously dating sometimes. And if we don't have a space that reflects specific groups, then we lose power, we lose validity, we lose just a way of life.Erica Rose: (07:01)So, kind of other factors, obviously the wage gap is real. There's not a lot of evidence that, especially white gay men have wage discrimination. It's mostly the other members of the LGBTQ community, and obviously women make less than men, women of color make less than white women and queer women of color make even less. So, that definitely affects the amount of leisure dollars that people have to go out to the bars. A lot of queer women also are parents, so a lot of their disposable income will go to their children rather than going out to a bar.Erica Rose: (07:42)And then finally, I think that overall we've been moving to an online culture. Online dating is definitely prevalent in most of our lives, but beyond that, just like the way we shop, the way we consume food, the way we kind of consume culture, the way we kind of like navigate serious conversations and kind of meet new people is online in a lot of ways. And there's pros and cons to that, but I think also what we lose is brick and mortar spaces in general, not just our lesbian bars, but all brick and mortar spaces are really suffering because of that.Jay Ruderman: (08:22)So, clear from what you said from the film that the brick and mortar space plays a really important role for the lesbian community, how do you define a lesbian bar and is it different from a gay bar or a queer bar?Erica Rose: (08:38)It's a good question. Lesbian bars are spaces for all marginalized genders within the LGBTQIA community. So that's all queer women, regardless if they're cis or trans, non-binary people and trans men. What makes lesbian bars different and distinct from gay bars is the prioritization of those genders that I just listed. Gay bars and queer bars in general are not necessarily prioritizing queer women and their experiences. And what ends up happening is that, when I enter gay bars, for example, it's like, it doesn't necessarily feel like a 100% safe space for me. I think that there's a lot of different dynamics happening between gay men and queer women, I'm not saying that it's always a divisive relationship, but I think that there's a lot of like kind of misogyny and internalized homophobia against queer women, which is really unfortunate, which I've experienced.Erica Rose: (09:49)But one thing that we do say in our film that's really important is that all of our bars they identify as lesbian bars and. Like, they'll identify as lesbian bar and queer space, because it's really, really important that our lesbian bars open their doors for the most vulnerable members of the community. And the most vulnerable members of the community right now are trans brothers and sisters and non-binary folks. As we can see with the local legislation that's passing throughout the Midwest and South, is that they are not a protected class and it's unfortunate and it's something that I think as I said earlier, our more privileged members of the community don't necessarily have the same kind of energy and motivation to fight for trans rights because it's like, "Okay, we got our gay marriage. We could probably stop. We can live rather safely now." And I think that's really disappointing because our community has always been built around activism and has been built around political organization, and we need to support each other. And if we don't support our trans community, it does affect all of us.Jay Ruderman: (11:11)So, tell us about the first time you went into a lesbian bar and what that meant to you.Erica Rose: (11:16)So, I always like to say that Cubbyhole, the lesbian bar in Manhattan knew I was gay before I even did. I walked in in 2009 and I had been like questioning, I kind of like admitted it to myself years prior, but I had been repressing it. And the minute I walked into Cubbyhole, I was so overtaken by this palpable and tangible energy of queer women. Even 2009, which isn't that long ago, I felt like there was such a kind of missing contingency of representation for our community. I would watch like Lisa Cholodenko movie or like the award and kind of like get that, but in terms of my day-to-day life, I hadn't no one. And when I walked into Cubbyhole, it was almost, it was arresting, it was invigorating, it was electrifying that I not only just saw like obviously amazing, beautiful women around me, but it was more about these people who were unapologetically themselves.Erica Rose: (12:24)And there was queer community, there was queer friendship, which often does not get represented or talked about enough because for me, lesbian bars are far more than just a place to hook up. That's actually rarely what they're used for. It's really for a place to, for me to be unapologetically myself and to be gay with my friends. And that is such a lovely and often overlooked experience. So when I walked into Cubbyhole, I knew deep down that the minute I was ready to come out, I would have a safe space to go to. And once I came out, once I started kind of living publicly as a gay woman, I found that going to lesbian bars in the city, whether it was Henrietta Hudson, Cubbyhole, Gingers, I've had that space to be unapologetically and unabashedly myself. And I don't necessarily have that privilege everywhere I go.Jay Ruderman: (13:28)So, if hypothetically Cubbyhole or other lesbian bars in Manhattan or New York did not exist, what do you think your journey of self-acceptance would have looked like, or self-acceptance of others in their journeys would have looked like?Erica Rose: (13:48)It definitely wouldn't have been as fun. I mean, I got to, I don't know, it's hard to say. I actually often asked myself this question of like, if I didn't go to NYU, if I didn't live in New York, like what my coming out process would be like. I can imagine that it would have been a lonely experience. And I am really grateful that I had those spaces that I could just talk to all walks of life from, I mean, Cubbyhole's in a very international space. When I was there, I would meet people from various countries in Europe. Like I met someone from Tunisia, I met someone from Yemen, and to talk to someone from Yemen who was a queer woman was, I was thinking to myself like, this is truly a melting pot. And that's why these spaces are so important because I would have not necessarily gotten the opportunity to speak with her.Erica Rose: (14:50)So, yeah. I mean, I think that if I didn't have these bars, I wouldn't have given myself the opportunity to figure out who I was. And I think that a lot of times people, it's a misconception that like, you come out once and then you're done. I have to come out almost every day of my life, especially as someone who can appear straight-passing. I think I've done a pretty good job at branding myself as a queer woman, so there's a little less of that, but I think that these spaces allowed me to kind of not only come out in a way that I was met with community, but to also figure out the nuances of who I am within the LGBTQIA community and those spaces were instrumental in that.Jay Ruderman: (15:39)So, tell me about when you first learned about the decline in lesbian bars in the United States, and when you learned about that, what compelled you to start The Lesbian Bar Project?Erica Rose: (15:54)So, as we all remember, the pandemic hit New York City in March 2020, and I had nothing but time for the first time in a while to kind of reflect on the importance of gathering, the importance of safe space. And I was on the phone a lot with my friend, Elina, and we were just kind of processing the shutdown of our industry as filmmakers, and just kind of the shutdown of our day-to-day lives. And this coincided with a couple of articles coming out about the dearth of lesbian bars in the country, how that there was only 16 or 15 left. And that really scared me. And it was a wake up call because I consider myself pretty ingrained in the community and I didn't even know the numbers were so bad. So Elina and I spoke about it and we were like, "Okay, let's do something about this."Erica Rose: (16:49)So, she and I kind of like got our heads together and we're like, "Let's tell the stories of these bars as filmmakers." So, we teamed up with a couple of producers too, and we birthed The Lesbian Bar Project. In 2020, we set out to do a PSA and we knew that we wanted it to be also branded because one, brands can pay for it, and as queer artists, we need funding. And two, it would get the kind of exposure that we knew that this project deserved. So we pitched it to a couple of brands. Obviously alcohol brands were an obvious and like symbiotic option. So we pitched to a couple brands and Jägermeister made us a wonderful offer and they were just such incredible partners to us and really believed in the project and support the queer community, not just during Pride, but every day of the year.Erica Rose: (17:47)So, we also teamed up with Lea DeLaria who... It was really important to us to have a voice for the community, and Lea is one of the few like out, queer women celebrities who actually still patronize the bars, like she's a regular at Cubbyhole and she... Like, that's like her spot. And so it was really an easy choice to go to her and say, "Hey, can you represent the project?" And she was like, "Of course." She like, literally we sent her the offer and like 30 seconds later, we were on the phone with her. So I have never experienced that before. So we launched our PSA in October 2020. We weren't really able to film a lot in-person because the pandemic was still raging, so we relied heavily on archival. And we released a 90-second PSA and went on to raise over $100,000 for the bars.Erica Rose: (18:41)One thing that we always wanted to do was, obviously we're filmmakers, storytelling-driven first, but also we wanted to add a philanthropic element. So that's where the money comes in with the pool fund. And we raised $117,000 that was split evenly amongst the bars. We knew that we weren't done telling the stories of these bars, and also throughout the campaign, a couple of bars, we got a couple of emails from the community members saying like, "Oh, you might've missed this bar and this bar." So we did more research. And we had done months of research prior to the release of the PSA, and there's not many studies on or statistics on the amount of lesbian bars in the country. So we were relying on a couple of studies, a couple of articles, and a couple of just like anecdotal evidence, but they're difficult to find.Erica Rose: (19:36)So, we discovered a couple more. So this year, when we decided to do The Lesbian Bar Project again, we announced a list of 21 bars. And we always say, it's an estimated number. There's still like new bars opening, there's bars closing, like, it's hard to necessarily pinpoint one number, but 21 is the closest we've gotten. And earlier this year in June, we released a 20-minute documentary. And this time, we introduced the world to this staggering statistic that there are a few lesbian bars left in the country. And now we wanted to tell the human stories behind these bars. So our film is through the lens of the bar owners, community activist, patrons, and archivists. And they tell the stories of not just the bars themselves, but how it affects our lesbian culture. And I think that if there's few bars left in the country, it begs the question, do we still need them and what is the future for queer women?Jay Ruderman: (20:37)So, corporate investments sometimes gets a bad name, but it sounds like Jägermeister was really a good partner and came in with the best of intentions and really allowed you to get this moving forward, the project moving forward. I also wanted to just, when Lea DeLaria from the fame of Orange Is the New Black came in, do you really think that that gave your project a boost and a lot more recognition?Erica Rose: (21:07)Definitely. I mean, Lea is such an icon and she has an immense following, not just from Orange, but just from her body of work for the past decades. So it gave us even more credibility, which was really important to us because we wanted to cement ourselves in this [inaudible 00:21:30], and I think we were really successful in that because there are many, many people who I've met, who are like, "Oh, I've heard of your project. I've heard about the dwindling number of lesbian bars." And I think a year ago that wasn't the case. So I think we succeeded in that and Lea is a wonderful champion of these bars, and she has a big following. To your point about Jägermeister. Yeah, obviously rainbow capitalism is at play with the kind of relationship between corporations and the queer community, and I think some people are very transparent in how they kind of exploit the community for their own financial gain.Erica Rose: (22:11)I think Jägermeister differentiated themselves because they gave us money and supported us in October, in September and October of last year. They could have easily said like, "Oh, we'll wait for Pride Month." But they had also launched something called hashtag save the night, which was an initiative to help nightlife institutions and venues that were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. So they did a lot of great work helping spaces stay afloat during the pandemic. And that was really attractive to us because we were like, okay, they're actually doing the work to support the community, and I think that a lot queer people work in nightlife, a lot of nightlife people are queer, and I think that it just felt like a really good relationship. So they're incredibly supportive, they helped fund our 20-minute film, and they're big advocates and are some of the reason why we have so much press as well.Jay Ruderman: (23:17)So, you mentioned in the film about recent generations not being aware of the struggle and sacrifice that went into places like Cubbyhole, and can you tell me a little bit about the activists who actually laid the groundwork so that these spaces could exist?Erica Rose: (23:36)Yeah. So there's people like Stormé DeLarverie who was arguably the first person who threw a punch at Stonewall and Lisa Cannistraci, owner of Henrietta Hudson talks about her with such reverence. They were friends, Stormé worked at the kind of original Cubbyhole, which is confusing. The original Cubbyhole is where Henrietta Hudson is now, and then they moved deeper into the West Village. So Stormé worked there and was one of the bouncers there, and was an incredible force and someone who kind of like broke gender norms during a time that that was like, there wasn't even language for that. And then we talked to so many people who were on the front lines of the movements, whether it was in the seventies or the nineties, which we kind of saw that resurgence of like the Lesbian Chic Movement.Erica Rose: (24:40)One thing to note is that lesbian bars had a divisive history. I think that there's a lot of cases where these bars were discriminatory against women of color. We talked about that in the film, for example, the bar, Bonnie and Clyde on one hand, the owner, Elaine Romagnoli was revolutionary in the sense that she was able to own and operate a bar in the 1970s as a single woman. Women weren't even allowed, as a lot of us know, weren't even allowed to get a line of credit without the approval of their husbands or fathers, let alone a liquor license. So there was something incredibly admirable about what she did. But on the other hand, her bar had a race-based quota, and they would allow like two or three black women into their doors. And during brunch service on a Sunday, black women were served different food than their white counterparts.Erica Rose: (25:41)So in response to that, folks like Audre Lorde were part of the organizing founding members of the Salsa Soul Sisters, which is the first black and Latina lesbian organization in the country. So we felt it was really important to talk about them in our film, because that is part of lesbian bar culture. And they weren't able to necessarily occupy space in the same way that white women were in terms of traditional bar settings, but the spaces where they were able to occupy served the same purpose that the lesbian bars brick and mortar spaces did. So we spoke to a lot of members of the Salsa Soul Sisters, and then we also, like some folks that we didn't get to include in the film, like for example, Leslie Cohen who was one of the founding members of Sahara, a kind of pivotal bar in the 1970s in New York.Erica Rose: (26:38)And she talked a lot about how the bars were often mob-run and she wasn't able to get a liquor license and she wasn't even able to sign a lease. And she was an unmarried woman, an unmarried gay woman, and she had to, I mean, she's speaks about how ridiculous this is, but like, the closest male relative she had was her brother who was unfortunately at the time institutionalized. So he was able to sign on her behalf, but if you look at it in a vacuum, it's completely ridiculous that she wasn't able to sign on her own behalf for a liquor license for a lease when she was able to function and her brother was sick. So, we talked to her and she was, Sahara had to close four years into its lifespan and she was part of the movement to kind of start the queer party scene. So yeah, I mean, those were kind of a couple, there's so many more people I'm leaving out, but there's just so many different aspects of the community that we don't even have time to talk about, which is unfortunate.Jay Ruderman: (27:54)Well, I know that that one of the bars that is featured in The Lesbian Bar Project is a bar called Herz in Mobile, Alabama run by two African-American women, which is fairly unique, because you make the point in the film that there are almost no bars except for that one and maybe another one that is run by black or brown women. Can you talk a little bit about that? And I mean, to own a bar in Mobile, Alabama, where there's so much homophobia, that must be a difficult business to run, but maybe you could talk a little bit about that.Erica Rose: (28:35)So, when we met Rachel, Sheila Smallman, the owners of Herz, it was like love at first sight. They have such a effervescent energy and they are just wonderful, wonderful human beings. And we're obsessed with them and they're obsessed with us and it's like a mutual love that's really exciting, but when we first started talking to them it was really interesting to us, we knew we needed to go down to Mobile because of what you're saying, because they are the only lesbian bar on our list that is owned and operated by black women. And one thing that they talk about is that they started the bar as a reaction to feeling discriminated, not just by heterosexual people, but by gay men in the south as well.Erica Rose: (29:24)And I think that in the south and in spaces that are not coastal cities in the United States, these bars are really melting pots for the entire community, because there is such a lack of safety in many of the spaces. Like, I talk about how in Brooklyn, New York, I could walk down the street into a bar and hold my girlfriend's hand and feel okay, but that's not necessarily true of a space in the south or the Midwest.Erica Rose: (29:54)I think one thing that was important though, is that Mobile, Alabama is a really dynamic and nuanced city. I, kind of my expectations were definitely different than what I experienced, granted I was surrounded by queer people because we were following a lesbian bar in Mobile. But I think that there's definitely a really loud and active vocal contingency of people who are accepting, who are, not just for people, but are allies who are trying to make change and difference there. So I think that it's not monolithic and that's really important, but yeah. I mean, Rachel and Sheila are defying a lot of odds by opening that space. I mean, Herz is an electric space. Everyone there is greeted with a hug, Sheila walks people to their cars to ensure safety, the staff is incredibly welcoming. It really is like a home away from home. And that was what we wanted to capture when we were filming. It's a space where the community can gather and be themselves where they might not necessarily be able to in their day-to-day lives.Jay Ruderman: (31:10)So, Erica, can you talk a little bit about your own personal activism in the LGBTQ community and maybe how do you believe that younger generations can or will become more involved?Erica Rose: (31:24)Yeah. So, I think that there's definitely a generational gap. There's kind of an older guard that talks about, which we point out in our film, that younger generations don't know what we went through. And that's something that it's important for us to listen and to educate ourselves as younger people about really what older, queer people went through in order to have the rights that we do today. On the flip side of that, I think that, and once again, this is more anecdotal than anything, but I think that there's a, kind of sometimes a resentment from older generations about the nuances in language, the nuances in gender expression identity that has emerged in the past 10 years.Erica Rose: (32:16)And I think that older generations can learn something from us too, and learn something that they're... We don't have to be so militant in our definition of, for example, lesbianism. Like, I make the point throughout my life that I, yes, I identify as lesbian, I identify as gay, I identify as queer, but I think that many people can use that label of lesbian and it doesn't mean that it's just a cis woman who's only attracted to others as women. I think that there's more room for different kinds of people to use that label. And that's beautiful. I think that, one thing we tracked in our film is this disparity between kind of like an older guard of like what it means to be a gay person and have queer space, versus what our current generation means.Erica Rose: (33:10)Henrietta Hudson changed their logo after 30 years. And it was more of like a fem presenting person and then it changed to something that is gender inclusive, and there was backlash. I mean, Henrietta Hudson got backlash on Instagram, we got backlash for including them in our campaign, Henrietta Hudson started identifying as a queer human bar built by lesbians. And for us, that's still not our definition of a lesbian bar. And I think that there were certain people who felt really, really disappointed and felt betrayed because they felt that the women-only spaces were disappearing, and one of the few institutions that still kind of identified as a women-centered space was now using gender-inclusive labels and logos.Erica Rose: (34:02)And Lisa Cannistraci, the owner of Henrietta Hudson had the best response I've ever heard to that complaint. She said, "You thought 10, 20, 30 years ago that you were in a women-only space, a gay women-only space, but you were wrong. There were trans men there, there were non-binary people there, there were bisexual and pansexual people there. Those people have always been part of the lesbian community. And now we have the language to include them. And we have the language to make them feel seen and not make them feel isolated." And as I said earlier, I think that we can do better than our gay male counterparts. We can do better than kind of the more privileged members of the community, where we can open our doors to many different kinds of people. And I think that it's a responsibility and a wonderful gift that lesbian bars can give to the community.Jay Ruderman: (34:58)So, let's talk a little bit about allyship. And do you feel it's important to have non-queer allies in the effort to save these bars in general?Erica Rose: (35:08)That's a really good question. And I think that one thing that we just need to talk about in general is that most of these bars survive because of allyship. As I stated before, the wage cap is absolutely devastating and most of these borrowers rely on allies and straight people to come to their bars and spend money. I think that they can't, especially lesbian bars can't survive on just queer populations patronizing their spaces. I do however think that there's a way to support lesbian bars and to support gay bars and queer spaces without overtaking the space. So for example, a lot of the gay bars have banned straight bachelor parties. I find that completely inappropriate, it's like you're, kind of like flaunt your heteronormativity in a space that has fought to kind of like counteract that, and I think that it's really important that when you are a straight ally, when you come into a space that's not made for you, you're a guest and you have to be deferential to the people that are prioritized in that space.Erica Rose: (36:18)So, for example, it's not... Like, I think that a way to support it, it's like, spend your money there, buy drinks, hang out with your queer friends, maybe don't throw a bachelorette party at a gay space if you're a straight person, maybe don't kind of like invite a bunch of straight people into that space and kind of like occupy and take up room that would have... So that means that people can't access it. And one thing is like, be really mindful of not harassing queer women. There's unfortunately a lot of cases where straight men will come into lesbian spaces and like harass and sexualize us. And at the end of the day, that's like a bigger systemic issue that a lot of straight men feel that queer women's sexuality is for them and made for them as a presentation to them, and that's completely untrue, and we exist as people outside of their gaze.Erica Rose: (37:19)So I think that it's... I'm not advocating for exclusionary practices in any regard. I think that there's no check at the door of like, who are you? You can't be here. I'm actually pretty against spaces, like how the [inaudible 00:37:38] operated, that was women only. Like I'm pretty against that. Like, I don't think that there should be mandates at the door about like which genders are allowed into a space. I do think, however, that if you know you're, as a straight ally, if you know you're walking into a queer women's space that you need to realize that, and that you're not their priority there.Jay Ruderman: (38:02)So, during the making of the film, what surprised you the most that you learned about lesbian bars and maybe you could give us a favorite story from the bars that you visited?Erica Rose: (38:16)One of the things that surprised me actually was a bar from the past, Meow Mix, that we covered in the film briefly. And it was around in the nineties, in the lower east side. And obviously I knew that queer bars and queer establishment had a really complicated and often turbulent relationship with the police, but one thing that was interesting talking to Brooke Webster, who was the owner of Meow Mix, is that Giuliani's administration was actually kind of their biggest foe in terms of their own kind of survival. Basically, there was mandates and there was laws and legislation that was passed to be predatorial to marginalized business owners and that serviced marginalized people. So like, there'd be like code violations that were completely insane, that would essentially enact a shut down. So one thing that she had to navigate there was like kind of this kind of whisper network of people who were in nightlife spaces, that'd be like, "Oh, someone from the mayor's office is here." Or like, "Do X, Y, Z."Erica Rose: (39:28)So what they would essentially do is the mayor's office would give so many fines to certain bars that they had to shut their doors. And they thought that that was something that like, Giuliani talked a lot about his like cleanup efforts and his cleanup efforts were in a lot of ways, just like completely try to erase marginalized people, whether they are people of color or queer people or women centric-spaces. So that was like really interesting to learn. Obviously I knew his administration was completely unfavorable and completely violent towards a lot of marginalized people, but to kind of learn the specifics of how they kind of shut down these spaces was interesting. And then I think learning about, as we talked about earlier, just like truly how egregiously racist some of these bars could be. I obviously knew that there was racism in our spaces, but to learn specifically that there were race-based quotas at the door, to me was really disturbing and something that we need to start talking about as a community.Erica Rose: (40:38)And I think that there's still numerous reparations to be done in order to make queer women of color feel safe in lesbian bars and feel welcome in lesbian bars. Our goal for the future of The Lesbian Bar Project is to tell more of the stories of these bars and kind of go outside of the parameters we set in the 20-minute film. And a lot of the bars we've talked to just like throughout the process, the owners have like amazing stories like Audrey Corley on her Boycott Bar in Phoenix talks about how she bought her first bar for $3 and has this insane story of how she was able to do that. And I think that these... Like, we're really excited to kind of continue the project to tell more of these stories behind the bars.Jay Ruderman: (41:24)So, let's talk a little bit about how people, I know that The Lesbian Bar Project is available to view for free. Maybe you could talk about how people can access that. And also, I know you did a fundraiser and it was successful. Are you continuing to raise funds to help these bars?Erica Rose: (41:46)So, people can watch the film for free going to lesbianbarproject.com. It's also on the Jägermeister YouTube page, global YouTube page, and it's 20 minutes and feel free to watch and enjoy. People can also follow along the project on our Instagram, which is @lesbianbarproject. We did another fundraising campaign this past Pride. We're also announcing, tomorrow, a new partnership with the dating app, Hinge. So they are raising awareness and giving funds to The Lesbian Bar Project, which is really exciting that will go to the pool fund for the bars, making a contribution. So basically after our partnership with them and around Labor Day, we're going to announce our total number raised, but we were able to raise over $100,000 again, for the bars, which is really exciting. So our grand total for the money we raised during the pandemic will be over $200,000, which is incredible. And we're really excited about that.Erica Rose: (43:00)We'll be announcing specific numbers around Labor Day. And in terms of more fundraising, I think the goal right now is to get people to go to the bars. That's always been a goal of mine and Elina's is to say like, "Hey, please go to the bars." You can give money to us, but the most important thing is support our bars. Show up for your bars. We literally say that at the end of the film, and we're actively working on turning this into an episodic docuseries. So that's our priority right now.Jay Ruderman: (43:33)So, I know one of the goals is to help these bars that exist to continue to survive. Do you feel that your project will lead to more bars opening across the country?Erica Rose: (43:46)Yes. We're actually already seeing that. We followed Jo McDaniel and Rachel Pike, who are opening As You Are Bar, it was really important to us to follow a new space that's opening, because often how we talk about lesbian bars is through loss, disappearance, and trauma. And it was really important to us to show like, "Hey, here's a new lesbian and queer space that's opening that is filled with optimism and filled with excitement." And we're getting so many messages from people around the country, opening new lesbian bars. There's a spot in Astoria that's trying to open right now called Dave's. There's a spot in LA called Hot Donna's, that's trying to open. And so we're really excited and I think that there's going to be a lot more in our future and I can't wait to go to those spaces and to witness them.Jay Ruderman: (44:37)And maybe you could talk about what you learned about yourself through this whole journey of making the film. I know there were very many emotional moments. I saw an interview you did on PBS News Hour in which people were writing back comments that were making you extremely emotional. So, maybe you can talk about like, what the whole project did for you personally.Erica Rose: (45:07)I love this question. No one has actually ever asked me this question. I think that it did so much. I mean, it made me feel whole again. It made me feel a purpose and I'm just so excited that I can showcase this... As a filmmaker, my goal was always to tell stories that are overlooked or forgotten or unseen. And I think that Elina and I set out to tell the stories of these bars, and it's just really, really exciting that we're getting so much positive feedback and that people are learning something, but also feel celebrated. And I think that it's so, as I said earlier, a lot of times we talk about gay experience as that of trauma. And I think it's, to me, it was really important to show the beauty and the passion and the optimism and the excitement that's within us. And I think that was really important to do that, especially as this pandemic keeps raging on.Erica Rose: (46:13)Yeah. I mean, I think that we have stories like Blush & Blu in Denver, they told us and they like went on a couple of interviews and said this, that they wouldn't have been able to survive without us. And I'm like, "Oh my God, we didn't set out to like save any bars." We knew that we didn't necessarily have the tools to do that, but the fact that we were able to keep these doors open for at least a couple of more months, to me just feels like an honor of a lifetime. So I'm really excited to keep on pushing through for the community, and I'm really excited to see what the future holds for us.Jay Ruderman: (46:53)Well, thank you so much. I just want to leave with telling our audience different things that they can do to support what you're doing. We said go and watch, and I've watched it and I would recommend anyone to watch it because I think it's a very well-done piece of film with a strong message, The Lesbian Bar Project. Anything else that people can do if they want to get involved and contribute and help lesbian bars to continue in the United States?Erica Rose: (47:27)Go to our website. There's a map of the United States. And we show where every lesbian bar is located. Show up for your bars. Our pool fund is closed. And thank you for everyone who donated this year, but for now, what folks can do, watch our film, support us on social media, and show up for your bars.Jay Ruderman: (47:48)Erica, it's been such a pleasure speaking to you. I think your activism has been extremely impactful and will continue to be impactful and really appreciate having you as my guest today.Erica Rose: (48:00)Thank you so much for having me. This was wonderful.Speaker 1: (48:07)All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast? Be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation, and social justice, with Jay Ruderman.Jay Ruderman (00:17):Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation, and social justice. Witnessing the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, affected all of us who were alive at the time. But for some, 9/11 has a far more personal and tragic experience. On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 families lost a loved one who perished at the World Trade Center in New York, on Flight 93 that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. Although nearly 20 years have elapsed, for those who are the surviving family members of 9/11 victims, the impact of that event does not fade nor do the memories or the grief. Jay Winuk is one of those family members who lost his younger brother, Glenn Winuk, an attorney and volunteer firefighter in EMT. In Glenn's honor, Jay co-founded My Good Deed, a nonprofit organization that successfully advocates for 9/11 to be designated as a National Day of Service and Remembrance. Jay, welcome to All Inclusive.Jay Winuk (01:36):Thank you for having me.Jay Ruderman (01:37):So all of us who were old enough to live through September 11, 2001, have distinct memories of where we were and what happened on that day and our connection, but you have a very personal connection to that day. Can you tell us about your brother Glenn and how that day unfolded for you?Jay Winuk (02:00):Sure. Yes, I do have a very personal connection. My brother Glenn Winuk perished on 9/11. He was a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight whose New York offices were located at 195 Broadway, which is an office building that is about two blocks from where the Trade Center had been. That morning, Glenn was in his apartment in midtown Manhattan getting ready for work, saw on TV that a plane and had hit the Trade Center. Obviously, that made a direct connection with him knowing that his colleagues were located down there. He raced down town to his office building, helped evacuate the law officers, because for 20 years, Glenn was a volunteer firefighter and an EMT. So he had the training. He knew what to do in the case of emergencies. So he helped evacuate the law officers and then from first responders on the scene at his office building, he borrowed a first responder kit, and then headed on foot west, towards the South Tower to help with the rescue effort. Glenn was specially certified in building claps rescue training. He was really adept at these kinds of emergency situations, not that there was anything akin to this previously, he had responded in 93, when the Trade Center was bombed as well. And Glenn perished when the South Tower collapsed, as part of the rescue effort.Jay Winuk (03:42):His partial remains were recovered March 20th, the following March, in what had been the lobby area of the South Tower, and his partial remains were covered along with those of many other first responders. So I, of course, am very proud of him, but that was how he perished, that was his actions that morning, and of course, there's a lot to tell about how the day unfolded for myself and the rest of my family.Jay Ruderman (04:15):So maybe you can talk a little bit about Glenn, about what type of person he was because, I mean, I'm an attorney, I know Holland & Knight, very prestigious law firm in New York with offices around the world. It sounds like he had a great career, but not only that, a dedication to public service. But to sort of walk away from that life and say, I'm running into a building where I know there's a good possibility this building is coming down, that takes a special kind of human being. And maybe you can talk about his personality, because I think a lot of people probably would have turned the other way and said, let's get out in New York City right now. Things look really bad.Jay Winuk (04:59):Well, I appreciate your kind words about him. He was a special person. And you're right, most people did what they should have done, which is to run the other way. But of course, where would we be without the first responders who run in and who always run in. I mean, this is what firefighters and cops and EMTs and military personnel, this is what they're trained to do, I think there's something different about them in their makeup, and having ... Glenn was three years my junior. We shared a bedroom growing up in Jericho on Long Island. As soon as he could join the fire department, he did. He was inspired by our uncle Harold Einhorn, who was an officer in a Brooklyn Fire Company. Glenn was always enthralled with the first responder community in general, but it was particularly of interest to him to join the fire department when he could, and he did. Our older brother Jeff was also a volunteer firefighter in Jericho.Jay Winuk (06:01):And so this was his makeup. He was the kind of person who was very giving, not only in emergency situations, but he regularly went out of his way for people, whether it was to say a nice word to the manager of a restaurant about the busboy or stopping to help somebody fix a flat tire on the road, who he didn't know, or helping friends or family with legal issues, out of the goodness of his heart, he was an extremely giving person. So he truly lived his life in service to other people, and that I think is admirable. He was a great guy. He really was.Jay Ruderman (06:46):Well, I'm so sorry for your loss.Jay Winuk (06:48):Thank you.Jay Ruderman (06:49):You lost your brother, we know 3,000 other families lost family members, on September 11. For those of us who lived through it, it's left a mark that will never leave us. Being from Boston, I remember at the time several of the planes left from Boston, it was a surreal day where you're watching TV live, and you can see the planes flying into the towers, and then it was a series, I don't know, of hours before the towers came down. But seeing the pictures and again afterwards documentaries of firefighters and police officers walking up 100 plus story building, trying to get people down there, when they knew very well that their lives were in danger. These people were heroes and should be remembered as such.Jay Ruderman (07:50):But let's just set the stage for people who maybe are younger, who don't remember 9/11 on a first hand basis. What do you want them to remember about this day? And for us, I mean, I think it's a significant day, because this was the biggest attack on the United States, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. So it was a shock to the system. Maybe you can just describe the collective feeling in New York and in the United States of how that day impacted Americans.Jay Winuk (08:32):Yes. You reference the attack at Pearl Harbor and that is a point of reference. That is a historical point of reference that often does come up and appropriately so. I mean, like then, 9/11 was an attack on our freedoms, our way of life. Innocent people were killed. These were not military personnel. We were not in a traditional war with those who attacked us. And it was a real shock to the system. It is one of those moments in the historical timeline that anybody who was old enough to remember it will never forget, of course. You asked about things that people who did not live through it should know about it. And there are several. And one is that, of course, that this was an attack, in many ways, though, in unprecedented fashion. And to see those buildings come down was just horrific.Jay Winuk (09:39):The initial estimates of how many people would have died, were expected to have died, were significantly higher, and it's a testament to the first responders who went into save lives that so many actually were able to get out before those buildings came down and didn't perish, though so many were injured. And of course, so many have been sickened and have died since, of course, because of exposures to the toxins that that attack released, which is a whole other topic that we could get into. But that's one lesson. That's one fact that the future generations must understand. This was an attack on our way of life and our freedoms, by those who think differently. And the bravery that we've talked about, of the first responders who ran in, as others wisely ran out. We're not trying to, of course, to save others and to deal with such situations.Jay Winuk (10:42):But it's essential. It's essential that future generations understand how people came together in response, spontaneously, naturally, and in a way that was sustained for months. It was a time in this country, and globally, for that matter, when we put aside our differences, where we focused on our common humanity, where we realized that we're stronger together than we are apart, that things can be accomplished together by people who don't necessarily share the same geography, the same religion, the same race, the same economic status, the same sexual orientation, whatever it is, the same age. Everybody came together. Everybody wanted to pitch in. Everybody was kinder to each other. It was a phenomenon that I had not experienced in my life and I think most people that I've talked to feel the same way. And that's to be cherished and remembered and understood by young people and future generations. And in fact, was the inspiration, that phenomenon, for what became the September 11, National Day of Service and Remembrance that some of us began.Jay Ruderman (11:59):I just want to take us back to that day one more time because I remember waking up, and it was a crystal clear day, it was a beautiful day-Jay Winuk (12:08):It was.Jay Ruderman (12:08):... in the fall. And just a normal day, like every other day going spring, I mean, summer to fall. But the heroism, not only in New York, but also Flight 93, that was brought down by the crew in a field in Pennsylvania, and the heroism when the Pentagon was hit. And I remember there was a tremendous amount of fear. We didn't know where the next attack was coming from. We hadn't experienced this attack in decades, this was not an attack by a nation, it was a terrorist attack. And it was a day of fear. And there was fear throughout the country and people did come together. And I think people come together during very difficult times. We're now living through a year and a half of COVID and hopefully things are better than they were, and hopefully they'll get better and not get worse. But COVID was something that happened over a long period of time, where gradually we understood the threat. In the United States, and the world have lost a tremendous amount of people who didn't have to die because of COVID.Jay Ruderman (13:30):But this was a shock. This was a different experience. This was an attack on the United States, as you said, an attack on our freedoms, on our way of life, that happened very suddenly. And how do you talk to people who are now, I mean, we're all living through COVID, young people, old people, this is something that's happening in our ... Do you talk to people and make any sort of like analogy to try to connect people through what they're going through right now? And what happened at that time?Jay Winuk (14:03):All the time. I mean, your question is right on target, because this may be the first kind of experience since 9/11, where as a nation, we have all been affected one way or another by some kind of traumatic event. And yes, it was something that rolled out and did its destruction more slowly, over a longer period of time than what happened on 9/11. Although a case can be made that for those who were volunteers and first responders or who lived and worked down there, that has dragged on for 20 years too, again, because of the exposures to the toxins and the slow rollout of the illnesses. But there are differences, but there are many parallels to what the country has gone through and is still going through. And it does come back to the key points about heroism. I mean, look at the heroism of the health care professionals dealing with this pandemic months after months and months. It was unbelievable and continues to be. I mean, they were our frontline responders risking their own lives as only they could. Where would we have been without them?Jay Winuk (15:24):And so it's amazing to see people who have the courage to step forward to help people who are in dire circumstances. These aren't the only two times through our history where something like that has happened, but it is a wake up call each time it does happen. But like 9/11, in many ways this pandemic is a mass tragedy, a mass traumatic event, and we all needed to come together and pull together in order to get out of it. That has been apparent in many ways and in other ways, I think, there are many people in this country who are very frustrated with the pace of the realization that we all really must work together, and work from factual information, and have those who have the wherewithal and the expertise to lead us out of a tragedy. All these things really matter. They make a difference.Jay Ruderman (16:34):Right, they sure do. And the first responders are doctors or nurses who are, for over a year, year and a half, have been on the front lines of COVID, are certainly first responders. I just want to set the scene a little bit more that the World Trade Center were two of the tallest buildings in New York, that not only when they came down, and these buildings could hold, I believe, more than 10,000 people in terms of employees, not only the first responders that rushed in at the time, but when these buildings came down, lower Manhattan was a disaster area and all of the debris which turned out to be toxic and cancerous, and the first responders who developed diseases and died since that day. I mean, it had a traumatic impact on our country, which I think is still being felt by people that were there, their family members, and so forth. So this was not a passing event. This is an event that has lingered on, and has really impacted our country. Maybe you can talk about, following 9/11, how did you first honor your brother in his bravery?Jay Winuk (18:08):Well, it's certainly an unusual way to lose somebody. Look, we all those people we love in our lives. Nobody is immune from that. But to lose somebody at the hands of terrorists as part of a mass murder, and on top of that to not even know if they're alive or dead for weeks on end, that's an unusual circumstance. You're part of this ... at least at the time, I didn't know other 9/11 family members, and yet there were, when you think of each person and how many people are in their families, you think of thousands of people who are going through what you're going through in such a public way, and yet you don't know any of them other than your own extended family members.Jay Winuk (19:05):It was such a strange time, Jay, I have to tell you. I mean, we held out hope, although it diminished with each day that somehow Glenn was still alive, amnesia in a hospital somewhere, buried several storys below where there might have been food or water or air. You think about what happened in Florida recently and there are parallels there of course too with that horrific building collapse. But once we accepted what the authorities were telling us, that it was no longer a rescue effort, but a recovery effort, then of course you have to plan a funeral with nobody. I mean, just such strange things you have to consider. What are the religious implications of that? How do you do that? But we did.Jay Winuk (19:53):I was certainly going to do something in Glenn's honor. What it was going to be, I didn't know, but I did not want his death to pass without trying to do something meaningful for other people, as a way to honor him. He lived his life, he truly lived his life in service to other people, and he died in service to other people. And so that was my initial thinking and it did unfold eventually into something that I still work on today, which is the 9/11 Day of Service, which I can tell you plenty about.Jay Ruderman (20:40):Right. I remember the weeks following, family members with photographs and flyers of family members saying, have you seen this person? This person is missing. It was so heart wrenching. And then, of course, most people were not found alive. But I can only imagine what you and your family went through. The shock, but the shock that lasted for weeks on end. And again, my condolences.Jay Winuk (21:22):Thanks Jay.Jay Ruderman (21:23):In 2002, which was only a year after the September 11th attacks, you co-founded the 9/11 Day of Observance Initiative. Can you talk about your role in establishing that initiative and then transforming that, from a Remembrance Day to a National Day of Service.Jay Winuk (21:49):Both components of that are really important. Both the remembrance and the service. I got a call weeks after 9/11, from a friend in California named David Payne. David had been a New Yorker. We knew each other for years, because we had both worked for what at the time was the world's largest public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller. We didn't work on the same accounts, but we knew each other, we had mutual friends there at the agency, and we stayed in touch when David went to California to start his own PR firm. So David called me saying, "Look, you're the only 9/11 family member I know. I know you lost your brother. I have this thought, but I want to bounce it off of a 9/11 family member." I mean, that's where you have to start with this.Jay Winuk (22:45):And he was recognizing the way that people were coming together, the way people were doing whatever they could to engage in something that was meaningful to people who were affected. When you expand out beyond the 9/11 community, people who were directly affected one way or the other to the nation at large, because we all were affected by it. It was an attack on our nation. So he said, "What do you think about this idea of trying to start a grassroots movement, where we have a ritual in this country, at least on 9/11 each year where people just remember the day by doing good deeds for other people." And I thought, boy, what a gift to me, really, because as I described to you before, I would want to do something that honor the way Glenn lived his life, and that is the way he lived his life.Jay Winuk (23:41):One of my first thoughts when David called was that, Glenn would be first in line for this kind of thing had he not perished in 9/11. So I said to David, look ... at the time, both my Sy and Elaine Winuk, were still alive, they had lost their youngest son. I'm just trying to keep my parents and my family afloat. Let me give this some thought and let's talk again in a few months. And that we did. It was at a point where I was now ready to jump in to try to establish an initiative. And so we set up a website, we did some initial research, we set up meetings with leaders of all the many 9/11 related organizations that had surfaced, all working on very good and important causes. Because our feeling was that, if this idea of creating a day of service in honor of those affected, didn't sit right with the 9/11 community, then we weren't on the right track. But indeed, when we met with all of these people, several of whom we pulled together in one meeting and some others we met individually with, there was universal acceptance of this and appreciation for this.Jay Winuk (24:55):And the 9/11 community didn't agree on all things all the time. I can tell you like anything that comes out of a major event, people have different points of views. But on this everybody seemed to really think, boy, if you guys could get this going, that would be great. So we set up a board of directors, we set up nonprofit organization, a 501(c)(3). We had no budget, we had no staff, we had no real plan in place, but we had a good idea and we were a couple of PR guys who know how to get the word out. And so that was really the origin of it and it's been an amazing journey since and I'm sure we'll talk more about that, but with the help of a lot of people, we've grown it from a simple idea into the nation's largest annual day of charitable engagement.Jay Ruderman (25:47):And how has the government reacted to this private initiative, in terms of recognition and in terms of getting behind it?Jay Winuk (25:57):Mostly supportive, in a bipartisan way. It took some years. It wasn't a quick thing. I mean, we walked the halls of Congress for years, meeting with senators, meeting with House of Representatives, congressmen and women, meeting with their senior staffs, meeting with officials from the White House, meeting with leaders of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which is now AmeriCorps, and which is essentially the service related arm of the US government. We had great support along the way, but it wasn't until 2009 as part of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, that September 11, National Day of Service and Remembrance was officially designated under federal law and presidential proclamation. And we do get some of our funding from the federal government each year to do some of the work that we do around the country, so that's very helpful, but we've had pretty good bipartisan support along the way, I must tell you. And that's the way it should be.Jay Ruderman (27:21):Jay, can you talk a little bit about the relationship between the families of victims from September 11th, and what those relationships have developed into over the years?Jay Winuk (27:39):That's a good question and an important one to me personally. As I said earlier, I didn't know or anybody else from the 9/11 community other than my own cousins, aunts, uncles, brother, my parents, I mean. If I could use this word blessings, it's one of the handful of blessings that came out of this tragedy for me personally. I have come to know countless people within the 9/11 community. And when I say that phrase, 9/11 community, by the way, I do so intentionally. People often think of just the families, but it's broader than that. It's the first responder community. It's people who worked down there who lost colleagues that they weren't related to. It's people who lived in the neighborhood whose lives were directly affected. It's people who survived with injury, or just survived, but were traumatized. It's volunteers who showed up in the immediate aftermath to help clear the debris and look for remains. It's a very broad community of people who in one way or another were directly touched by the event. So it's 9/11 community.Jay Winuk (28:59):And I am blessed to have developed relationships with countless people within that community and it is extraordinary to see the work that has come from so many of these people, so many great initiatives, scholarships, and charitable work, and healthcare related work, and building safety related work, and on and on and on, educational initiatives. It is an amazing community of people and I'm just proud to know so many of these people. We all don't know each other. Obviously, it's an enormous community, but I happen to know a lot of people because of the work that I do for the 9/11 day, which is the shortened nomenclature for the September 11th, National Day of Service and Remembrance, 9/11 Day. These are some of the people I'm closest to in my life and I'm a better person for it.Jay Ruderman (29:58):Maybe you can talk a little bit about what you've noticed over the years about the long-term or generational trauma that these families have gone through, some who now have victims who have maybe grandchildren that they never met. How are the families affected 20 years on from what happened on that day?Jay Winuk (30:23):I have two children. One is 24 and one's 18. So the 24 year old, my son, Justin, who lives up in Boston, he was four when his uncle was taken from him. So his memories are very limited of his uncle. My daughter was born in 2002. And that was a real blessing. It was very life affirming for my family, but she never got to meet her uncle. So in some ways, they really have been cheated. My brother Glenn was cheated. He did not live long enough to have children. He did not live long enough to experience so many things that he would have over the course of these last 20 years. But 9/11 reverberates all over the country still, we live in this post 9/11 world. It's affected everything.Jay Winuk (31:17):How we walk into a building, how we get onto a plane, how our nation deals with other nations, I mean. But many people are traumatized within the 9/11 community by something else that isn't talked about enough, which is holding those who were directly responsible beyond the 19 hijackers accountable for what happened, because there's substantial evidence about Saudi Arabia's culpability. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, or Saudi nationals. But there is a lot of trauma still within the 9/11 community, because so many of us feel that those who played a role in supporting this horrific attack, which murdered our loved ones, have yet to been held to account for providing such support. So that too, is traumatizing.Jay Ruderman (32:21):I wanted to touch on that, which I know is a sensitive point, because the United States still has a very strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, but most of the hijackers did come out of Saudi Arabian, and with the families of the victims, what is the attitude? I'm sure it spans the spectrum about Saudi Arabia and their role and have they expressed remorse, have they done enough for these families, in terms of trying to make the world a better place following this tragedy that they obviously have some responsibility for?Jay Winuk (33:08):Look, anybody who thinks that these 19 hijackers pulled this off without serious support from entities with means, financially, logistically and otherwise, is not looking at the full picture of what happened here. And so much has been learned since the 9/11 commission ended its work. There are more than 10,000 plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that is current and revealing, and is obviously very serious. I mean, this is the largest attack that our nation, terrorist attack, our nation has ever experienced. And there is still work to be done to hold those who support the hijackers to account. And there is great frustration in the 9/11 community at large that our government, our federal government is not being more cooperative in terms of transparency, with documents that really need to be declassified, and are not. I mean, we could spend an hour talking about just this topic, but there is real pain, pain that added pain within the 9/11 community, because we have not yet brought this to resolution.Jay Ruderman (34:38):So maybe you can talk a little bit about what the day actually looks like on 9/11 Day. What is a Day of National Service, a good D day look like in reality?Jay Winuk (34:53):So that's a very important question because it takes many forms. From the outset, our intention was not for everybody to do the same thing, but rather to do something in your own comfort zone. And that's been one of the great appeals. It's not a day where everybody does a 5K walk, run, or everybody donates blood, though that happens on 9/11. It's a day where you just need to do a good deed in honor of those who were directly affected, and those who rose in service and response. And so that opens the door up to the potential for everybody to participate, and has resonated with the country. So I have a front row seat every year to this amazing outpouring of good deeds that take every kind of form you can imagine. And that can be in a self directed way, an individual choosing to visit a nursing home and just donating something or spending an hour with an elderly person who doesn't get visitors very often or 1,000 other examples, or as part of an organized effort that your faith based group, your local sports team, your municipality, your college, your grade school, may be doing, a local nonprofit, may be doing that you can join up with. So there's support for the troops, there are hunger initiatives, which we're very engaged in.Jay Winuk (36:26):There are all kinds of donation programs, they're park and beach cleanups. They're donation of clothes. It just really goes on and on. It's extraordinary initiative. And during the pandemic last year, so much moved to virtual, including what we do as an organization. And even that was so robust. I mean, we couldn't even keep up with the traffic on our website, because we had established kind of 9/11 day at home, where people do engage in servers from the safety of their home, from their phones or laptops or desktops, by providing all these ways that you could engage in service simply by clicking here and there. And that was extraordinarily successful. People's want to do. They want to do. If they know about 9/11 being a day of service, they want to do it. So to answer your question in a shorter way, if you pick 1,000 people, you're going to find 1,000 different good deeds. It's really something to witness.Jay Ruderman (37:30):So how do you think 9/11 Day is going to shape future generations? Those of us who are listening who were not alive at that time, what impact will it have on them going forward?Jay Winuk (37:45):From day one, this is what we were thinking about Jay, because we knew that some point, those of us who lived through 9,11 are just not going to be here. So what do we want future generations to learn about the day? Our feeling was that if they just learned about the attacks, we have lost an opportunity, and maybe the terrorists win a little bit more, if that's all that people remember about the way we were knocked down. More important is the way we responded, the way we came together, the way Americans and the world got back on our feet. When I say the world, I mean, people for more than 90 countries were killed on that day.Jay Winuk (38:32):And so it's really important that future generations who did not live through this really understand the way that people came together and now we all have an opportunity and an obligation, if you can, to make the world a little bit better for other people, not just on this day, but this is a day where we can shine a spotlight on it. But we're working very hard ... 30 million people participate in 9/11 Day, that's great. But it's a 10th of the country, and so we have a lot of work to do, even right here in this country, to say nothing of internationally. And so there's a lot of work still to be done to really establish this as a ritual that is not going to go away long after you and I and everybody else listening to this is gone. It's a real goal.Jay Ruderman (39:29):So September 11th, 2021, is 20 years since the attacks. What is the day look like this year with this significant milestone?Jay Winuk (39:45):Anniversaries are a tricky thing. I'm still on the public relations business even after all these years and clients go through anniversaries and they're like, well, we have a big anniversary coming up. It's going to be great. It's only great if you use the anniversary as a way to shine a spotlight on something that is forward looking, not just looking back. And this is a moment in history, this 20th anniversary, that I think is really significant, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is this pandemic. We have a National Day of Service, as we are still reeling from this pandemic, and people are really hurting coming out of it, economically, health wise, hunger wise, how they do their jobs moving forward in terms of employment. There's so many issues coming out of this pandemic that in some ways the 20th anniversary has such potential to make a difference. And so we're very focused on that.Jay Winuk (40:54):But I think that in terms of, let's say, news coverage, for example, like at the 10th anniversary of 9/11, which was a real, real major news story, I think the 20th is going to be too, I know it is going to be, just in terms of contact that we and so many others that I know have been in touch with so many media about this, not only nationally, but internationally. But it's an opportunity. This 20th anniversary is an opportunity to really reassess what we have learned in the 20 years since and what we need to do as a nation going forward. So I really hope that people are going to pay attention to this and really focus on, what do we need to do to make the world better together, because things are really tough for a lot of people right now and there is a great deal of divisiveness that is destructive, not constructive. 9/11 is a day to come together.Jay Ruderman (41:55):I think it's such an important point. I mean, we live in such a divisive time in American history, we've lived two other divisive times, but certainly now we seem to be at each other's throats, and if a day like this can really bring us together, which I think it can, it's so vitally important. How do you think you, 20 years on, are going to spend this day yourself? Have you thought about that?Jay Winuk (42:26):Well, I know how I'll spend the day. In some ways, it's a frustrating day because there are about 10 places I'd like to be, not the least of which is in Jericho at a park down the street from where Glenn and I and my older brother Jeff grew up, that's named in Glenn's honor now. And his fire department every year does a ceremony at the Jericho firehouse and then they do a procession to the park and have a ceremony there. And it's a great frustration for me because I can't be there. I'm in New York City every year on 9/11. I go to the memorial service at Ground Zero. I'm actively engaged in staging, each year a major volunteer project, which we do every year or more the intrepid where we bring thousands of volunteers during the course of the day, to come together and pack more than a million meals, non perishable meals that are then donated to food banks in New York, to distribute it to people who need, and by the way we do that in cities all over the country, these large scale meal packs on 9/11 as one way. That's just one way for people to engage in service, but these initiatives really make a difference.Jay Winuk (43:41):So that tends to be pretty busy day for me. We've had the honor of ringing the bell at the stock exchange for the last seven or eight years to shine a spotlight on how the financial community was hit so hard when 9/11 happened. There's a lot that goes on each year on 9/11. It's a very busy day for me, but I try to also take some personal time, and that's usually at the end of the day, it could be two o'clock in the morning, but I always wind up at the firefighters Memorial wall, which is positioned along ancient 10 [inaudible 00:44:23] Ten House, a little firehouse opposite Ground Zero, which is dedicated in not only in Glenn's honor, but of course in honor of the 343 FDNY fire members who perished, and to all firefighters. Glenn's firm Holland & Knight raised all the money for that firefighters Memorial wall and there's a plaque there for him. And so no matter what's happened during the day, I wind up there, and as I say it could be 2:00 in the morning and there are people crowded around this magnificent bronze memorial to firefighters everywhere and that's when I take a few minutes personally to especially think about Glenn and what he did just steps away.Jay Ruderman (45:08):Well, Jay, I really want to thank you for joining us today and spending the time. Again, my condolences for your loss, my condolences to all of the families who have lost victims have this day of 9/11. And your brother is a hero, who should be remembered along with others. And you yourself have changed the way Americans are observing and reacting to this day. So you deserve a lot of credit yourself. I know it's probably a role that you don't cherish, but I want to thank you for your service to our country, and it's been such an honor having you as my guest on All Inclusive.Jay Winuk (45:51):Jay, you're very kind to say that. I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and your audience. For those who are interested in learning more or interested in participating in the observance, they could go to 911day.org. There's lots of information there. We're going to be launching a new website soon with even more information. We have a great education program that goes on in the schools and there's so much information there. It's a really robust observance. So if anybody wants to find out more, 911day.org is the place to go. But thank you very much. It's been my pleasure to speak with you.Jay Ruderman (46:30):Thank you. And I'm going to urge my listeners to go to 911.org. And I have four children who were born after September 11, 2001, and I certainly want them to understand what happened here and to give something back. So thank you. I urge everyone to check out the website and find out how you can help remember this day and do something positive in remembrance of those whose lives were lost. So thank you so much Jay.Jay Winuk (47:01):All right. Take care. Good to speak with you.Speaker 1 (47:07):All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify, and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast, be sure to tweet at Jay Ruderman.

Speaker 1: All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice, with Jay Ruderman.Jay Ruderman: Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. Since 1937 almost 2,000 people have tried to take their own life by jumping [00:00:30] from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. On September 24, 2000 one of those attempts was a 19 year old Kevin Hines. A couple years prior, Kevin had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was dealing with serious sycosis at the time of his suicide attempt. He could not stop listening to voices inside his head that told him to take his own life. Miraculously he survived the 220' [00:01:00] jump thanks to a series of contributing factors which included a sea lion keeping him afloat until the Coast Guard arrived. Kevin is now a mental health activist and best selling author who travels the world telling a story of hope, healing and recovery. Kevin, welcome to All Inclusive.Kevin Hines: Thank you for having me, Jay. Glad to be here.Jay Ruderman: So let's start on the day that you thought was going to be the end of your life. Tell me about [00:01:30] your thoughts on the morning of September 24, 2000, right before you took the bus to go to the Golden Gate Bridge.Kevin Hines: Well, that morning, I believed I was useless. I felt I had no value and I thought I had to die. I thought that suicide was my only answer. I was wrong, but I couldn't see it. And it led me to a devastating place. [00:02:00] I was in what I termed to be lethal emotional pain and that pain was so overwhelming I wanted that pain to end. I always ask people, what is that you want to happen when you find yourself in excruciating physical pain, what do you want that pain to do? And the overwhelming answer is, stop, go away or end. And that's the same for brain pain, and that's what led me to the Golden Gate Bridge in an attempt to take my life. I was living with severe bipolar disorder [00:02:30] and I thought that that was my only option and I wish I knew back then what I know today, that I was wrong.Jay Ruderman: So just for those listeners who may not know what bipolar disorder is, can you just give us a few words of what it is and how it affected you?Kevin Hines: Sure.Jay Ruderman: Or how it does continue to effect you.Kevin Hines: Absolutely. And it does. So think of sky rocketing manic euphoric natural highs, and then once you go up, you must come [00:03:00] down. So coming crashing down into this dark abyss of depression and pain. That was and is sometimes the norm for me. Bipolar disorder is a mood disorder, a brain imbalance where you have manic highs and depressive lows, but when you have psychotic features with bipolar disorder, like me, you're type one, you also have hallucinations, auditory and visual, panic attacks, and paranoid [00:03:30] delusions. And so I was dealing with all of this simultaneously before I went to the Golden Gate Bridge to try to take my life. And it was just completely mind numbing. And it all combined let me to the GGB to try to take my life.Jay Ruderman: So tell me about the bus ride over there. You deliberately got on a bus. You wrote a suicide note to [00:04:00] your family and loved ones. Tell me about the ride and what you were thinking at the time.Kevin Hines: It was on that bus that I became what suicidologists, the people that study suicide prevention, call ambivalent. I desperately wanted to live, but I believed I had to die, and those are two categorically different things. And on that bus ride I said to myself in my head, if one person says, "Hey kid, are you okay? [00:04:30] Brother is something wrong? How can I help you," or a variation of the three, I would have told them everything and begged them to save me.But instead on that bus, as I cried profusely, as I yelled allowed on a crowded bus filled with people about my inner pain, the only person to react to me was a man to my left who said to the man next to him, "what the hell's wrong with that kid," with a smile on his face. Complete apathy. And [00:05:00] this is actually very common, this is then scenario with suicide ideation or suicide attempts, is one person says or does this I will. If one person says or does this, I won't die today. And my reaction was that. If one person says are you okay, I would have told them everything and pleaded with them to save me.Jay Ruderman: So I know we're going to talk about the details of what happened in your attempted suicide and [00:05:30] let's just maybe stop for a second, because I know this can be triggering for people that are listening that maybe thinking about suicide. What would you say to them regarding where they are right now and what they can do to get help?Kevin Hines: I would say that whatever you're going through right now. Whatever you're dealing with, and if you have suicide ideations, stop. Take a breath. Take [00:06:00] another breath. Pause for a moment and recognize that we're all going to pass away some day. None of us are immortal. Give yourself time, plus hard work for things to change. I have now lived 20 years past my suicide attempt, never again attempting to take my life by working around some tools and techniques for better brain mind behavior, mental health and physical health and well-being. [00:06:30] If you work hard with your mental health you can survive mental pain, and suicide never has to be the solution to your problem because it is the problem. So if you recognize that and you find yourself to be self-aware with your struggle, you can always survive that struggle. It's a matter of perspective and perception. And so I work really hard with educating myself as to my diagnosis, exercising [00:07:00] every day, eating healthy foods, using coping strategies, using various forms of treatment and therapy and treatment, [inaudible 00:07:09] proven forms of therapy and treatment.I put together a 10 step plan of better brain health, better brain well-being and I do it every day and it keeps me here. I live with regular thoughts of suicide, yet I've never again attempted to take my life because of these techniques. And it's something that are science [00:07:30] backed, evidence informed, proven tools for better brain health and I really built it myself for myself and I shared it with the world. You can find my plan on YouTube.com/KevinHines, under a video called the Art of Wellness 2.0. And it can help you stabilize your wellness. And it's helping thousands of people around the world from as far as Peru, Africa, China, Japan, all across Europe and Canada. [00:08:00] I wanted to help people on your show Jay, because it's something that we can all strive for. If we're struggling, we can defeat that struggle one day at a time. You don't have to think about the future, you don't have to dwell on the past. You have to focus on right here, right now and the being here tomorrow.Jay Ruderman: So I think one thing I grew up with the term of someone committed suicide, but I think it's accepted [00:08:30] now to say someone died by suicide. That suicide is not something that you're intentionally making a decision to do, that it is sort of controlling you. That-Kevin Hines: Yep, it compels you. You're compelled to take your life by voices in your head or mental struggle or trauma. And the reality is, staying committed is like someone's committing a crime [00:09:00] or adultery or something. It's just an old hat way of saying it. Died by suicide, just like someone would die of any other organ disease is the right way to say it. And language does matter. It does matter. So we say died by suicide now because it's just a way to respect the person that passed and the people that have thought of attempting and let them know that they're not alone. That they're survivorship [00:09:30] matters and that they matter.Jay Ruderman: ... So if someone desperately needs help and they're listening to this, there is a national suicide hotline. The number is 1-800-273-8255. They can always reach out to the national suicide hotline. I understand from you there's another method that may be quicker that people can also reach out to if they're in a [00:10:00] place where they're thinking about suicide.Kevin Hines: Yes. You can text right now C-N-Q-R to 741741. And that CNQR stands for something. It stands for courage to talk about your mental health. N stands for normalize the conversation of it. Q stands for ask the questions, are you thinking of killing yourself, have you made plans to take your life and do you have the means? Because that doesn't put the thought in someone's mind, it gives them permission to speak on their pain [00:10:30] and a pain shared is a pain halved. And R stands for recovery, living proof. So CNQR to 7471741, the crisis text line. Someone will be with you in seconds and you will get the help you need to stay here. We've had active rescues from all around the country that CNQR key word is something we came up with as part of our concur collective.Jay Ruderman: So let's get into September [00:11:00] 24th. You talked about taking the bus ride and crying profusely and no one really paying attention. And just as a human being living in our society in today's age, I think people are just in their own worlds and they're not really attuned to those around them, especially people that need help. They're sort of avoiding those types of conversations, which is unfortunate, but that's something you [00:11:30] experienced and that was something you were looking for. I remember an article where you talked about getting to the Golden Gate Bridge and looking for people and walking up and down and looking for people to stop you, and even a woman who asked to take pictures, which you thought was a little bizarre. But I guess you got to the point where no one really stopped and asked are you okay.Kevin Hines: Yeah, [00:12:00] besides on that bus, being on the walkway to the Golden Gate Bridge, a woman asked me to take her picture with her camera. Several times I did and she walked away and it was at that moment I though, nobody cared. And you see that was the furthest thing from the truth, Jay. Everybody cared. Every member of my family, everyone of my friends, my acquaintances would have been there to tear me from that rail to safety, because of how much they cared. My brain wasn't allowing me to care. My brain was trying to kill me as I desperately tried to cling to life. [00:12:30] And like you said earlier, it wasn't a decision. It wasn't like I decided to go take my life like I would decide to have this cup of tea. It was a compulsion.I felt I had to die. And that feeling is so overwhelming when it happens. So it's so back breaking, no pun intended, because I did break my back off the Golden Gate Bridge, but it was terrible. [00:13:00] I just wish, I wish I had the ability that day to tell my father that morning what I was truly feeling. The one thing that's come out of this, Jay, that's been positive is that today when I become suicidal, the first thing I do is tell anyone around me what's going on so that they can help keep me safe. And that's usually my wife now. Sometimes it's my father or my friends, [00:13:30] but usually my wife. And we assess. Is this an acute suicide ideation. Is this something I need to go to the hospital for, or is this just something where I need to talk my way out of it until I feel better. And usually it's the latter right now. And I get to a safe place.Jay Ruderman: So you're on the Golden Gate Bridge. Your hands [00:14:00] are on the rail. You vault yourself over the rail, what were your thoughts in that second, millisecond as soon as your hands left the rail?Kevin Hines: In that millisecond my thoughts were these, "What have I just done? I don't want to die. God please save me." I had an instantaneous regret from my action and it's 100% recognition, I just made the greatest mistake of my life, it was too late. [00:14:30] And as I fell, I thought, "This is it. This is where I go." I hit the water. I shattered my T12, L1, L2 lower vertebrae into shards like glass. I missed severing my spinal cord by two millimeters. I went down 70 feet beneath the water's surface. I opened my eyes. I swam toward the surface. I got closer and closer to the lit circle of water above me and I thought, "I'm not going to make it and this is where I go." [00:15:00] And that's when I said to myself, "Kevin you can't die here. If you die here, no one will ever know you didn't want to. No one will ever know you knew you made a mistake."I broke the surface of the water, bopped up and down in it and I prayed, God please save me. I don't want to die. I made a mistake, on repeat and he heard me. At that moment something began to circle beneath me. Something large and very slimy and very very alive. [00:15:30] I'm like, "You've got to be kidding me." I didn't die jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge and a shark is going to eat me. But it turned out it was no shark, it was in fact a sea lion and it was keeping me afloat until the Coast Guard boat arrived behind me. The Coast Guard boat arrived, the sea lion takes off. These officers pull me onto a flat board, put me in a neck brace and start asking questions, and that's how my life was physically saved from the waters.And then in the hospital, one of the foremost back surgeons [00:16:00] on the West Coast, who wasn't supposed to be there that day happened to stay to do my surgery, the first and only of this particular kind, he invented it for me, saved me the ability to stand, walk, and run. Of the 39 Golden Gate Bridge jump survivors, and there's only 39 in the last 85 years of that bridge being opened, whereas nearly 3,000 or higher, people have died there. The highest point for suicide in the world. Of the 39 that have survived only five of us get to stand, walk, and run. [00:16:30] They call us the most exclusive survivors club in the world. There's a book in the same name about our story. So when I say it get to be here, I really do.Jay Ruderman: And what is it about the Golden Gate Bridge? I mean, so many thousands of people have taken their lives there. Is it the height? Is it the accessibility? I mean, why did you choose that location?Kevin Hines: People choose the Golden Gate Bridge because of an ease of access to lethal means. [00:17:00] It's a four foot rail, it's simple. If you're tall enough, you can fall over. It's not because it's a beautiful view. It's not because it's a fantastic bridge. It's because it's easy. And one of the things we're doing right now, that we've fought for the last 20 years is raising a net at the Golden Gate Bridge. My father founded the Bridge Rail Foundation in 2006 after the film The Bridge came out, by Eric Steel. [00:17:30] And we have legislatively fought for the nets to be put in place and right now they're being constructed and as of 2023 when the nets are finished, not one more beautiful soul will ever again die off the Golden Gate Bridge and it will then become the largest and brightest beacon for suicide prevention all around the world.Jay Ruderman: That's beautiful and thank you for your role in that. Your story is really miraculous. There are so many things that happened from [00:18:00] you not hitting the water head on, to being able to come to the surface, to a sea lion floating beneath you. And I know there's been many stories of sea mammals helping humans in distress, but as I understand, you didn't understand it was a sea lion at that time. It was only later that you found out that it was a sea lion, because someone had taken a picture.Kevin Hines: Yeah, so [00:18:30] I truly thought it was a shark and I was literally punching it, but it wouldn't go away. And it's just bumping me up. And no longer am I wading in the water, I'm lying on top of it being kept buoyant by this creature. Having it circle around underneath me. And I was on a television program a year later promoting a suicide prevention campaign in San Francisco and man named Morgan wrote into the show and said, "Kevin, I'm so very glad you're alive. I was standing less than two feet [00:19:00] away from you when you jumped. It's haunted me until today. By the way, there was no shark like you mentioned on the show, but there was a sea lion that people above looking down, believed it to be keeping your body afloat until the Coast Guard boat arrived behind you."Jay Ruderman: Do you remember when you were picked up by the Coast Guard, which I think was also a miracle, because a woman immediately called the Coast Guard when you were in the water.Kevin Hines: Yes. A woman who saw me go over the rail at the moment of my attempt, had a car phone, not a cell phone, a car phone [00:19:30] and called her friend in the Coast Guard. And the reason the Coast Guard got to my position within less that the time that I would set in hypothermia and drown was because of that woman's phone call.Jay Ruderman: And do you remember what that Coast Guard officer said to you?Kevin Hines: Yes. There were several officers on the boat that pulled me out of the water and one of them said, "Kid, do you know what you just did?" And I said, "Yeah, I just jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge." I was fully conscious and aware. And they said, "Why?" And had no reasonable answer. I said, "I don't know, I thought I had to die today." And the officer leaned in and said, "Son, [00:20:00] do understand how many people we pull out of these waters that are already dead?" And I said, "No, and I don't want to know." And he said, "I'm going to tell you anyway." He said, "Young man, this unit alone has pulled out 26 dead bodies from these waters and one live one, you." And that gave me a great deal of perspective.Jay Ruderman: Do you consider yourself a religious person, Kevin?Kevin Hines: I am a religious person. I'm a Catholic. I've been a Catholic my whole life. The only time I lost my faith in God was when I lept [00:20:30] off that bridge, but I always say, no pun intended, I found him on the way down.Jay Ruderman: Right. Right. And you must see everything that happened to you and your survival and becoming a spokesman for suicide prevention to have some sort of divine intervention in your life.Kevin Hines: Personally I feel that I do have that, and that's my prerogative. I've always felt that way. I don't push that on anybody. There's people that don't believe, that's fine. [00:21:00] But this is something that all the things came into play to save my life. It wasn't just one sequence, it was the woman's phone call, it was the sea lion, it was the Coast Guard, it was the doctor at the hospital staying for as long as he did and doing my surgery. Had all those miracles not occurred, my life would be a lot different or I wouldn't exist.Jay Ruderman: Can you tell me what it was like seeing your dad? I mean, he was the first person [00:21:30] to show up at the hospital from your family, and what that was like?Kevin Hines: It was so rough, because my father is arguably the man that loves me the most in the entire world. And he was devastated. And this is a man who in 19 years of knowing him up to that point ... I was 19 when I jumped ... I'd never seen the man cry. Not a teardrop from his eye, not a hard time, [00:22:00] not a visible struggle from his face. A tough sunset Irishman. He and Debbie Hines adopted me and made me their son. He was just the toughest SOB I ever knew. Like the drill sergeant who was never in the military, that kind of guy. And he walks into my room and I remember looking up at him in my bracing structure that was keeping me together and he looked down at me and he goes, " [00:22:30] Kevin, I'm sorry." I said, "No dad, I'm sorry." And waterfalls just pouring from his eyes. It just poured from his eyes. And that was really difficult for both of us, because he wasn't one to every show emotion.Jay Ruderman: Kevin, many of us, I have four teenagers and we worry about them every single day. And with social media and what's out there on [00:23:00] the internet and so much time alone on their phones, I worry about my kids all the time. And I'm sure there are many listeners have relatives and they're like, "Yeah, I'm just, I'm worried." And what do you do? What are the steps we need to take to make sure ... I mean, because if a child of mine doesn't feel well, has a stomach ache, breaks a bone or whatever, I'm going to take him to the hospital. There's so much stigma [00:23:30] around the issue of mental health. What do you do? You think someone's just not right, I mean, what's your advice?Kevin Hines: Yeah. So for parents all around the world, you need to ask the questions. You need to be the type of parent that digs deep and asks the hard questions. You need to start off with, "Hey guys, let's all have a conversation at the dinner table and let's be honest about what we're going through. First of all, have you guys dealt with any students [00:24:00] at your school or in your experience that have suicidal ideation? Have you ever had thoughts of killing yourself yourselves? Have you ever made plans to take your life? Do you have the means?" Ask those direct questions. They don't put the thought in someone's mind. They give them permission to speak on their pain. As I said before, a pain shared is a pain halved.The fact is that more people give truthful answers to the question are you thinking of killing yourself, then the question are you thinking of suicide, because of the taboo on the word suicide. The crisis [00:24:30] text line algorithm has determined that. It's fascinating that language really does matter. Just like when we say died by suicide versus commit. And the reality is, if you're willing as a parent to have that open ended conversation, but with a lack of judgment afterwards, whatever the answer may be, and with a lack of anger afterwards, whatever the answer may be. And an understanding and an empathetic tone and kind [00:25:00] eyes and saying, "Look, we care about you so much. We love you so much, unconditionally so, and we want to make sure you're safe every day." And so many people around the world are taking their lives. More young African-American children ages five and up are taking their lives than ever before in this country. It's terrifying. So we need to be able to ask our kids, no matter what age they are, about these questions so they're aware of it.I was just in Massachusetts with my God children and one [00:25:30] of them who's 10 has a student in his class who's currently suicidal and he doesn't know what to do. And so we talked about that and we had an open conversation. And one of them, is six, and we had a conversation with her about what this means. And you know what, it was terrifying to know that she understand what we were saying. So they're capable. They're intelligent. They're aware. We have to have the conversation.Jay Ruderman: [00:26:00] Well, I would say that one of the things that people talk about, and I'm very interested in your journey of mental health recovery, but it's often said that people that are considering suicide that you never know. And from what I have read and understand about you, that you grew up in a loving family, and did they have any inclination that this was going through your head? That this was a thought process that you were [00:26:30] going through?Kevin Hines: No. But to be fair, they didn't know because I hid it from them. But all the more reason parents need to ask the questions. Nobody taught Pat and Debbie Hines suicide prevention techniques. No one taught Pat and Debbie Hines to ask the questions at a young age. No one taught Pat and Debbie Hines about mental health and well-being. So how could they know what to ask. I was in treatment, I was seeing a psychiatrist. I was on medications. [00:27:00] They didn't know the medications were toxifying in my system making me worse because I was on too many meds at one time, which is not indicative to psychiatry or the field of medicine.Psychiatry and the field of medicine have helped save my life for 20 years. But this particular regimen of pills was affecting me in a negative way. We didn't learn that out til later of course, after my attempt. But now we have the education. Now more people than ever before are talking about mental health. Now it's, I mean, look, it's even on the Olympic [00:27:30] stage. You've got Olympic athletes and even tennis players talking about their mental health. Michael Phelps talking about his mental health. And we need to respect people who take a step back to take care of their mental health and well-being because of their personal mental health struggles.And I think there's a lot of ... We call it stigma when someone is against those, those mental health crises, but the reality is we don't call bigotry [00:28:00] and hatred and prejudice stigma. We call it bigotry and hatred and prejudice. Let's call what's going on with those with mental illness exactly what it is, marginalization and discrimination against them because of their brain pain. And let's help them be vocal about their struggle and understand what they're going through and empathize and lack in any judgment for them.Jay Ruderman: So maybe you can get in a little bit about your mental health process and how you went from being [00:28:30] the aftermath of being the Golden Gate Bridge to recovering. Or being able to deal with on a day to day basis your mental health.Kevin Hines: Absolutely. And the reality is, is that I live in recovery every single day. So it really is a process. It's something that I'm working on, on a regular basis. And it's not something that comes necessarily [00:29:00] easy. It's something that I fight for. And so this is ... I want to tell you about my 10 step routine to better brain health, and it's together I put together years ago. It includes therapy and that's sight therapy or talk therapy or teletherapy. Music therapy, art therapy, blue wave light box technology therapy and breathing therapy. Resonance breathing therapy. Inhaling through my nose [00:29:30] four seconds, holding for four seconds, and releasing eight seconds, pursed lips like a whistle, but now sound. And doing that 30 times in the morning, 30 times in the afternoon, 30 times at night. Or whenever I'm having a panic attack, anxiety attack or stress issue.Then the next step is proper nutrition. And that's eating non-inflammatory foods more often than inflammatory foods. Foods that are filled with proper nutrients and minerals that you need to feed your brain. And your gut to brain health is very important, so feeding your gut [00:30:00] good healthy foods, because your gut is chemistry is directly connected to your brain chemistry is really important. It's a symbiotic relationship and one can't survive without the other. And if you're eating poorly, you're going to be damaging the functionality of your brain. Going forward from there, is exercise. I exercise three days a week. I'm going to be umping that to five or six days a week pretty soon. Getting back in the fighting shape I was a [00:30:30] few years ago. Exercise is a very helpful tool for my better brain health. If you're physically capable, get down to the ground and get to work, because it can benefit you immensely. 23 minutes of rigorous exercise leads to 12 hours of better mood.Sleep is really important if you have the ability to get seven, eight hours of sleep a night. I sleep that much and I sleep well. My sleep functionality is really important. If I'm doing that, I'm stabilizing my brain health in a great way. [00:31:00] And these are just a few of the things I do to stabilize. Education, this one's a really important one. It's a two parter. Educating myself as to my diagnosis and then educating my family and friends as to my struggles so that they understand me and can get my back instead of wondering what's wrong with me or having me snap out of it or get over it or move on, or pull myself up by bootstraps. They understand that this is a very real diagnosis. This is very legitimate and I need to get treatment for it so I can be better.[00:31:30] Then I take medication every day with 100% accuracy. That's very helpful. I meditate. Don't need to go into the details there, but meditation is an act of training the mind that increases awareness. And different mediation params obviously approach that in different ways. This reduces the activity in the brain's me center. And it really is something that can help you balance out your life. And then I advocate. I advocate for myself and my mental well-being with my doctors. And [00:32:00] I do policy advocacy as well. So two types of advocacy there. And then I have coping strategies and mechanisms like grounding techniques, socializing with family and friends, spending time with a pet, like an emotional support animal, which I used to have. Time with myself, alone time. Using humor to deflect the pain. Finding spirituality and faith that helps me stay stable. All these things are things I can do to stabilize.And [00:32:30] then what I did was I created a mental health emergency plan and I opted in peer support protectors, or what I call personal protectors into my plan and that's about five or six people that all have my doctor's information and I have release forms signed to usurp HIPA privacy laws. And that means that when they call my doctor and say, "How's Kevin in treatment?" They get the truthful answer and the whole answer, so that they can best serve me and help keep me safe. There are things people do, there's [00:33:00] some great resources that we have for folks, and I'd love to share them with your audience if that's okay.Jay Ruderman: Sure.Kevin Hines: So a couple of things. I mentioned it earlier, the YouTube.com/KevinHines has 500 plus videos all to help your brain, mind, behavior, mental and physical health and well-being. They are dedicated to helping people stay here. People from all around the world write to say that these videos save their lives. We don't own that, we just put the message out there. [00:33:30] We're conduits and the videos do the work they do. We have a website called kevinhinesstory.com/resources. And this has the 10 step guide to better brain health. And you can train with that PowerPoint. And then there's a parent's guide to teen suicide prevention. And then there's a guide to the YouTube channel on what videos help what person with what mental struggle. So there's three resources there.And then there's my new book, [00:34:00] The Third Rail: In My Mania, I Became. And you can find that at the3rdrailbook.com. And that's the and then the number three R-D, spelled out. And then that book is the story of a man named Jesse Cohen and it's written by Jesse Cohen and myself. And Jesse Cohen was a Tulane law student in his 20s in the height of the organized crime era in the 1990s in New Orleans. And he in his mania [00:34:30] became a vigilante. He was if you will, like Batman. He would go out in a black suit, black tie and black shirt and he was stop crimes listening to police scanners and he was taught Krav Maga by a Vietnam War veteran and he went out and he took criminals to task and then left them for the police.And in his mania, it just led him to do this to be this wielder of justice. But the story is absolutely phenomenal. It's a rollercoaster [00:35:00] of a ride. It's a pretty intense book. But the message is clear, stay alive from suicide ideation and keep fighting the pain. Jesse tragically lot his life to depression and suicide, but he left this legacy with this book. And it's already helped people stay alive. We've gotten messages from folks saying that this book saved their life. And that was the purpose of writing the book. And it's written in Jesse's first person and it is powerful. And [00:35:30] it's a message that is quite clear. So those are our resources. We want them to help people stay here. We want them to help people fight their pain. We want them to help people recognize their true value and that suicide is never the answer.Jay Ruderman: Well, Kevin, it sounds like you've done a tremendous amount of work not only for yourself, but for others, and to give people the techniques in order to walk themselves through this journey. I can tell you personally that I really identify [00:36:00] with working out and eating right and keeping yourself healthy. And I advocate for that, because I think that makes you feel good. So I get where you're coming from there. Let's talk about when you were 17 and first diagnosed. And tell me about the resources you had at home and in school, and were they adequate at the time?Kevin Hines: Being first [00:36:30] diagnosed with bipolar disorder, there weren't many resources, certainly not at school. There was a good counselor that I had at school, Mr. Marty Procaccio and Mr. Vitardio Anastacio. They were great. They were really helpful and kind to me. But there weren't places I could learn about my struggle. One of the things that happened later on is that I went to the family class at NAMI, [00:37:00] National Alliance on Mental Illness with my father and we learned about depression together, and that was helpful. My psychiatrist was helpful, but he turned out to be on methamphetamines the entire time he treated me and his other patients. He needed help and he wasn't getting it and he would end up taking his life years later. We wouldn't learn about his struggles until five years after we I started seeing him.But my parents certainly [00:37:30] didn't have the resources that are out there today. And there are plentiful resources out there today. Every time you turn around there's a new mental health advocate popping up on Instagram or one of the social medias. But really you need to do your research and carefully find out who are the leading authorities in mental health and well-being so that you get the best information possible and the best tools [00:38:00] to fight your pain and to help your children, or help your loved ones who are struggling.Jay Ruderman: So I have a personal question, and this is just something that I've been dealing with for a while. I have a very good friend, he's obviously going through some psychosis. I've talked to him over and over again, tried to get him help, tried to offer to set up help for him, and he's in a place now where he's like, "Nope, I'm fine." But when you listen to him, [00:38:30] what he's saying does not make sense to ... He's not talking in reality. So how do you get through to a person like that who says he's obviously going through something, but completely denies that there's something going on?Kevin Hines: So if for folks in denial it's a tricky situation. But one of the things that seems to work is this thing called the Caring Letters. [00:39:00] You would be sent regular caring letters that said, "Hey, thinking about you. Wishing you well. How are you feeling in treatment? Is there anything you need from us? How can we help you?" These caring letters turned into caring letters and caring packages. The caring packages would be a whole bunch of things that the person loves in a package, plus four or five letters from four or five different people that love and care for this person, all of them including five things, a sentence about compassion, love for the person, lack of judgment, [00:39:30] total empathy, and all the signs symptoms and triggers and issues you are worried about with that person.So all those letter included those five things and what it did was, instead of going in one ear and out the other for the person, it ends up showing them rather than telling them they need help. So showing someone you need help rather than telling them, can be often much more effective than just speaking it. And so [00:40:00] this seems to be a very helpful tool for people in denial and for those who love them.Jay Ruderman: Let's talk about schools today. Are we doing a good enough job at de-stigmatizing mental health and providing the resources that people need?Kevin Hines: Some high schools and colleges are doing a great job doing that and some are not. I would say that there is a group of high school and college leaders that seem [00:40:30] to think that if you talk about it then it will get worse, which is not the case. If you talk about it, you will deduce who's in trouble and you'll get them to safety. And some folks just don't comprehend that. Some people in leadership of schools don't comprehend that. But there are some schools around the country and around the world that are really taking a first step, and have been taking the first steps into acclimating their student population into the mental [00:41:00] health foray. Basically saying, "We are going to cover this topic. We are going to talk about it all year round. And we are going to help benefit your mental health on a regular basis by doing these activities." And they're really making some great headway in keeping kids safe.There're some great programs out there that are doing those things. And there are some great advocates out there doing those things. My wife and I are some of them. We go out, we go to high schools and colleges all around [00:41:30] the world and we share stories of lived experience, not just from myself, but from some of our congra collective. And we help people who are in pain recognize their true value and get them to a safe place.Jay Ruderman: Can you tell me a little bit about the work that you and your wife are doing with the Kevin and Margaret Hines Foundation?Kevin Hines: Certainly. Well, what we're doing is, we're raising funds to give [00:42:00] scholarships to students and kids who want to be in the suicide prevention field. So we're getting them into conferences and events and things of that nature so they can learn and educate themselves about how to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. We're also raising funds to give to kids who otherwise couldn't afford teletherapy, so that they have free teletherapy [00:42:30] so that they can get that and be given treatment and time and help for their mental well-being.Jay Ruderman: So if someone doesn't have that readily available access to mental health counseling, that's the direction that you're going to send them in, that there are telemedicine, there are ways to connect to someone to talk about your mental health?Kevin Hines: Yeah, so you don't feel so alone and so siloed. So you feel like you have someone to [00:43:00] fall back on and so you can tell you pain and your struggle to someone who genuinely cares about your well-being and your future.Jay Ruderman: So what's the one piece of advice that you would tell a person right now who was thinking about taking his or her own life?Kevin Hines: You know what I would say to you is that you need to be more kind to yourself. Compassionate and forgiving of yourself. Suicide [00:43:30] is not the answer to your problem. It is the problem. You are a gift to this world. You are meant to be here until your natural end. And you can fight this pain and you can survive it. Pain is inevitable. But suffering is optional, it's a choice. If you recognize that if you call yourself a sufferer, you're becoming the victim of your own story. But if you say you're living with, fighting with, and battling and thriving despite of your diagnosis or struggle, you then become the hero of your own story. Fight [00:44:00] to become that hero. Recognize your true value and that suicide doesn't have to be your answer. It is the problem.Jay Ruderman: Thank you, Kevin. Again, if this was triggering for anyone, I want to again give the national suicide hotline, 1-800-273-8255. And Kevin, you have a text, where people can text?Kevin Hines: Yes. Text C-N-Q-R to 741741, the crisis text line. Courage to talk about [00:44:30] your mental health. Normalize the conversation. Ask those questions, are you thinking of killing yourself, have you made plans to take your life and do you have the means? And R for recovery, because I'm living proof.Jay Ruderman: Kevin, thank you so much for joining us today. It was a pleasure. I for certain learned a tremendous amount through your story and your life. I admire what you've made of your life and you should know that there are people out there that love you and I think everyone out there who has issues of mental health [00:45:00] should know that there are people, if you don't know the people, there are people that love you, and love is out there.Kevin Hines: Thank you very much, Jay, I really appreciate it.Jay Ruderman: Thank you. Be well.Kevin Hines: You too.

Rachel Sumekh (00:00):Because there's a difference between being a charity that just wants to make sure people get the basic thing that they need and the difference between being a systems change organization.Voiceover (00:12):All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.Jay Ruderman (00:22):Hi, I'm Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. Over 30% of college students are food insecure in America. These problems can arise because parents stop supporting once they enter college or some find themselves financially unprepared to meet their basic needs after paying for tuition. COVID-19 exacerbated the crisis, but a nonprofit organization called Swipe Out Hunger, founded by a group of friends at the University of California, Los Angeles, have been tirelessly working on this issue for over a decade now. Rachel Sumekh is the founder and CEO of the leading nonprofit in addressing hunger amongst college students. Her work has been recognized by the Obama White House, The New York Times, and landed her on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list. Rachel, welcome to All Inclusive.Rachel Sumekh (01:23):Thank you so much for having me, Jay. Excited to be able to get to know you and connect.Jay Ruderman (01:28):Great. Great. So let's start with Swipe Out Hunger. How did it originate and how did you come up with this idea?Rachel Sumekh (01:38):Swipe Out Hunger is a national nonprofit focused on ending college student hunger. And I was a student at UCLA many moons ago, about 10 years ago, when me and my friends saw how many of our peers were going hungry and surviving on this ramen noodle diet. And at the same time, we as students had meal swipes that you can go into the dining hall. If anyone has not been on a college dining hall recently, let me know. We'll get you in. There are bastions of amazing food. And we began to trade our meal swipes so that other students can go in the dining hall and get access to meals. And since then we've scaled this program with a university support where students can just donate their meal swipes to another student electronically, and we've grown that from UCLA to now 135 universities, and we have served 2 million meals today to students through dining hall trades.Jay Ruderman (02:34):So that's amazing. I also was on a meal plan even much before you, and I'm wondering how you got the university to agree to give the extra points to other students, because it seems like a moneymaker for them. Students sign up for these programs. They don't show up to every meal. The universities are still pocketing money. How did you get the universities to agree to do this?Rachel Sumekh (03:03):This is the million-dollar question, and the reason why we've been so successful, Jay, is because our movement is run by college students. So if I or you were to call... Where'd you go to undergrad?Jay Ruderman (03:15):I went to Brandeis.Rachel Sumekh (03:17):So if you were to call Brandeis, maybe you donate to Brandeis, so they will take your call. But if a normal person were to call Brandeis and say, "I want you to start this program," Brandeis doesn't have a responsibility to listen. But if a student at Brandeis calls their administrators and says, "I want to donate my meal swipes to my peers who are hungry," they have to take the call, take the meeting and have a meeting and decide, "Does this program fit for us?" So we've been successful because we train and empower and support college students to be the ones who make the ask from the university. And college students, if they are nothing else, they are angsty and passionate and committed, and so we've been able to be really successful by having students lead the way. So we support them in coming up with business models, financial models that don't disrupt the university's budget too much, that still helps us meet the need. And sometimes, we get creative and find alternative funding sources as well.Jay Ruderman (04:13):And so how did you expand from UCLA to college campuses across the country?Rachel Sumekh (04:21):So word of mouth, as anyone in movement spaces knows, is everything, but I'll tell you that the tipping point for us was in 2012. We got an email from the one and only President Barack Obama, or rather someone on his team, saying that he wanted to name us "Champions of Change," which is this award series that the Obama White House had. And he said, "In two weeks, come to DC and I'm going to honor you with an award as a champion of change." And we were able to... Obviously, the government did not pay for this. Don't worry, but we, as a team, fundraised over $10,000 to be able to fly out our entire team to DC, be acknowledged by President Obama, get the chance to meet him. And then the press that came from that was just incredible, and it led to, within one weekend, over 30 universities reaching out to us, students at over 30 universities reaching out and saying, "How do I get this program started on my school?" And it has just been a rocket ship since then.Jay Ruderman (05:24):So that really propelled the organization forward. That recognition by president Obama and being there for that recognition, that really took the organization to another level.Rachel Sumekh (05:36):Exactly. And I think I was 18 at the time, no, maybe 19, sitting in this room with maybe 50 people, my team that we've built this with and President Obama telling us that we've done something good. And at the same time, I was getting an email from my university saying, "Maybe this program should be put on pause. We've already made such an impact." So even though we'd been getting an award from the president, the university and their bureaucratic ways still wanted to find a way to shut us down and stop the program. And it was such a reinforcement point for us as young people that even if we're being told that we shouldn't be doing something, if we feel in our hearts that this thing needs to happen, that this needs to exist, and what better validation than the president of the United States telling you to keep going, it changed my understanding of power and authority and believing and trusting yourself at a young age.Jay Ruderman (06:36):Right. So I think that there's never an end to advocacy. There's always the next challenge and there's always the next obstacle to over overcome. So that rings true. Let me talk to you a little bit about the core issue of hunger on college campuses, because I don't know your situation personally, but many students have it pretty well. I mean, their parents are paying for their meal plan and they have abundance of food and whatever they want. They're even skipping meals because they don't like the food or they're not hungry, but there's also this other narrative that's going on about the hungry college student, the poor student, and this is a rite of passage and that it's normal for them to struggle and, like you said, eat ramen. Can you talk about these two realities and how they intersect on a college campus and maybe some of the misconceptions about food insecurity on college campuses?Rachel Sumekh (07:46):Thank you for this perfect framing, because it's so true that many people think of college students as privileged, as going to college as a privilege, when we know that a college degree is now the equivalent of a high school degree. Right? Everyone needs a degree to be getting a job more than $15 an hour, so they can go on and live the life that they want to. And yet, we live in a country where 30 million American school children, from kindergarten through 12th grade, get their primary meals at school. If they didn't get free breakfast and free lunch at their K through 12, they probably wouldn't have a good meal that day. And so those 30 million American students who are now going off whether it's across the street to their local community college, to a four-year school, and suddenly those meals and that support is no longer there, and yet their family's financial situation is probably the same, if not worse. Right now, they have to pay for someone else who's now going off to school.Rachel Sumekh (08:42):So our goal is to help de-stigmatize and bring awareness to the fact that college students need support. And in fact, they need support today because they're on a path where if we support them over these next two or four years, their lifetime earning can go up so high. And so why not support them to make sure they have the food to eat to graduate? When I think about students who have a meal plan and they enter into class and they've had a breakfast and lunch and they're fully focused, how does that person engage and perform versus a person that had a granola bar for lunch and thinks that that's adequate? So it's an equity issue, and it's an issue that a lot of universities have started to really take up. I'll ask a question back real quick. My favorite trivia question to ask, Jay, how many universities do you believe have their own college food pantries on them, a little food bank on campus?Jay Ruderman (09:40):Out of how many universities?Rachel Sumekh (09:41):There's a few... Let's say there's 2,000 four-year universities?Jay Ruderman (09:47):I would say a hundred.Rachel Sumekh (09:50):There are 800 colleges in the United States that have a food pantry on them, and some of them are robust enough to have a several hundred thousand-dollar budget and some have a $50 budget. But it's a sign that our universities are realizing that they need to be doing something.Jay Ruderman (10:09):So you seem wise beyond your years or when you started this. Where was this perception of inequity? I mean, you started this while you were in school. Tell us the story of how that came to you?Rachel Sumekh (10:29):Yeah. I mean, we were chatting just before this about the fact that I'm an Iranian Jew. My parents immigrated to the United States after around, my dad, before the revolution and my mom shortly after the revolution in Iran. And it was no longer a safe place or a very hospitable place for religious minorities, including Jews. And they built a new life in Los Angeles, and despite my dad having multiple degrees, we struggled as an immigrant family. My parents relied on programs like SNAP, what many people know as food stamps, for about two years. I received free breakfast and lunch at school during that time. And I saw how this program gave my parents the peace of mind to go off and achieve the American dream, for my dad to start his business, for my family to feel supported.Rachel Sumekh (11:18):And it just completely changed my understanding of our responsibility to one another as a society, that if a family just needs a little support to be able to go off and do what they want to do, what's in their hearts, then maybe I have the chance to do that for someone else. And every time a student is donating their meal swipes and another student is able to eat because of our program, I'm like, "Who knows what family we're helping?" Right? So one in four college students today are parenting students. One in four college students have kids at home. And so the responsibility of a meal goes beyond just helping that one person, but anything that I've learned and everything I am is because of my parents raising me with very good values and making sure that I don't have to experience the same struggle that they did.Jay Ruderman (12:07):So you mentioned 800 schools that have a pantry of some sort at the school. And obviously, Swipe Out Hunger is continuing on college campuses and having success, but maybe you can talk about what more schools can do to address this issue.Rachel Sumekh (12:29):I love that you're asking this question because we have to go beyond food pantries, right? We shouldn't be proud of how many more meals we served. It's a matter of how do we serve fewer meals every year? How do we actually solve this problem? And one of the things that universities can do is hire a full-time staff member whose job it is to support the basic needs of their students. Does the student have adequate transportation, or are they spending three hours a day each way getting to school? Does this person have childcare, or are they missing classes because they sometimes don't have reliable childcare? Does this person have safe and stable housing? Do they have wifi where they are, or are they living in the library, taking showers at the gym?Rachel Sumekh (13:12):So one really proactive and preventative, and the ROI on this is huge, right? The chance to be able to bring in a university staff member to ensure that students can graduate and the students that would have the largest impact on them. So bringing in a basic needs coordinator. The second... We can talk about policy, Swipe Out Hunger. I wrote a bill in 2017 that has since sent $70 million to college campuses to fund anti-hunger work on the school. So what about our states reinvesting in higher education the way we once used to? Our states have completely disinvested. Our federal government has disinvested. How do we make sure that our schools have the funds to be able to do this work?Jay Ruderman (13:59):So it sounds like you've had tremendous impact, but maybe you can talk a little bit... First of all, we live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, United States, that produces an abundance of food and in fact, exports a lot of food to other countries. How is it... And this is more of a general question. How is it that millions of people in America are going hungry?Rachel Sumekh (14:29):This is... We can start a whole new podcast about this topic. People in America are going hungry first and foremost, Jay, because we do not pay adequate wages in this country. Many people work full-time. They have more than one full-time job, and yet don't have enough money to be able to pay for groceries. Or because they have full-time job, they're not eligible for SNAP, which would still help them pay for grocery. So first and foremost, it starts with passing equitable and minimum wage laws and making sure that employees have their basic needs met. Secondly, we have a lot of food deserts and food apartheid in our communities where people don't have access to proper food. And the cost is inequitable.Rachel Sumekh (15:16):I live in Los Angeles where there's a stat about one-third, where in West LA, which is a pretty profitable... Think of Beverly Hills. The average grocery store rate compared to South LA, which is associated with communities like Inglewood and Compton, have a third of the grocery stores that West LA does. And then when you look at health outcomes, they have three times the rate of heart issues. They have three times the rate of diabetes. And you wonder why, right? It's a matter of how do we... And I'm a capitalist. I know you're a capitalist. There's an opportunity for our for-profit system to make some changes and still be win-win and provide people what they need to really thrive. I'm curious as to what you think. Why do you think that there's still hunger in the richest country in the world?Jay Ruderman (16:15):Well, I mean, I think that there's certain amount of inequality, racism. I mean, I'm in Boston. You can go from one section of Boston where there'll be an abundance of fresh fruits and vegetables and healthy food, and drive two miles down the road and find convenience stores where most of it is packaged food that is not the healthiest, and those are the options. And why are the bigger supermarkets that are offering healthy options not in those communities? I'm sure it's economics and just a tremendous amount of inequality. From an outsider's point of view, that's what I would say.Rachel Sumekh (17:10):Yeah. I think that the sad thing in inequalities are often making the changes needed to make something more equitable don't cost that much and wouldn't take that much effort, but it's a matter of the system being so massive. Our food system is huge, right? Thinking about growing things, transporting them, storing them, selling them that if you add any more cogs to that wheel, no one knows what's going to happen. So I think there's a lot of reluctance to change what already exists, and especially because it's so large. I think there's a huge opportunity we have with local agriculture, with local community gardens, which I know are not the savior here either, but a chance to get more local because the larger food system, I think, is really reluctant to change.Jay Ruderman (18:00):So I saw a video where your organization not only was helping students, but actually going out into the community, to people who are living on the streets and in shelters and providing them meals. And I remember a quote from one of the gentlemen that you provided food to saying, "Who are you? Why are you providing us this food?" And you said, "We're students." He's like, "I didn't think students cared about me." So talk about that part of your work, about how that program came about.Rachel Sumekh (18:35):Yeah. I mean, when we first got started... And if there are any young activists listening or old activists, anyone who wants to step into this work, it's such a journey, right? When we began, our name was Swipes for the Homeless, and that was because in our minds, we couldn't even differentiate between the issue of homelessness and hunger. We're like, "Hunger, homelessness, same problem, affects all the same people and needs the same solution." And so at the time, our first model was taking to go meals from our dining halls and handing them out to people in the community, like the gentleman. And it was mind blowing for me, as someone who hadn't interacted so much with people who are food insecure, to realize that all people needed to realize that we care was a sandwich, was someone just coming over and say, "Hey, how are you doing? Would you be interested in this?"Rachel Sumekh (19:28):And the power that a person feels when someone feels so seen and acknowledged because you spent 30 seconds with them, it just makes me feel like, "Why aren't we doing this all the time? Why aren't we finding ways to make people in our communities seen and heard?" And we evolved from serving the community to just serving college student hunger, because there's a difference between being a charity that just wants to make sure people get the basic thing that they need and the difference between being a systems change organization. We realized that we have the opportunity to actually end college student hunger, and I feel like my board is probably listening to this and saying, "Rachel, don't say you're going to end a huge problem." Right?Rachel Sumekh (20:11):But I truly do believe that we can pass enough legislation, we can encourage schools to start enough programs, to the point where we actually can end college student hunger. And so we chose, few years after launching, to pivot and only serve this issue to only bring attention to this issue. And we talked about 800 food pantries existing on college campuses. 10 years ago, that number was 12. We were on one campus. And to be able to see that because of the work of a lot of passionate students, we've been able to grow and actually change the conversation, makes us want to be really focused on one system. I want nonprofits to say "Mission accomplished" one day, like "We did this. We don't need to exist forever."Jay Ruderman (20:59):Right. So let me ask you. You've chosen... I mean, you graduated from UCLA. You chose to be an activist. You chose to have a positive impact on our social society, whereas I'm sure many of your fellow graduates went on to work in venture capital firms, law school, the entertainment industry, and really focused on making money. Talk to me about that journey of how you chose to be an activist and stayed as an activist and what does that give to you and how do you talk to your friends and colleagues who are like, "Yeah, why don't you just go out and get a job where you can make more money?"Rachel Sumekh (21:53):I mean, I heard that question said to me by many of my family members, many people I grew up with, and someone gave me the advice that had two questions. And it said... Actually three, technically. So the first one was, "Is there anywhere else in the world I'd be learning more about myself?" And working with Swipe Out Hunger, helping our movement grow, I was meeting people, fundraising. There's nowhere else in the world I'd be learning more about myself, especially when I started this as a 21 year old full-time. Second question was, "Is there anywhere else I'd be having more of an impact?" And there absolutely would not be. And the third was, "Am I able to put a roof over my head?" And I'm very fortunate that when I was getting started, my parents still had my bedroom somewhat intact. I was able to move back home and not have to worry about that for the first year or two, which was a huge privilege. So many people who want to start companies don't have the privilege of not worrying about rent.Rachel Sumekh (22:51):But I think for me, I believe that people need to have power to be successful and to make the change they believe in. I think money is a form of power. So while I did not go into venture capital or tech or real estate, I'm able to connect with people who have resources and bring them along this journey, have them join our team and leverage their capital to be able to make the change that we need in the world.Jay Ruderman (23:19):And obviously, based on your personality and your ability to put yourself out there and to be proactive, they're contributing to your work. Are you receiving the respect that you want to receive for what you're doing?Rachel Sumekh (23:39):I love that you asked this question, especially knowing your background as someone who's been a huge advocate for inclusion. I think that people feeling seen and respected and being treated with dignity is so essential, and as a young Iranian Jewish female who wears my hair big and curly and natural and it's who I am fully in every room I walk into, I absolutely have not been treated with respect all the time. Right? Especially when I was starting out and I wasn't on the Forbes list yet. And I wasn't super successful in metrics in the way people would define. Of course, that's changed significantly now. I think primarily because of those things, but also because I recognize that all those identities that I have were the biggest assets.Rachel Sumekh (24:28):Being Iranian made me the warmest person in the room. I would hug people. I'd smile. I make jokes. I asked about people's family members. I started to say like, "Why am I trying to act more white or mainstream? I should fully be myself because that's what these faces need." Same with being a woman, I'm allowed to smile all the time and be caring and who doesn't want to talk to someone who's smiling. And so I think a big part of it was owning those traits for myself while still being completely aware of what people will treat me like when my hair is straight versus curly or when I'm wearing my denim jacket or a nice suit. But I think that if we lived in a world where everyone was respected from the moment they walked into a room, it would be a much better place.Jay Ruderman (25:13):Can you tell us... I don't want to put you on the spot, but maybe a couple of stories, a positive and maybe a not so positive story about being engaged in activism, and one story that you're like, wow, this will keep you going, and another story where you're like, "Well, I really had to pull myself up from after this happened."Rachel Sumekh (25:34):I'm a really optimistic person, so I usually focus on the former, but of course, many of the latter have happened. I think the moments for me... Our entire movement is run by college students, and I remember when a few students at Spelman and Morehouse in Atlanta reached out and said, "We want to get a Swipe program started." We gave them our toolkits, had prep calls, walked them through the process, and they reached out to the university and the university said, "We're not going to entertain this program." They had other priorities happening and they weren't going to consider it. The next day, our students called us and said, "The school wasn't down, so we're going to go on a hunger strike." And I became a little terrified. What do you mean a hunger strike? He said, "We're going to have a press conference tomorrow. We're going to announce that we're going on a hunger strike until our administrations approve this program."Rachel Sumekh (26:27):And they did. They did exactly that. They got a coverage across the country. He had a press release and said, "We're only drinking water until our school approves the program," and the school did it. The school gave in to the pressure and now Spelman and Morehouse gave away 14,000 dining hall meals, and it's grown even beyond that. It's a core program that they have now on their campuses. So moments like that where I was afraid. I'm like, "Oh, that's risky. You sure you don't want to ask for another meeting?" And our students are like, "No. I sit next to someone who's hungry, who's eating a granola bar for lunch and thinks that's okay. I'm not going to just be okay with the fact that you have some building being built and I have to wait until you're ready for me." Those are the things that keep me going, that there's a next generation that's even more committed and more passionate and willing to risk more to create a better world.Rachel Sumekh (27:21):And the opposite happens all the time, too, where administrators come back to us and say things that just break your heart and you're like, "Have you not spoken to a student recently? Where do you think that comes from?" But Jay, those stories are far and few between. The world we live in now has changed and people recognize that they need to be in touch with people on the ground. They need to be hearing the stories and understanding the needs. Especially coming out of COVID, no one can know what people's needs are. This has never happened before. We have to be asking our constituents, our students, whoever we're serving, what their needs are today and now. And I think for me, some of the hardest moments have been... I don't know. It's always the moments just before a big win, when people doubt and you doubt yourself and you question, but you keep going, and the sadness just before that of like, "Okay. We're going to have to do this alone, or it's just going to be us." But again, I don't know. I just stay really focused on the bright spots.Jay Ruderman (28:30):Yeah. It is a journey. And you've had amazing success. I'd like to ask you, do you find that there's a difference between state schools, community schools, and private institutions as to how they react to this issue?Rachel Sumekh (28:50):Staying on the theme of people, the biggest indicator of if our program will be well-received is how big is the heart of the person who we're talking to, whether it's the head of the dining services or it's a student life leader or a dean. If that person has had any exposure to student life, they will be on it. Right? They'll go out of their way to make it successful, whether they're a four-year, private, public. And so that's the most exciting part, being able to connect with people who understand. And for those who don't, spending the time to educate them. Right? Our students are amazing teachers and they go out of their way to educate their partners.Rachel Sumekh (29:30):And I think that the biggest difference between two-year or four-year or others is, is the school okay with being known for having low-income students there? Because they have to be able to promote these programs. Right? It doesn't matter how many amazing programs you have. If you're not promoting them, if there's still a stigma attached with asking for help, then it's not going to get very far. So I think our job is to make sure that whoever we're talking to is not just going to adopt these programs, but be willing to say, "UCLA is the best school to go to if you are food insecure student," or "We have the biggest food closet," or "We have the most robust SNAP enrollment program." We want schools to be able to be proud of saying that.Jay Ruderman (30:19):Yeah, I do agree with you based on my 20 years as an activist that it's your partners that really make things successful. When you meet someone that not only hears you on a basic level, but internalizes it that they're like, "I understand where you're coming from. I agree with it. I'm going to help you do it," I mean, that's what you're looking for. And there's a lot of good people, and you're right. We are all interconnected. And unfortunately society is often set up where people believe they're not interconnected, that it's us and them, but it's really not about us and them. And I think when you meet people that see that we're all interconnected, that's when you have success.Rachel Sumekh (31:11):And then you get to build something new together, right? Suddenly it goes from something that you're presenting to this partner coming in and saying, "I also want to do this with you." And something new happens that would have never happened before, and it's better than before.Jay Ruderman (31:25):Right. So let me ask you... I mean, we're coming hopefully, emerging out of COVID, and one out of three college students experienced food insecurity during the pandemic. How did your organization deal with this, and what new challenges emerged?Rachel Sumekh (31:50):Well, I got my first gray hairs, and one of the first things that one of my mentors said to me coming into this was, "Rachel, you've gotten really far based on trusting your gut and your relationship skills, but what's about to happen in the world is much stronger than your gut." And I'm very thankful to [John Kamara 00:32:08] for those words, because it helped me take off my rose-colored glasses and do the opposite of retreat. Right? We served more meals this year than we've ever served. We fundraised more dollars than we've ever fundraised. We doubled our team. We started new programs. I think the most impactful program that we started was something called the Student Peer Navigators, where we hired college students, paid them living wages, train them on how to help students enroll in unemployment and food stamps and health insurance, and getting connected to local resources.Rachel Sumekh (32:43):And we were able to help over 5,000 college students access over a million dollars in benefits, and we've since taken that program to other cities. Right? We're in New York now running this program at the CUNY system. If anyone is in New York and needs access to food, go to our website. You'll connect with a college student immediately. And what I love about this is that students were helping students. Right? We were, first of all, employing students and they were helping their peers get access to these highly leverageable resources. And there's something just so joyful about reminding people that you don't need to go to some big ivory tower to get help, but people in your own community can help you, and we can empower people to fill that role.Jay Ruderman (33:25):Where do you see Swipe Out Hunger in the next five years?Rachel Sumekh (33:31):In the next five years, I believe we'll be in a world where universities don't need an outside nonprofit to come in and tell them that they should show up for their students, but we'll live in a world where U.S. News & World Report will be ranking universities based on who has the best food pantry. Right? Moving onto metrics that actually matter in to so many students' lives. We'll have passed our bill in multiple new states. We've already passed it in four, and we'll have to continue to grow our movement to empower more and more students to make the changes they want on their campus.Jay Ruderman (34:04):So Rachel, I want to end with a very broad question and feel free to take this however you feel fit. Do you ever think that we'll overcome food insecurity in America? And how can that happen?Rachel Sumekh (34:22):I think that the first step to addressing any issue is to have a very clear understanding of why it exists. And so if we live in a world where the people who manage our food systems, the people who run our food companies, are thinking about their responsibility to other people in the community who they seek to serve, that will be the first step. How can we... The same way, a very famous business reference is Coca-Cola, that they can get their bottles of Coke to even the remote villages around the world. If they can do that, how can we get food there? So how do we leverage our systems to actually have food reach people? But in short, I would go back to policy. It's about getting dollars into the hands of people and into the hands of institutions and communities that'll serve people.Rachel Sumekh (35:14):Throughout this podcast, I've been saying that I'm an idealistic person, and I do believe that we'll get to the point where we will have a community and a world where people are not hungry. And I think that that'll only happen when multiple sectors come together, when people who run our food companies realize that they have an opportunity to help end hunger, when activists and community spaces are working alongside policy makers, and we have policy people and business coming together to say, "What are we doing here? We're living in a world with so much food, and yet there are hungry people." And are we committed to changing that or not? And if someone says no, then it's our responsibility to have tactics to get them on the right team, but I think it'll only really happen when we come together and I'm hopeful because every day I see it happen. I see our students and our companies and our universities come together. So I remain hopeful that we will, but only if we remain critical as well, and we stick to the ground and do the work.Jay Ruderman (36:16):Well, Rachel, thank you so much for joining us. This was a really informative discussion. You've had such an impact on our world, and I'm sure will continue to have a greater impact. So I appreciate your time and I appreciate what you do for our society, and I want to thank you for being our guest today.Rachel Sumekh (36:37):Thank you so much, Jay. If anyone listening wants to get involved in the fight to end college student hunger, you can head to swipehunger.org, and it's such a privilege to be able to share a bit of our work with you.Voiceover (36:52):All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast, be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

Jane Clementi (00:00):It's all about having conversations and we have to be proactive and have those conversations before things spiral out of control.Speaker 2 (00:09):All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation, and social justice with Jay Ruderman.Jay Ruderman (00:19):Hi. I'm Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation, and social justice.Jay Ruderman (00:30):Jane Clementi was married to Joseph Clementi, and a loving mother of three children. On September 22nd, 2010, her life changed forever when her son Tyler Clementi died by suicide at the age of 18, after being the target of bullying.Jay Ruderman (00:48):From this tragedy, Jane co-founded the Tyler Clementi Foundation along with her husband, to raise awareness, to end bullying, and prevent anyone else from going through this. Jane, welcome to All Inclusive.Jane Clementi (01:03):Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.Jay Ruderman (01:06):Jane, I'm wondering if you could tell us what life was like in your household before Tyler's untimely death. How did he grow up? What type of household did you have?Jane Clementi (01:21):For me, I didn't think that there was anything out of the ordinary about our household. We had a nucleus family of my husband Joe, myself, and our three sons, Tyler, being the youngest, and then two older siblings. Did what I thought was very normal activities, the boys went to school, they had extracurricular activities, each of them had very different interests and passions and I just thought that that enriched my life completely with their interests.Jay Ruderman (01:56):Now I know that you're a religious person, I'm wondering what role religion played in your life before Tyler's passing.Jane Clementi (02:06):Before Tyler's passing, I was a spiritual person, religion was important to me. I definitely did take my children to a very conservative faith community, a Christian faith community, and it wasn't until after Tyler's passing that I realized that some of those messages that Tyler was hearing in that conservative evangelical church were very harmful for Tyler and that added to his struggles for sure.Jane Clementi (02:41):It was something that I didn't necessarily even see at the time. Many of the messages were very subtle and very short and not even something that I even heard and many of the messages were even shared with Tyler in youth group and in Sunday school that he was attending apart from me. I wasn't even aware of the full dynamics of all of the teachings at that church, which really shocks me now and wants me to wake up and wants me to share that part with other parents to really be aware of what the faith community that you're bringing your children to, what they embrace and what they support, and making sure that youth hear positive, affirming messages always.Jay Ruderman (03:26):When did Tyler come out to you and to the family as gay? Did he come out just to you as his mother or did he come out to his siblings and his father? What was the reaction of the family when he came out?Jane Clementi (03:44):Tyler came out to me just, I don't know, about 36 hours before he left for college. It was a short time span. I was really shocked and surprised that he was coming out, which is an interesting foolishness on my part I suppose because I had been waiting for many years for my older son to come out but when Tyler came out, I was blown away. I was surprised, I was shocked. I really didn't know what to do with that conversation. Even though, I shared how much I loved him in that moment, I know there was something inside me that I was struggling with and I didn't even know how to even verbalize it.Jane Clementi (04:34):I think Tyler embraced that or absorbed that as a negative comment. Even though, I was telling him how much I loved him, I knew that there was something I had to deal with and I had to come to terms with. He told me and I wanted him to share it with others and he said, "Well, if you want to, go ahead" and I didn't think it was my place to do that, although, I did share it with my husband Joe, at the time, and he and Tyler had a conversation the next morning.Jane Clementi (05:10):To me, to my knowledge, that was all he had come out to. After the fact, after Tyler's death, I found out my older son and he had come out to each other during the summer in July before he went to school in September. My middle son never knew until after Tyler had passed. It was a process he was just embarking on of coming out and truly embracing who he was but he had just really started that.Jane Clementi (05:41):He had come out to a few people at college, at Rutgers. He met some people on the floor, on the form floor, and he had started going to some of their LGBT support groups that they had on campus, sort of like Gay Straight Alliances. He did start that process but he had not come out to many people at school either. I think one or two friends from high school and that's probably all.Jay Ruderman (06:12):Do you think he was excited to go off to college?Jane Clementi (06:14):I do. I do. He was very excited to be off to school and his siblings concur with that. I think he was excited for some freedom. I think he was thinking he was going to be embraced in a much more inclusive space.Jane Clementi (06:33):As we learned, being in that transitional time is also a highly risking time, it's a high risk time, being in transition, not having the support of family and friends that you have had around you day to day to really see and who know you and can see your emotions that you're sharing.Jane Clementi (06:54):As well as the fact that people don't embrace the culture of the larger school right away. I mean, they bring with them their own biases that they've been exposed to in their previous location, their high school, their home, their friends that they had been with.Jay Ruderman (07:14):Let me bring you back to a difficult time, the date of September 22nd, 2010. I know this must be incredibly difficult for you to discuss even after so much time has passed but can you tell us what happened that day?Jane Clementi (07:35):You know, I'm not even clear even all these years later what happened and things got pieced together slowly after the fact. From what I had learned is that Tyler's roommate setup a camera on his computer to live stream Tyler in a sexual encounter earlier, a couple days before, and then a second time the day before.Jane Clementi (08:02):As Tyler continued to read the jokes that were posted about him, I do think Tyler's reality became very twisted and distorted. I do think in my heart that Tyler was targeted by his roommate because of Tyler's sexual orientation but I don't think that Tyler's roommate gave much thought to how much it would cost another human being, you know, the great expense of embarrassing and humiliating someone in front of his new peers.Jane Clementi (08:36):I don't even know why, to this day, why he would have done such a thing. Maybe it was to make himself more cool or more popular or just maybe to humiliate someone else. I'm not really sure. But one thing was clear was that he didn't give much thought I don't think to how much Tyler's reality would become twisted and distorted in those moments and how Tyler would lose sight of just how special and precious he was because in that loneliness and isolation and shame, Tyler made a terrible decision.Jane Clementi (09:14):He made a decision that Joe and I can never change or undo. Tyler made a permanent decision to a temporary situation. On September 22nd, 2010, Tyler died by suicide. Tyler was 18 years old at the time.Jay Ruderman (09:31):Jane, did you have a chance to speak to Tyler either that day when he died by suicide or shortly before?Jane Clementi (09:42):I did actually. We were making plans to go for family weekend. Parents' weekend, family weekend was that coming Saturday. We had a really long conversation that morning on the 22nd. It was funny because we had had several calls in-between. He'd only been at school for about three weeks at this point. Every time I called, he was either on a bus or he was just entering a class or he was going about doing something in the dining hall and there was a lot of noise in the background.Jane Clementi (10:27):This time, that same morning, I actually texted and said, "When you get a break, we need to make plans so give me a call" and he did. We talked for about 30 minutes I think on that day. We talked about the weekend, making plans, what to bring, what foods he wanted, what cases of water he wanted, all the things that college students want or need or think they need.Jane Clementi (11:00):We even talked about ... He had a bicycle that he really liked. He had saved a lot of money, it was a very expensive bicycle that he had just started taking some really long road trips with and he wasn't sure when we moved him in if he wanted to bring it or not and we talked a lot about that. We talked about how he had just gotten placed in the upper graduate school orchestra, all incoming freshmen are accepted into the orchestra, the undergraduate orchestra but you audition for a seat in the orchestra and instead of getting a chair in the undergraduate orchestra, he was accepted into the graduate school of music orchestra, which speaks to his gifts of being a wonderful musician and violinist.Jane Clementi (11:54):He also told me about getting ... Because he got that placement, he would get lessons by a graduate student and how excited he was. Those plans and excitement really confused me after the fact. Some people that work in suicide prevention shared with me that sometimes it's like a decision you've made and then you just put it in the back of your mind and you just continue making plans and then you just enact your decision. I had a hard time understanding that. I guess it's just something I need to come to accept.Jay Ruderman (12:39):I understand, I've seen some videos of Tyler playing the violin and he was incredibly talented. As someone who has four teenagers and we're always concerned about their mental health and what they're thinking about, I guess what you're saying is often when young people or anyone, for that matter, is considering taking their life by suicide, there's often no tip-off when you speak to them or in the run-up, there's no signs, what you're saying, that would lead you to believe that this was going to happen.Jane Clementi (13:18):Right. I mean, sometimes there are, obviously, but I think it's a false notion to think that there are signs all the time because ... Maybe it was just Tyler's mannerism, he was a very determined young man and that's a great attribute to have except when it's twisted and used against you for self-harm.Jane Clementi (13:38):He was also someone who was very self-reliant and would think that he could work his way out of any situation or problem. Again, a great attribute unless you get in over your head and you need professional help. I'm a proponent of professional help.Jane Clementi (13:56):He learned to hide himself. He learned how to hide his sexual orientation and maybe even his mental health status, and he was really good at that. Maybe, again, something that might be to someone's attribute but when it's twisted and turned internally for self-harm, it's not a good attribute.Jane Clementi (14:24):Some people do exhibit signs. I know after Tyler's death, I was extremely depressed and if someone probably looked at me, they probably would have noticed that clearly. But Tyler did not exhibit any signs.Jay Ruderman (14:40):Jane, the same month that Tyler took his life, four other American teenagers committed suicide after being taunted about their sexuality. I know that research shows that cyber bullying emerges most commonly from relationship problems, envy, intolerance for disability, religion and gender, and ganging up to feel excluded from a team.Jay Ruderman (15:04):I know the victims suffer long-term effects from anxiety, depression, and physical harassment and humiliation. When did you decide to start the Tyler Clementi Foundation?Jane Clementi (15:15):We had great media publicity around Tyler's death at the time, as well as around the trial. I was in a fog at that point and not really observing that media attention. It was brought up to us by many of our close friends and friends of Joe's, that we should harness that attention and start a foundation.Jane Clementi (15:43):At the time, I had no desire to do that. I had no ability to even think outside of the pain that I was experiencing. I just had this inner calling to say yes, okay, fine, you want to start a foundation, go ahead. It was not my thought.Jane Clementi (16:02):As time passed, I could see that Tyler's death, as well as the death of those other teens at that time, did start a great conversation. It also pushed a movement of people coming out publicly and making their sexual orientation known. I think it's really important to have visibility. I think you would probably agree with that. The more we see people that are different than us and interact with people who are different from us, we realize that we're all the same. We all want to feel included, we all want to feel liked, we all want to be part of the group, or most of us. There are some that are more reclusive but I think it's a common trait.Jane Clementi (16:44):As Tyler's story gained momentum, I definitely could see that this was a good thing, that we definitely needed to use Tyler's story to make change, to create online safe experiences for all people but, especially, those marginalized. Tyler was part of a marginalized group, being part of the LGBTQ community. We do have a small definite affinity for that community and a huge support and love poured out to us from that community but we really want to create safe online experiences, and offline experiences, for everyone, all marginalized people.Jane Clementi (17:25):Certainly, you named a few of the most high risk groups, those that are different marginalized because of they're not part of the majority or people with disabilities who are different. It's that fear of difference I think that most people react to and want to humiliate those people so that in that distorted mind of the aggressor they can rise up above someone else. It's that difference that people usually often target.Jay Ruderman (17:59):Jane, now we're more than 10 years since Tyler's passing, do you think things have changed in terms of acceptance in the United States of the LGBTQ community?Jane Clementi (18:13):I think there has definitely been a forward movement, a positive movement with marriage equality, it has certainly made a big positive impact, but I do think we have much more work to do. I mean, just recently the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philadelphia using a religious organization to place their foster children and adoption services and that religious organization will not place a child with a kind, loving, same-sex family, couple. That's horrific, in my eyes, of course. That's why we still need work. We still need to pass The Equality Act and make sure that there is not a lot of loopholes for faith-based organizations.Jane Clementi (19:09):There is much more work to be done. We are getting out of a period where, as a nonprofit organization, I am not a political organization at all, and I don't promote any party or person but we had someone on our little screen in our home, on our TV, coming in and humiliating people all the time and youth are smart and they watch people of leadership humiliate and target and make fun of others that are different and that's just not acceptable. That research showed it had an impact that increased bullying in school age youth as well.Jay Ruderman (19:52):You know, I want to talk about two issues. One is religion because we talked about how some religious teachings can sometimes have a negative impact but I know that you've had some positive impact in terms of the religious community in having bishops in the United States sign onto a letter to address bullying against the LGBTQ community. Can you talk a little bit about that?Jane Clementi (20:22):Yes. Faith is a strong component and resource for people, it helped me get through my darkest time for sure, but there is definitely still more work that needs to be done. We have a program called True Faith Doesn't Bully because we believe that if you have true faith, you're not going to use your faith against someone else to harm them. We have two big initiatives happening.Jane Clementi (20:51):We have letters of affirmation, which are letters of people who came out of the Southern Baptist Conference sharing the harms that those teachings have caused and now we are working with Father James Martin with the Roman Catholic Church as well and we created a statement, as you said, "God is on my side", a statement for bishops to sign onto condemning LGBTQ bullying.Jane Clementi (21:20):We have had a great deal of support. Sadly, not from the bishops. We've had only 14 bishops sign on and three of those have been retired bishops. What we didn't think was going to happen is that there's been an organic embracing of this statement by many religious orders within the Catholic faith as well as individual parishes have now signed on, organizations, including major hospital systems that are in multiple states with hundreds of healthcare facilities under them, as well as some of the colleges and universities and some smaller schools that have signed on.Jane Clementi (22:04):To date, we have had, out of those, over 145 or 150 organizations like that, who have signed on, which have hundreds of people under them, which we think is a great testament to say to these bishops and hierarchy of the Catholic church, it's time to change your teaching. We need to teach that being LGBTQ is not an abomination, it's not a sin. That's what our goal is, to change the teaching so that we can embrace the LGBTQ community.Jay Ruderman (22:41):You know, it's interesting. Within the past couple days, the United States Secretary of State Blinken just met with the Pope in the Vatican. I'm just now based on this conversation wondering if this was an issue that was brought up in front of the Pope about having some leadership coming from the church in terms of accepting people from different walks of life? I don't know but it would be nice if that was part of the conversation.Jane Clementi (23:16):Right. I don't know if it was part of that conversation but I do know there was an outreach conference on Saturday led by Father James Martin and he received a handwritten note from the Pope, blessing his work and his ministry and to continue to shed God's love to all God's children as the Pope had said. There was a very positive comment out of the Pope. Although, out of the conference of bishops, out of the Vatican Council of Bishops, there were some very negative comments earlier this month about blessing same-sex couples and that maybe gave the pushback and maybe gave the Pope a place to say, "No. We have to share God's love."Jane Clementi (24:07):It's interesting that there is this push and shove within this one denomination for sure. There are still many conservative Christian as well as Jewish faith communities that are not welcoming or that want to change. I know in New Jersey, there was a large conversion therapy organization that was shut down a few years ago called JONAH, which was supported by the ultra-Orthodox communities in Brooklyn that would send their sons there to convert them, to convert their homosexual yearnings, try to change them, which we know, through science, that you cannot change a person's sexual orientation.Jay Ruderman (24:58):Right.Jane Clementi (24:58):It's an intrinsic trait that you're born with.Jay Ruderman (25:04):Right. I thought that the conversion therapy movement was pretty much debunked. I guess there's remnants of it.Jane Clementi (25:14):They close down one and another one opens up. I just went to a Tribeca Film Festival of the premiere of a movie called Pray Away. That movie is mostly based on Exodus International, the ex-Exodus International, which has been closed but do you know what that movie shows? They closed down Exodus and a new movement of Freedom March or something to that name, has been opened up. It's like until we get to the root cause, until we change the teachings and traditions and get rid of the dogma, someone will recreate horrific actions like conversion therapy, which cause youth or even if you're older, to go to conversion therapy, have an eight times more likely chance of suicide or suicidal ideation and increased self-harming behavior. It's just teaching that self-loath and hate, internal hate, that's just horrific for those people.Jay Ruderman (26:18):I want to talk to you a little bit about social media because I think the feeling with the people that created social media was that it was a positive influence for society and was going to bring all sorts of people together. Obviously, we've seen some terribly negative impacts of social media on our children, on many different people in society, people using social media to hurt other people or to debase them or to put them down.Jay Ruderman (26:52):I'm just wondering, having gone through what you've gone through and for the past 11 years been involved in this issue, what are your thoughts on social media?Jane Clementi (27:07):I believe that it is a tool and mechanism for good. I do think it's only as good as the people who use it. We need to make sure we teach everyone to use it wisely and for that good that it was intended.Jane Clementi (27:24):But there are certain significant difference when bullying occurs in the digital world, because of the anonymity that some platforms provide, because things can go viral and be seen by so many people or even in your own mind, you think it's worse than it is, as I think might have happened with Tyler.Jane Clementi (27:44):But also because you can't escape it. Tyler had taken screenshots of the words and the jokes that they were commenting on. He kept going back to that. Because there was that trial, they did forensically look at Tyler's laptop, this was in a time when you didn't even have a smartphone. It was just beyond the laptop. Even that, his reality spiraled so quickly out of control.Jane Clementi (28:14):I think it's all about being mindful of using the digital world for good and it's even sometimes about slowing down and I always like to say, before you hit that send button, just take a minute, take a breath, reread what you've written and if you think there's any way that your comment can be misunderstood or your comment destroys someone, I would really encourage them to rewrite it and maybe even discard it altogether. If that comment or statement builds someone up and encourages them, then I say push that send button and send out positivity and goodness into the world.Jay Ruderman (28:54):How significant do you think this social pandemic of bullying is out there? I would also ask you what advice would you give to parents to be aware of cyber bullying and how to discuss it with their children to make them aware of what's out there?Jane Clementi (29:16):I do think it's all about having conversations and we have to be proactive and have those conversations before things spiral out of control for sure. I think it's important for parents to have conversations around what can be done, if their child experiences some kind of harmful messaging because with what research has shown, it's not so much if your child is going to be cyber bullied but when because most statistics show that almost 60% of youth have been cyber bullied already so we need to make sure that we know the precautions, you know what to do.Jane Clementi (29:59):The really sad research that I've come up with is that 70% of youth who have been cyber bullied will not tell their parents about the situation and most will state that it's because they're afraid of losing their device and their connection to the outside world. Having those conversations beforehand sets the tone, making sure your child knows, "No, I'm not going to take the device. It's not the device that's the problem."Jane Clementi (30:26):You might have to get out of the app that they're sending you these messages in or block the person from text messaging because you don't want to keep seeing those messages but you do want to stay connected to the world. In this day and age, this is the way to stay connected is through the device. You want to save evidence, you want to shut down that person that's harming you, and you want to have conversations with someone. You need to have help, you need to talk to an adult, you need to talk to your parents, you need to talk to a teacher at school, especially if you know that the aggressor is coming from your peers at your school. At least, in New Jersey, the one recent Supreme Court ruling did state that if bullying is happening on the device and its impacting your time at school, the school can intervene to try to create a safe environment online for you.Jane Clementi (31:28):It's really important for that to happen.Jay Ruderman (31:32):This was my next question about schools. What can schools do? I know, for example, my daughter who is in high school, that her school is very proactive at looking at social media, which I know is controversial in terms of privacy but social media is out there and public and if they see bullying, they take it up, they make sure this issue is handled within the school. Even if the bullying happens outside of the school.Jay Ruderman (32:07):What do you think schools across our country can be doing better to crack down on cyber bullying?Jane Clementi (32:13):I mean, I definitely think they should be monitoring it and looking through the social media of the youth and, certainly, if a student brings it to them or parents bring it to their attention, that they need to address it and start having conversations and dialog.Jane Clementi (32:29):I'm not about having punitive laws, that say three strikes and you're out because I think that just makes that aggressor someone else's problem. I think it's all about behavior modification, social/emotional learning, setting the tone, setting the boundaries, so to speak. That's one of our programs that we have. We have our day one program. It's all about setting a boundary from the very first day. It's about telling the classroom or the entire school, if it's a principal or a teacher, that everyone is accepted here, everyone is valued.Jane Clementi (33:06):This is what our school is all about, inclusion and welcoming everyone, and no one will be allowed to target someone else because of what makes them different, because of their skin color, because of their sexual orientation, because of the language they speak at home or their body shape or their abilities or their lack of abilities. Everyone is welcome here.Jane Clementi (33:26):I just think it's really important to set that tone and to be upfront about it and it's not a magic wand but, at least, it sets the boundaries and then when someone crosses it and uses a racial slur or a homophobic slur or any other derogatory words or targets someone, you have a basis to say, "Remember, we all agreed on the first day that's not acceptable behavior. Let's reel this in and let's address the situation. If you're having a disagreement with this person, let's talk about the disagreement, talk about what the problem is. Don't humiliate someone else."Jane Clementi (34:02):I think that's an important boundary for the aggressor to have but it's also an important message for the marginalized person to hear, that they're going to be safe and welcomed in this space.Jay Ruderman (34:14):Are there other programs that the foundation is promoting that you think are important?Jane Clementi (34:23):Well, our very first program that we designed, I think is The Key and Heart of Us and that's our upstander pledge because we saw that so many people saw what was happening to Tyler and they remained passive bystanders. We want people to stand up and intervene. We want people to be active upstanders. We've created a pledge. It's not a one and done thing. It's every situation you enter into, you have to think about being that one that stands up and intervenes safely.Jane Clementi (34:56):We never ever want anyone coming into harm's way but there are many ways to be an upstander. You can interrupt the situation by calling out bad behavior or just coming beside the person that's being targeted and walking them away to a different environment. If they're all friends, just calling it out and saying, 'That's not funny. That's not a joke. Let's be serious here and embrace everyone and embrace everyone's differences and be inclusive."Jane Clementi (35:27):Or if the behavior doesn't change or if you don't feel safe during that, it's about reporting it, reporting it to an adult. We have to make sure youth know that it's not about tattle tale-ing. It's not about outing someone. If you have someone's best interest at heart, you need to report it.Jane Clementi (35:44):I've spoken at many high schools and afterwards, several youth have confided in me that they've even had suicidal ideations and many have confided in their best friend and told them, "Don't tell anyone but these are my plans." Fortunately, for these youth that have shared that with me, their friend did not honor that trust, they told someone and they got them the help they needed.Jane Clementi (36:09):We need to know what should be kept private, what is gossip and tattling, might be who someone likes or what they're doing on a weekend that they didn't want anyone to know, that should be made silent and private but things that shouldn't remain private are self-harming behaviors or the idea that you're going to hurt someone else, that you've been hurt so now you're going to hurt someone else. We have to know the difference and we have to teach our youth the difference.Jane Clementi (36:39):The third most important thing about being an upstander is reaching out to the target, making sure they know they're not alone, that they're not isolated, that they do have support here and you're there for them, you're their friend. We think that that's really important and being an upstander, sometimes is bigger than just the bullying situation, it's about being an upstander by going to the voting polls, it's by being an upstander and maybe getting up and getting out of really religious Orthodox places, spaces, conservative churches like I was in. At the time, I was barely able to put words together in my shock and despair and grief but I could get up and leave and not remain in that space. That, to me, is being an upstander too. There's all sorts of levels to be upstanders.Jay Ruderman (37:34):If someone wants to get involved in the work of the foundation, what's the best way to contact the organization and to get involved?Jane Clementi (37:43):Sure. Reach out through our website. There's an outreach space you can click to reach out to us. We're a proponent of sending out good messaging on social media so we love people to share, re-share our posts and to go to our website and take our upstander pledge. We think that that's a great way and you will get emails from us, weekly e-blasts with what we're doing and what we're up to and how you can help by signing our upstander pledge as well.Jay Ruderman (38:19):The website is?Jane Clementi (38:21):TylerClementi.org.Jay Ruderman (38:23):Okay. Great. Jane, let me just end with you, how can we become a better society that does not have bullying? Is that an idealistic goal or can we get there?Jane Clementi (38:40):I do believe we can get there. I do think it's about accepting differences, sharing, being more visible, having curriculum that shares stories. I do think stories are a great way to transform people and to change hearts and minds, so to speak, because teaching empathy, trying to see life through someone else's eyes and through their lived experiences is key. I mean, if you hear someone's story and you hear their struggles, it just breaks your heart and it helps you to extend compassion.Jane Clementi (39:23):I think that that is what's really important with inclusive curriculums and using socially connected youth in schools to help change the school culture. That has been proven to be very effective. To get the buy-in from a few student leaders and then it will spread and become an organic upshoot of a new welcoming space, of a space that's inclusive. If you can get the buy-in of the socially connected youth, that's very, very helpful.Jay Ruderman (40:03):Well, Jane, thank you so much. I really appreciated this conversation and it was a tough conversation but it was so great having you as a guest on All Inclusive. Hopefully, together we can do our part to end bullying in our society.Jane Clementi (40:19):Thank you. I hope so.Speaker 2 (40:26):All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to Ruderman Foundation.org/AllInclusive. Have an idea for a podcast? Be sure to tweet at Jay Ruderman.

Speaker 1 (00:03):All Inclusive, a podcast on inclusion, innovation and social justice with Jay Ruderman.Jay Ruderman (00:13):Hi. I'm Jay Ruderman and this is All Inclusive, a podcast focused on inclusion, innovation and social justice. Brent Michael Suter is a professional baseball player for the Milwaukee Brewers of Major League Baseball. He studied at Harvard University and was drafted into the MLB in 2012. Yet today, he's here to talk with us about a subject pretty far removed from baseball, environmental activism. Brent, welcome to All Inclusive.Brent Michael Suter (00:46):Hey, Jay. Thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it.Jay Ruderman (00:48):So, many topics require attention and activism. For example, racism, sexism, the list is so long.Brent Michael Suter (00:55):Mm-hmm (affirmative).Jay Ruderman (00:56):How did you become involved in environmental activism and why focus on global warming?Brent Michael Suter (01:02):Yeah, it's something that started sophomore year high school for me. I watched An Inconvenient Truth the year it came out, with my mom actually, and just didn't know the extent of the problems that were going on and it just really blew me away. From that moment on, it was on my heart to try to do something about it, so I knew I wanted to study it in college, study environmental science [inaudible 00:01:20] in college and then whatever path I took after college, I wanted to have this be a part of my mission. So entering professional baseball, which was always a dream of mine, I have tried to integrate environmental activism into my day-to-day living and then some programs I get involved with and helped start. So yeah, it's been, been quite a journey. I can always do more. The problem is so immense and so alarming that every second we waste is just precious time, but I'm just trying to do my best to use the platform of baseball and trying to reach people that might not, otherwise, hear about the problems or solutions and just try to be part of the solution.Jay Ruderman (02:03):Well, I really appreciate it. I think that you've taken a leading role in Major League Baseball in terms of your activism and have actually found some receptivity within the league and within your team. Maybe generally, what can you say is the biggest issue facing our environment today?Brent Michael Suter (02:26):I would say just big, big picture, the threshold that you hear about in the news, the two degrees Celsius warming being the runaway where climate starts breaking down and there's no chance or point of return, so, and unfortunately, we're heading there quickly. So I think just the temperature rise and the fear or the potential of just runaway, basically, climate breakdown would be the biggest concern. Obviously, there's a lot in there with pollution, toxic chemicals being dumped in the environment with deforestation, both in the ocean and on land and with plastics.Brent Michael Suter (03:09):There's all kinds of problems that, unfortunately, we create with our linear society and nature works in that cycle of the circular, cyclical pattern. Unfortunately, our society has just use the resources in and then dump them out and that linear pattern, we got to get back into balance with nature and getting more cyclical about our society. So I think there's going to be multiple solutions cause there's multiple huge problems, but we got to put this at the forefront of our policymaking, at the forefront of our day-to-day behavior, day-to-day life. We got to be the generation and the people that help this problem rather than continue to the problem.Jay Ruderman (03:53):So do you think there's still hope, or we already beyond where this is all downhill and we're just living in a situation that we can't control, or do you believe that there's still things that we can do to turn the situation around?Brent Michael Suter (04:12):I think there's still time. I think there's still hope. Unfortunately, like I said before, the time is just running short and shorter and shorter every day and it just seems like the projections are getting worse and worse every day. So we're not exactly helping the problem yet. On the large scale, there are some signs of hope. I really take a lot of hope in the younger generation and their involvement in their activism, for sure. I take a lot of hope in some policies that are being put in and especially, environmental justice policies that have really been put in this year.Brent Michael Suter (04:48):I think once we help other human beings that have been put at the hands of environmental injustice, I think that'll help change the whole course of our thinking and say, "Hey, when we help people that have been environmentally suffering injustice, it helps everything." So all these wrongs that have been existing for generations and generations, if we right them, other things start benefiting nature, start benefiting our resources, so I think there's hope in that, in our new policies. But we got a long way to go, a long way to go in a short time to do it. So I'm hopeful, but I'll be honest, I'm a little worried, for sure.Jay Ruderman (05:33):So let me talk a little bit about your background. I know you went to Mueller High School outside of Cincinnati, and you've had some very famous alumni come out of that school, including, I believe, the former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, as well as some very talented baseball players and other other athletes, but it is a school where I think the focus is on spirituality and religion. How much does spirituality play in your life and how do you see it connected to the issue of environmentalism?Brent Michael Suter (06:11):It's big. I was raised in a Catholic household. My whole life, I went to church, Sunday School and went to a Catholic high school, obviously, and it's been a big part of my life. I really look at environmentalism as a care for God's creation and the gifts he's bestowed on our world and our species really have been just enormous. But I look at the ways we've been treating it as probably offensive to his creation and just dominion doesn't mean we have to dominate and deplete our resources. Dominion means we have responsibility over his creation. So it's absolutely a huge component of my environmentalism. I look at it as trying to be a steward of his blessing and trying to pass it on to my son and all other future generations, and honestly, our later lives. This is a problem that we're talking about is already affecting us, but it will affect us in our lifetimes.Jay Ruderman (07:12):Tell me, you went to Harvard and I think what not everyone knows is not only are you a great athlete and a great pitcher, but you were also an excellent student. Maybe you can talk about the cultural difference between, growing up in the Cincinnati area and then spending four years at Harvard. What did Harvard do for you in terms of educating you, because I know you focused on environmentalism while you were there.Brent Michael Suter (07:44):Yeah. I tell people all the time, "Look, the best thing about Harvard was the people." The professors were incredible, the TAs and everybody were incredible, but the other students that I came into contact with, I just looked at it as a blessing being able to meet so many people from different backgrounds, different belief systems, who are just incredibly smart, bright, talented. You can just see their path is set for helping this world, but they're also incredible people too, humble, down to earth. I think Harvard really had that effect of everyone humbled each other with the accomplishments.Brent Michael Suter (08:22):It didn't take long for me to get humbled at all there, but just like that gradual humbling of like, "Wow, this person does this and I can't be walking around with my chest puffed out too much because I'm surrounded by people who are doing incredible things." Then it was cool to see it in sophomore, junior year, everyone rallied around that and really started. It was just a really cool experience of seeing people, that humbling process and then build each other up after that and work together and really, really pick each other during the tough times.Jay Ruderman (08:57):Well, I know that you spent a number of years in the Minor League System and I read a story about when you were told, with only a few hours to go, that you were being moved from a minor league team in Colorado to pitch for the Brewers against the Mariners in Seattle. I think your comment was, "Oh, Mylanta," but maybe you can talk a little bit about baseball. You're pitching, you're on a team with players from all over the world, all over the country and they come from different backgrounds, different political views. Do you see the environmental movement as labeled as a political movement, and what type of feedback have you gotten from your teammates regarding what you, obviously, are very passionate about, improving the environment?Brent Michael Suter (09:59):Yeah. I think early on maybe, Minor Leagues early in my big league days, I was seen as maybe a liberal thing or labeled it a little bit on the political spectrum. But honestly, these last couple of years, I've seen guys from all over the spectrum really be in tune with it, starting changing their behaviors, starting changing their the thought process with respect to environmental activities. I see it less and less as a political issue and just more of a humanitarian issue now, so that's been really helpful. I would say there's still some people who want to keep it labeled as a political issue or whatever, but that happens. But I'd say just in general, the trend has been way less politicized lately and more of a humanitarian and just a global concern issue, which is, it's good to see. You want to see just that point of rallying behind it and get the stigma away from it and just let's get together and help this thing out.Jay Ruderman (11:03):Right, and you're a very positive person. I think your spirituality plays into that and I think, generally, your personality. How's the atmosphere in the clubhouse in Milwaukee these days? Are people getting along? How do you see the situation this year?Brent Michael Suter (11:22):Yeah. Our clubhouse, really from the time I got to the big leagues, has been really, really great. There've been some laws here and there where we go on a losing streak and look like we're going to maybe be pulling each other on different sides of the rope, but then we rally together and we come back strong. This year, honestly, the whole time it's been incredible. The baseball season, it's crazy. There's some ups and downs, so there've been a couple of down parts where we're just struggling and we're trying to find our footing. You can tell there's a little bit of frustration here and there, just on the baseball side, but in terms of the guys getting along with each other, it's been incredible. We've had some great additions too.Jay Ruderman (12:02):Well, I'm a Bostonian, lifelong Red Sox fan and recording this out of the Boston area. Jackie Bradley Jr. was one of my favorite players and to see him in the outfield, there's very few people in Major League Baseball with his skills, so he's a big plus for you guys right now.Brent Michael Suter (12:21):Yeah. Absolutely.Jay Ruderman (12:23):Let's talk a little bit about the carbon footprint. Maybe you can just, in a few words, explain what the significance of the carbon footprint is and how it impacts the environment.Brent Michael Suter (12:35):Yeah. So just in general, it's how much carbon you're using in your to day-to-day lives, whether that's through air travel, bus travel, with your cars, with your diet, with your household heating and lighting and whatnot. So it's, basically, how much carbon you're putting into the atmosphere just by your single use actions. We started a program last year called Sidelining Carbon where we're trying to encourage professional sports teams to be part of the solution and cutting back, or offsetting their carbon footprints, and particularly with travel, air travel particularly. So our goal is by 2025 to offset 50% of all sports travel emissions, so it's a lofty goal. We're still working on getting more and more teams here, but I've had a lot of teams reach out here recently, which is a good sign to want to offset their carbon emissions. So, basically, it's your individual contribution to global warming, in a way. CO2 is a big greenhouse gas.Jay Ruderman (13:38):Let's talk a little bit about Sideling Carbon, and maybe you can talk about how this initiative began, which teams? I know the Milwaukee Brewers are on board, Dallas Mavericks in addition to some other teams, but how's it going? Is there reception among professional sports teams to join this initiative and what do they have to do, because, they're obviously, you guys away games, you're going to get on a plane and get there? There's a lot of travel in major league sports. What do teams have to commit to and how's the process of convincing them to be part of this?Brent Michael Suter (14:18):Yeah. So it started, I was getting in contact with a young man named Benjamin Backer, who is from Wisconsin, big Brewers fan and he's done some incredible things on the environmental activism front. He's actually conservative along the political spectrum, but wants to help conservatives be environmentally active. So he started American Conservation Coalition and we partnered with them to create the programs Sidelining Carbon. We're working with the Nature Conservancy, Players for the Planet and the Cool Effect to help get this thing done. Unfortunately, last year with the financial concerns of COVID, it was tough to get reception once they heard there was a price tag attached.Brent Michael Suter (15:03):But this year, I'm hearing a lot more as the ball gets rolling back to where we were in 2019 financially. A lot more teams are interested in giving back and offsetting their carbon, so that's a good sign. Basically, like you said, the Mavericks, Brewers, we got several other teams on board and some other teams very interested. The ideal is once they sign up, they offset all their plane and bus CO2 emissions into these projects that are going on in Pennsylvania and Tennessee through the Cool Effect and their carbon will be offset, therefore. So we want to have that done with 50% of the teams in all sports is really the goal because ideally, cutting off 50% of the team's emissions would be 50% of all travel emissions.Brent Michael Suter (15:54):So we calculate it with CO2 used per mile, of jet fuel used per mile of flying and then with the busing, how many buses are used. So there's some calculations going on, but basically, just there's a bill at the end of the day. Players, management, owners are encouraged to help offset that and it's a tax write off and everything. But we definitely want to see this grow and the ACA, American Conservation Coalition is doing, or ACC, sorry, is doing a great job with it. So, hopefully, it takes off here very, very shortly now that we're getting a little more back to normal.Jay Ruderman (16:37):So do you feel hopeful that MLB and other sports, they're going to join into this effort and they're going to look seriously at it and are your discussions with the leagues leading someplace?Brent Michael Suter (16:53):Yeah. Yeah, and like I said, the ball has been rolling a little more lately. Last year was just a tough year. In hindsight, might not have been the best year to start this thing, but I'm glad we did it anyways, but there's been positive reception and I think we just need to get a couple more teams in it and then they'll talk about it to other teams or something. We just need to get that ball rolling just a little bit more and I think it'll take off, hopefully. So the momentum is building. They're doing a great job and we just got to get that fine, a little roll, but going to the ball.Jay Ruderman (17:35):Well, I think that you've explained to us that you not only talk the talk, but walk the walk in terms of your own personal life and trying to influence those around you. What do you say when some people say, "Hey, this carbon emissions issue is a global problem and these incremental changes are not really going to change anything?" How do you push back against that?Brent Michael Suter (17:59):Yeah. Honestly, my response is that we are all in this system together and every piece of pollution, every piece of greenhouse gas that I am responsible for putting in the atmosphere is more damage in the present term and in the future to the system and that everything we do matters and has consequences now and for hundreds of years in the future. So everything I can cut down on, I want to, because for the future generation's sake, maybe it might not show up on the big global calculations. I'll give them that, but maybe it helps down the line of just that one last degree where otherwise, the whole ecosystem would have perished or something where we're entering an era where everything is so stressed environmentally that every little bit we can do to minimize the damage on the system helps. So I think it's one of those things like, "We're all in this together," that mentality and everything we do matters and I respond to that.Jay Ruderman (19:14):So what are the biggest roadblocks on a macro level that we're facing right now in terms of carbon emissions? I know that this program doesn't get political, in the sense that it focuses on activism, but there's, obviously, a political element here where some people are pushing the reduction of carbon emissions and others are like, 'Well, it's not as big a problem." Where do you see the biggest issues that we're going to face in the future on this?Brent Michael Suter (19:44):The one thing that stands out in my mind is just fossil fuel dependency and trying to transition away from fossil fuels. It just needs to happen and there's going to be some growing pains with it, for sure. There's going to be absolutely some technological advances that need to happen, particularly, with battery storage and battery power and all that. But this fossil fuel use in general and the subsidies that have to go in to make fossil fuels affordable for everybody, unfortunately, they need to go away at some point and we need to transition into renewable energies, renewable battery-powered houses, battery-powered cars and those systems being fed with the renewable power because fossil fuel, it's just too much. The excavation of it, the processing of it and the use of it, it just takes such an environmental toll. We've known this for about 40 or 50 years now that it leads to problems environmentally and I say that's the biggest one.Jay Ruderman (20:59):What would you say, there are several states in the United States, let's set aside the rest of the world, but there are several states in the United States that are very heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry? Their positions have been, "We'll support this industry because it's creating a lot of jobs and there's political pressure." What would you say to states like Texas or Kentucky or other states that have the fossil fuel industry has major parts of their economy? How do they begin to move away from this without hurting their population?Brent Michael Suter (21:37):Yeah, and I totally understand that thinking. Honestly, if I was in a position of political power, I feel like my hands are tied behind my back are stuck between a rock and hard place, whatever phrase you want to use, because I want to help my constituents. I want to see them succeed, have jobs, have income, have self-reliance, but I'm seeing this problem just bearing down on the globe at the same time. Listen, it's going to be a transition period where these skilled workers that have been in fossil fuels are going to need to be smoothly transitioned into renewable energy generation and use some of their skills and acquire some new skills for a renewable energy generation because like we were talking before, the fossil fuel industry, we can't be dependent on fossil fuels in 150 years, in 50 years.Brent Michael Suter (22:35):We need to be renewable, a cyclical society, energy society. I would say if there's programs in place where, "Hey, listen. This fossil fuel job is going to go away, but here's a transition. Here's a training program for you and here's a transition right into this job, another good paying job for renewable energy." It's going to need to be a sophisticated rollout plan to get everybody brought onboard on transitioning from fossil fuel to renewable energy, but I think we can get it done. I think we have the manpower and the people in place to do that, but it will be a huge undertaking, for sure.Jay Ruderman (23:18):Let me talk a little bit about some other environmental initiatives you've been involved in. I read about the tremendous amount of plastic that's used in a stadium, and I forget the number, but in the hundreds of thousands or even millions, plastic cups that are being used during a game. Can you talk a little bit about your initiative to move away from plastic cups and use reusable cups to drink from, and also, recycling the plastic cups that are used?Brent Michael Suter (23:57):Yeah, for sure. So a couple of years ago, probably three or four years ago, I started a social media campaign called Strike Out Waste, where I was encouraging players, teammates, fans, management to use reusable bottles instead of the single use plastic bottles. We were just going through so many at spring training. It was just driving me crazy, so some companies hopped on board and sent us hundreds of bottles that I was able to give away to teammates, management and some fans and then, just encouraging fans to fill up at water stations. Unfortunately, you can't bring many types of bottles into the stadium, just because the projectiles in the upper parts of the stadium would be a concern, but the bottles that they were allowed to bring in, we started getting some reasonable filling stations at spring training and in the season.Brent Michael Suter (24:46):So we ended up cutting about half of our plastic bottle use in spring training as a team, which was good. Unfortunately, towards the end of the season, only probably 10 guys were using the reusable bottles in a dedicated way. So the momentum faded a little bit. Unfortunately, I had to rehab that year in Arizona, so I was away from the team, so I couldn't be Mr. Encouragement for reasonable bottles the whole time, but some guys were still doing it and some guys still do it today, which is really encouraging. But then that led to a partnership with SC Johnson and the Milwaukee Brewers where all the plastic cups last year that would have been used by fans we're going to get upcycled to Scrubbing Bubbles bottles and we had everything in place. There were going to be a donation for Save the Oceans Campaign with Players of the Planet as part of this partnership.Brent Michael Suter (25:42):For every save that the Brewers got, we were going to donate to help clean up beaches in the Dominican Republic, but unfortunately, COVID hit and everything went away, but the Save the Oceans Campaign. So, but we're going to start it up now that restrictions are being loosened and we're going to do our best to start up again this year and get those plastic cups. I think it was estimated 1.3 million cups would have been upcycled into Scrubbing Bubbles bottles rather than thrown away or gone to a landfill. So there's still things in the works. COVID hasn't taken away everything, which is good, but I'm really excited about this SC Johnson partnership that the Brewers have. It's really the first of its kind, kind of a corporate partner with the sports team in the environmental space. Fisk Johnson, the CEO of SC Johnson. His heart is really in this problem. He wants to be part of the solution and he's doing great things, so very excited for that and what the future holds there.Jay Ruderman (26:40):Yeah, and so smart because the Brewers working with a local Wisconsin company to benefit the environment, the company, the fans seeing a direct connection to their recycling, it's not just going off someplace and they don't know what's happening; they actually know what's happening with it, such a smart way to approach it. I hope that after we come out of COVID, I hope it's reinvigorated and that other teams will learn from what you're doing and see examples in their community where they can do the same type of thing.Brent Michael Suter (27:20):Yeah. I think Fisk just told us that he had dozens and dozens of teams in the next couple of days after we announced the partnership, reach out to him and say they want something similar for their team. So that was really cool to hear that teams are on board, they want to be part of the solution too, and have partners along the way that I can help them get to those goals, so very exciting stuff.Jay Ruderman (27:44):So if you'll indulge me, I'm a huge baseball fan and I just want to talk a little bit about baseball.Brent Michael Suter (27:50):Yeah.Jay Ruderman (27:51):I've read that you are an infectious player and just so happy to be involved in baseball as your career and just appreciating every day. Maybe you can talk a little bit about how professional baseball became your career. It was a lifelong dream, but a lot of times dreams don't happen. How did it happen for you?Brent Michael Suter (28:16):Yeah. Honestly, it's amazing that I'm still playing because I wasn't really highly recruited out of high school, didn't have many calls going on. Then, I randomly sent a video in government class one day to some Ivy League coaches and the Harvard coach got back to me. He liked what he saw, sent some scouts down. A couple of weeks later, I pitched well in a showcase and then, a couple of weeks later, they had a guy de-commit and so they had a spot open and I was able to sign a likely letter there a month-and-a-half later. It was insane to even get to college baseball, which was always a dream, more of a goal of mine. Professional baseball was always just that lofty dream and then, college came and went. I was a starter all four years, but I really had some ups and downs in college and some really tough years.Brent Michael Suter (29:07):Senior year I was looking to get drafted, obviously, and texted every scout I knew probably a month before the draft. I went to workout in Amherst, Massachusetts where the guy who invited actually had an eye infection, but the two other guys there watched me pitch and it was the best I've ever thrown in my life. They were the only two guys that call me on draft day and the Brewers scout that was there picked me up in the 31st round and so was able to get into pro ball. I had a crazy first year of pro ball. It was supposed be in the AZL League, which is like the lower rookie league. The guy punched a wall in the next level up and broke his knuckle and they sent me up there, just being an older guy, like a sink or swim thing. Like, "Hey, go see if you can hang with them."Brent Michael Suter (29:54):So I went up there, had a tough first couple of starts, but then pitched well and got moved up later that year to the next team and just the ball kept rolling from there. I was able to keep my name in the raffle wheel for the promotions, as they all like to say in the Minor Leagues, just pitching well enough to be a thought at the next level. Then come that August day where I was supposed to start that night for AAA and the coach calls me and said, "Hey, you're not starting for me tonight. You're starting tomorrow in the big leagues against the Mariners. I remember the look with my wife that day. It was incredible, like shock or just emotion, pure happiness and tears of joy just running down our faces.Brent Michael Suter (30:38):It was incredible, so I'll never forget that, but my dad and I talk about it all the time I'm playing with house money. You know what I mean? I'm really not a hard thrower. I wasn't really supposed to be here, but I just kept pitching, trying to keep making pitches and grateful for every day I get to play a baseball for a living and it's been an incredible blessing for my family. My son gets to come watch dad play baseball; it's so cool and he loves it. He loves the sausage races up in Milwaukee maybe even more than baseball, at this point. But he loves coming to the games and it's been an incredible ride. I couldn't ask for anything better.Jay Ruderman (31:18):I've been to Milwaukee and I've seen the sausage races, so it is a highlight of the game, but-Brent Michael Suter (31:24):Yeah, the crowd gets crazy for it. It's hilarious.Jay Ruderman (31:29):But even in the Minor Leagues, you never got down. You never like, "Oh, I'm not in the big leagues right now." I think you were just you were just happy to be playing and to be paid for being playing, even though, maybe at the Minor Leagues it's not all that much money, but I think you retained a very positive attitude. How much of that is you and who you are as a positive person? How much is that just your spirituality or religious beliefs about taking the good things out of life?Brent Michael Suter (32:04):Yeah. I definitely think it's more of the spirituality, but it's definitely how I was raised, too. My parents raised me to try to be as grateful as I can all the time, to always give a glory and thanks to God at all times, so definitely, they instilled that spirituality part in me. Just knowing that all these gifts, these blessings are from God and what I do with them are my gift back to God, so just trying to take that mentality, for sure. But there've been some low moments, too. There've been some times where I was frustrated or let myself get a little down or whatnot, maybe after a bad day or just a decision that I didn't agree with, what have you. So I'm a human being, too.Brent Michael Suter (32:52):I'm not just completely positive all the time. I try to be as positive as I can, but we're all human. We all have those low moments, but it's just in those low moments, too, just clinging to my faith and clinging to God and Jesus, and just saying, "Hey, take these selfish thoughts or take these burdens or what have you and let me be who you want me to be today." But being able to play a sport for a living, it's hard not to be a super grateful. It's an incredible opportunity, an incredible platform for things like this for environmental issues. Last year, we were being able to partake in boycott, standing up for social justice and just having a platform where people listen to you they like watching your pitch, but they'll listen to you too. So it's definitely a responsibility, but a huge blessing at the same time.Jay Ruderman (33:50):So how did you decide to become a pitcher? Did you know at some point that you had a natural talent to throw the ball and throw it fast and accurate, or did you develop into a pitcher at some point in your baseball career?Brent Michael Suter (34:04):Yeah. I want to say once we started doing kids pitch, I was in Atlanta at the time, but then moving to Cincinnati when I was in second grade, being left-handed, you automatically have that a little bit of a leg up or just you're a rarity, only 11% of the population or whatever he is left-handed. Then, I just knew I could throw decently hard as a young kid and was able to throw it, somewhat strikes and all that and was able to get some confidence going. I was a decent hitter growing up too, so I didn't know. I'd loved Ken Griffey Jr., growing up, so I wanted to emulate his swing all the time.Brent Michael Suter (34:51):I didn't know for sure I wanted to be a pitcher only, and then did a little bit of both in the early part of college and then gave up hitting once I was hitting about a buck 70 in college, I was like, "Okay, let me just focus on pitching," and then was able to focus on pitching. I just did just enough to get to the next level and was able to ride some good pitching, but just a lot of fortunate circumstances happening from there to the big leagues.Jay Ruderman (35:22):But you did get quite an impressive home run off of a very good pitcher, and that must've been a real high for you.Brent Michael Suter (35:33):Oh, my gosh, yeah. That was one of the funniest moments in my baseball life, for sure. It was the first pitch of the inning, which pitchers aren't supposed to swing at, but I just saw it up and was able to get the barrel to it and it went out and heads off Corey Kluber, who is a two or three times Cy Young winner. He was pitching well against us and I was able to hit that home run and he was pitching pretty well that game, too, so that was definitely one of the funner or more fun memories of my baseball life.Jay Ruderman (36:06):So what do you think was your most memorable game in your career so far?Brent Michael Suter (36:12):That home run game is definitely up there. I had a game the year before where I was having a pretty good month and it was my really first full month of starting. I was more of a starter back then and was able to hold our archrival Cubs scorers over seven endings. It was a big game where a tight division race. It kept a really cool moment for me and for the team and just a really special night, so that was really memorable. Then the stretch run down in 2019, I was coming off of surgery, Tommy John surgery. I had rehabbed all year and was able to pitch really well for the team in the regular season and then through a school setting in the playoffs, so that was a lot of fun. That was just one of those dream years. Everything was going right out there and a lot of hard work was really paying off from the rehab process, so that was really memorable as well.Jay Ruderman (37:13):Well, I really want to thank you for joining us. You're having a good career and sounds like a lot of fun and your head's in the right place, but you're also using your platform to really advance an issue that's critical to all of us. I think you're going to really have some success, so I really appreciate you coming. I'll just end by saying, I know you do great imitations and I don't want to put you on the spot, but maybe you want to give us an imitation because I've seen you do a few of them and you're pretty good.Brent Michael Suter (37:50):Yeah, yeah. So I'll do a couple, my Gollum one, from Lord of the Rings for anyone is out there, for Lord of the Rings, me precious [inaudible 00:38:02] Then I'll do a little Jim Carrey, too. You know, you could poke somebody's eye out with that thing. Take care, now. Bye-bye there. Those are a couple I got and playing in Wisconsin, I'm working on little Chris Farley, the Matt Foley SNL skit, where he's like, "Hey kids. You take the world around [inaudible 00:38:33] you Up to put it in your pocket. Well, I'm here to tell you, you're probably going to find out as you go out there that you're not going to amount to jack squat.Jay Ruderman (38:45):Yeah. He was a master. He was a master. I've become very friendly with Peter and Bobby Farrelly [crosstalk 00:38:54] Dumb & Dumber. They're just great and very funny. You're really relaxed and this has been such a fun interview and I really appreciate you coming on.Brent Michael Suter (39:07):Thanks for having me. I really appreciate you Jay, and I wish you all the best in the future.Jay Ruderman (39:11):Thank you so much.Speaker 1 (39:16):All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. You can find All Inclusive on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts or to learn more, go to rudermanfoundation.org/allinclusive. Have an idea for a podcast. Be sure to tweet @JayRuderman.

Jay Ruderman (00:02):Hi. I'm Jay Ruderman and welcome to the All Inclusive podcast. Stories of activism, change, and courage.Speaker 2 (00:11):This is all wrong.Speaker 3 (00:13):I say, put mental health first, because if you don't...Speaker 4 (00:17):This generation of Americans has already had enough.Speaker 5 (00:20):I stand before you not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen.Jay Ruderman (00:25):Each episode, we bring you in depth and intimate conversations with inspiring individuals trying to change the world.Eric Garcia (00:33):When we have bad ideas about autism, that creates bad policy and, in many ways, that prevents autistic people from being truly able to live the most fulfilling lives.Jay Ruderman (00:47):And today on our show, Eric Garcia.Eric Garcia (00:49):I know that my story is only that, just one story. But I want to know if my story was indicative of any larger trends.Jay Ruderman (00:55):Eric is the senior Washington correspondent for The Independent. As a journalist, Eric is focused on politics and policy, but this past August, he wrote his first book called We're Not Broken, Changing the Autism Conversation.Eric Garcia (01:09):Well, I think we focus too much on trying to cure autism and not enough on trying to help autistic people live fulfilling lives.Jay Ruderman (01:14):Eric wrote this book out of a deep frustration with the media's coverage of autism. It's his attempt to dispel the many stereotypes that exist about it. We're Not Broken is a love letter to autistic people.Eric Garcia (01:26):We need to see that autistic people are fine as they are and that they're good people as they are.Jay Ruderman (01:30):He dives deep into topics like education, healthcare, and policies, which continue to leave autism and other disabilities out of the conversation. Eric paints a new portrait of what autism in America would look like if the autistic community was allowed to shape and be part of the conversation. Eric, welcome to All Inclusive.Eric Garcia (01:52):Thank you for having me.Jay Ruderman (01:53):Thank you. So Eric, you're a political reporter for The Independent and you've been involved in politics for a while. So, let me just jump into the issue of how autism has been covered in politics. And I've gone through some of what you've written in your new book and some of your reporting. And we don't have to go that far back, when Hillary Clinton, President Obama made comments about curing autism. And in fact, President Trump, in a debate which you talk about, talked about vaccines and the epidemic of autism. Tell me about that whole period and how that made you and others in the autistic community feel and where we may be today.Eric Garcia (02:45):Yeah, I think it's interesting because I think that in the two thousands, which is around the time when you saw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John McCain talking about autism and kind of playing footsy with anti-vaxers and talking about curing autism, that was kind of the conventional, I don't want to say it was the conventional wisdom. It was more that was just something that was given legitimacy. So, at the time, there's still Andrew Wakefield, the British physician, who had put out that study about vaccines and autism. His study hadn't been retracted from the lancets and this was still something that was swirling around on internet circles and pop culture. Oprah Winfrey was talking about it. So it was given an air of legitimacy. And at the same time, this was around the time that Autism Speaks was launched, which focused very heavily on curing autism.Eric Garcia (03:44):The difference, I think, between Hillary Clinton and Obama, John McCain, and a lot of these other people, is that they eventually changed as public understanding and public consciousness changed about autism. Donald Trump didn't really change. So, by the time Donald Trump said in 2015 that autism has become an epidemic. And then by the time he was president and he talked about the increasing rates of autism, those ideas had become thoroughly debunked. We had found out that, of course, vaccines don't cause autism. We had talked about how the increased rates weren't really about an increase in autism. It was an increase in diagnosis. But I think that what we saw was that they still were talking about it from a curing perspective. Whereas if autism was something to be avoided, rather than autism being something that should be accepted, and people should be accommodating toward autistic people, I should say.Jay Ruderman (04:46):So do you feel that, with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, that they shifted, they understood-Eric Garcia (04:53):Yes.Jay Ruderman (04:53):That what they were saying was no longer the policy that was being accepted by most people in the autistic community. Do you ever feel that Trump understood that what he was saying about vaccines and the rise in autism? I remember in one of the debates, he talked about a friend whose child had gotten a vaccine and developed a fever and then had autism and that it's a problem in our country. Did he ever change?Eric Garcia (05:21):Not really. He never really retracted his ideas about autism and vaccines. Even before COVID there was a measles outbreak, I remember, in like 2018, 2019. And he said like, oh, the kids need to get the shots. But he never stops, never retracted saying I was wrong about vaccines and autism. I shouldn't have said that. And then of course, I think that sows the seeds for his supporters to say that the COVID 19 vaccine isn't safe. But he never really retracted his ideas. And I think that he genuinely believed them. We know that Trump delves into conspiracy theory, is a genuinely conspiratorial person. Some of them are because he wants to just blatantly lie to his supporters, like him talking about the big lie and the election being stolen. But then others, I think he genuinely believes, I think that he genuinely believes in some of his conspiracy theories about the media, or he genuinely believes some of his conspiracy theories about crooked Hillary or any of those other theories.Eric Garcia (06:33):But, yeah, I don't think that he ever really retracted them. And I think that lack of retracting them allowed for anti-vaxxers to sow seeds of doubt for the COVID 19 vaccine. And there's a direct through line from the autism vaccine panic to the modern day with COVID 19 vaccines. Even the way that he talked about the COVID 19 vaccine. He talked about operation warp speed. That probably gave into some of the conspiracy theories about the vaccine because it made it seem like, oh, this is moving fast. It's cutting regulations. It's going around things. So, even though his administration was talking about the vaccine, the way they talked about it gave credence to these ideas from anti-vaxxers that it was done at a quicker pace or was done at a faster clip. And as a result, they skirted some regulations. He's since, at some rallies, said, "Take the vaccine." But his lack of a retraction allowed for some really bad people to capitalize on that.Jay Ruderman (07:44):So, talk a little bit about why that feeling that vaccines cause autism is a debunked theory, because you've had a lot of celebrities, Jenny McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, Jim Carey, people that have come out and been talking about this in the media. Just for the record, why is that a debunked theory?Eric Garcia (08:07):First and foremost, it should be noted that Andrew Wakefield who was the physician who put up the study in The Lancet in 1988, he lost his medical license because it turned out that he was being paid by companies that were suing vaccine companies. The other thing is that he just did bad research. He did faulty research. And on top of that, not only did he lose his medical license, but that study in The Lancet that he put out, was retracted in 2010. But even before then, almost as soon as that study came out, there were people who were debunking it. There were people who were saying, there's little evidence that this is the case. But it was only in 2010 that it was retracted. But, there was never any real legitimate scientific evidence to prove the case that vaccines cause autism.Jay Ruderman (09:03):So let's talk a little bit about your book. We're Not Broken, Changing the Autism Conversation. When did you first get the idea to write this book?Eric Garcia (09:12):So, the way I got the idea to write this book is I was at a party in 2015 and my friend, Tim Mac, he was the host of this party. He offered me a drink and I said, "Oh, I don't drink because I'm on the autism spectrum." And he's like, "Oh, there's a ton of people in DC who are on the autism spectrum." He's like, "You should write a piece about them." And I thought, oh, when I get good enough, I'll do it. At the time I was an economics correspondent at National Journal. I was perfectly happy doing that for the rest of my life. Then what happened was the print edition of National Journal was going to shut down. And Richard Just, who was the magazine editor at the time, he said, I want you guys to pitch the most "go for broke" stories, before I'm out of a job at the end of the year.Eric Garcia (09:57):So, I pitched this idea to him and, initially, we thought it would be this fun, kind of chatty, talk of the town kind of piece. And then he said, "Well, why should this piece exist?" And then, I guess in a mix of hubris and frustration, I was like, "Well, I think we focus too much on trying to cure autism and not enough on trying to help autistic people live fulfilling lives."Eric Garcia (10:14):He's like, "There's your piece. Ten thousand words. Let's go." So, I wrote that piece. Blew up in a way that I didn't really even expect. And you know, I'm a political journalist. And I think initially when that piece came out, I think when I first started talking with people about writing a book, they wanted it to be a memoir. But I'm a political journalist. I've written for National Journal, Market Watch, Roll Call, The Washington Post, The New Republic.Eric Garcia (10:38):So, I wanted to look at it from a political perspective. And the other thing that I noticed was like, I know that my story is only that. Just one story. But I want to know if my story was indicative of any larger trends or how my story was an outlier. So what I did is I decided to hit the road. And this book is basically a compendium of multiple trips to Nashville, Tennessee, Michigan, the barrier of California, West Virginia, other interviews around Washington DC to see what happened. When we have bad ideas about autism, that creates bad policy. And, in many ways, that prevents autistic people from being truly able to live the most fulfilling lives. So, that was really what I did. And I decided to focus on a number of aspects, but the top ones were policy, education, employment, and poverty, housing, healthcare, relationships, gender, race, and then, the future of all these things.Jay Ruderman (11:44):So I want to get into a couple of issues regarding some of the things you brought up, first around policy. From what you've written, and based on my experience, many people with autism are left out of the policy debates on issues of autism and disability. Why is that?Eric Garcia (12:03):I think that the first, from the time that autism was really being studied in the 1940s, that it was really being comprehensive and studied either in Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore or in Nazi occupied Vienna, the main definitive authorities on autism were clinicians and psychiatrists. And they were the ones who were promoting ideas like refrigerator mothers and unloving parents causing autism. And then afterward, I think that when parents were starting to take back the conversation, when they were trying to take back power, they were the ones who were considered the definitive authority. So the organization that would eventually become the Autism Society of America, it was composed of parents, people like Bernard Rimland and Ruth Christ Sullivan, who, she just passed away a few weeks ago. These were parents trying to assert their power when they had been blamed for autism for so long. They thought that autism needed wealthy benefactors, because there wasn't a lot of research or a lot of focus on autism.Eric Garcia (13:01):But once, of course, a famous person's kid is involved, then, there's a lot of research into it. But I think the reason why autistic people themselves weren't included was because a lot of people thought they couldn't advocate for themselves. The difference is now the first generation that grew up with the Americans with disabilities act and the individuals with individuals disabilities education act and who grew up with better diagnosis criteria, this generation was born and raised from like the 1980s to the 1990s. They've now grown up. I'm part of that generation. And now they're able to speak for themselves. And it wasn't because they weren't able to, it's just that they didn't have the resources to.Jay Ruderman (13:43):Right. There's been a lot of tension between the Autism Self Advocacy Network and Autism Speaks and sort of feeling like, Hey, we don't need our parents telling us what to do. We can speak for ourselves. Is that still an ongoing dichotomy within the autism community?Eric Garcia (14:05):Yeah. I think that a lot of autistic people are saying that we can speak for ourselves and we can make work to advocate for ourselves and that we do have a lot more similarities than differences. So, I think that divide is still going on. You are starting to see more policy makers listen to autistic advocates, not as much as many self advocates would like, but still, making a decent enough difference. You know, I write in the book that many of the democratic presidential candidates from Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren, to Cory Booker, to Pete Buttigieg, had autistic people advise their presidential campaign, or listened to, or included autistic people in their campaigns or interviewed them, or consulted with them. So, this was a real thing that happened. I think that you're starting to see the policy conversation change just because more autistic people are involved in it. So, you're starting to see the change now and that's why you're starting to see people like Jessica Benham get elected in Pennsylvania. She's a Democrat.Jessica Benham (15:11):Now, I never thought that somebody like me, a working class kid, queer, autistic, would ever be able to serve in a place like this.Eric Garcia (15:19):And Yuh-Line Niou in New York, she's also a Democrat.Speaker 8 (15:22):Yuh-Line Niou was elected to represent the 65th assembly district in lower Manhattan.Eric Garcia (15:29):But also Republicans, like Briscoe Cain in Texas, get elected in state legislatures.Jay Ruderman (15:35):There's an interesting fact that I heard and maybe you can correct me on this or comment on it, that there are more people being diagnosed with autism, but it doesn't mean that there are more autistic people. What does that mean?Eric Garcia (15:51):So what happened is that, for a long time, autism had a really narrow definition. It's important to remember that autism didn't get its own separate diagnosis in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders until 1980. Of two previous iterations in 1952 and 1968, it was seen as a symptom of schizophrenia. So it was seen as a very narrow and very rare condition. And it wasn't until there were different per mutations included in the DSM, like pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified and Asperger syndrome and a lot of other conditions, that you saw increase in the diagnosis. Also, the other part about that Individual Disabilities Education Act is that it required public schools who receive money from the government to report how many autistic students they were serving to the federal government. So you just naturally saw more people being reported.Eric Garcia (16:48):And then on top of that, what you're seeing, is that you've also seen the numbers increasing in recent years. That's because we're getting better at diagnosing girls and women and people of color and black and Latino autistic people. So, it's more that we've included more people, because for a long time we thought that it was only something that affected upper class people. And then now we're realizing that it affects a lot of other people. So now, it's just that you're seeing more people who otherwise wouldn't be diagnosed, get the diagnosis.Jay Ruderman (17:23):So, I want to get back to the book for a second about one of your main arguments as I take it, and I'm going to quote, "Society should stop trying to cure autistic people and instead help autistic people lead fulfilling lives." Was this an impetus for writing the book?Eric Garcia (17:40):It was. It was an impetus for writing that initial magazine article. And it was an impetus for writing the book. Yeah. I think that what I saw was, and I still see it to this day, that I think that a lot of the focus on autism is people being nervous about it, or people being afraid of it, or people wanting to cure autism, or, if not cure autism, then mitigate the symptoms of autism with their kids. But what I also saw was that a lot of times this really hadn't born a lot of productive fruit. Meanwhile, a lot of autistic people are languishing. One of the things that I also noticed was throughout my time when I traveled throughout the country is I met plenty of incredible autistic people who were much smarter than me, much kinder than me, much harder working than I am, just better people than I am, but who languished. And it was because of misunderstandings about autism or because people tried to fix them or they always felt like they were the odd person out or whatever.Eric Garcia (18:42):And my feeling was, it was the lack of understanding and it was the lack of empathy. And it was the focus on and trying to cure autism that was preventing autistic people from leading good, happy lives. So, that was really what this book was meant to counteract in a lot of ways.Jay Ruderman (19:02):What do you think are some of the most harmful myths or stereotypes about autism?Eric Garcia (19:08):Let's start with the big one, that vaccines cause autism, that's not the case. Let's talk about what the anti-vaccine that really is talking about. Yes, it's about vaccines. But also at its core, it's arguing that autism is something to be avoided. It is something that is dangerous. It is something that is scary. And it is something that, if you could do that, you should do whatever it takes to make sure your kid isn't autistic. Right? That's what it is at its core. Otherwise, there wouldn't be fear about your kids becoming autistic because of vaccines. The other one, what I say is that there's a lot of dichotomy between quote unquote, "high functioning" and "low functioning" autistic people. I think that a lot of people might say that I'm quote unquote "high functioning" because I can speak, I have a job, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a lot of other difficulties like sensory processing or that I don't have meltdowns, that I don't get overwhelmed, that I don't have trouble reading social cues or social interactions, or that I misread situations.Eric Garcia (20:10):I think that a lot of people we consider quote, unquote, "low functioning" are capable of many good things and they just need the right services. Or even if they have difficulty with meltdowns or difficulty with communication, a lot of times it's the focus on trying to stop those symptoms rather than listening to what's causing them that leads to problems. So that's why I tend to prefer terms like "high support needs" for people we would normally consider low functioning and "lower support needs" for people we consider high functioning, because it's focused more on what they need rather than how people see them or perceive them.Eric Garcia (20:47):The other one is the idea that autistic people, that it's mainly a condition that affects upper class, white male adolescents. It affects a lot of adults. A lot of women and non-binary people and transgender people are autistic and there are plenty of people of color.Eric Garcia (21:07):And I think when we don't understand that people of color can be autistic, and that can sometimes have deadly consequences. Or they get misdiagnosed as having behavior disorders, or it leads to police interactions and police violence, like the case with Arnoldo Rios when his caretaker Charles Kinsey was shot because he was trying to protect him. So, there are plenty of misperceptions, I think, because of how we see autism.Jay Ruderman (21:34):So I want to ask you a couple of personal questions. You're a very successful political journalist in Washington. You are a quantity and people want to read you, but why did you speak out about being autistic until your second job? What made you want to open up about it?Eric Garcia (21:55):I think that I still was dealing with a lot of, and I still think I still do deal with a lot of internalized labels. I was worried that it would prevent me from getting jobs. It would prevent me from finding stable employment. I didn't want to be judged simply for being autistic, but I think that also came at a big expense because that prevented me from getting accommodations that I otherwise would've gotten.Eric Garcia (22:18):I thought that, oh, well I must have a job. So, I must not be quote unquote "that autistic" or I must not really need to disclose being autistic when, really, that was doing myself a disservice because I wasn't getting the help I needed. And I was really languishing in my first job. And I was really struggling at my first job, which was when I was a reporter at Market Watch and, B, I was really doing a disservice to my coworkers because they didn't know how to help me. And they didn't know how to be a good coworker for me. So, it was bad all around. And at the same time, I also completely empathize with why people wouldn't want to disclose.Jay Ruderman (22:57):I have a nephew who's autistic and he's young. He is a teenager. But I'm thinking about some of the personal challenges that you've written about, about dating and work. And what did you learn from those experiences?Eric Garcia (23:10):In dating, I'm still figuring that out. I'm single right now. But I think that I've learned is that you should be with someone who accepts you completely for who you are. I've dated neurotypical women, I've dated autistic women. A lot of people say, do you prefer one neurotype over the other? My response always it's I prefer someone who's cool. It's not one is better than the other. It's that there are pluses and minuses with every person and every neurotype,Jay Ruderman (23:40):But why is it, in your opinion, important to label autism as a disability and not a disease. And also, what language should people refrain from when discussing autism?Eric Garcia (23:54):Let me answer the second question first. Like I mentioned, I'm not a fan of the terms, high functioning and low functioning, because I think they set really unrealistic expectations for both types of people. If you call someone low functioning, I think that it sets expectations so criminally low that it either allows people to be super patronizing to autistic people, or what it does is, it says, whoa, they are low functioning, so we really don't need to spend that much money on them. Or we don't focus that much on them. We don't need to think about educating them, or we don't need to think about making sure that they have good housing or enough money to live or things like that. Conversely, if you are called high functioning then the feeling is well, they're high functioning. So we really don't need to spend that much money on them because they can do without things.Eric Garcia (24:45):They don't need that much accommodations. And either way, they're getting screwed. And rather, I would prefer terms like I said, high support need or low support need. Also, I think autistic people, ourselves, instead of saying person with autism, we prefer that people say autistic people, because what we want people to recognize, at least what I want people to recognize, is I want people to say that autism is an inextricable part of who I am, and this is going to segue into the diseases, not disability. I need to you to see the disability. And I think people need to see the disability as inextricable part of someone, and that to change their autism is to change who they are fundamentally. That's what I want. And that's not to say that you don't want to mitigate some of the symptoms like meltdowns or you don't want to change some of the comorbidities or the other conditions that might come with autism, like heart disease or epilepsy, but we need you to see the autism.Eric Garcia (25:44):We need to see that autistic people are fine as they are, that they're good people as they are. They can live good and happy lives. And that goes to your question about disability and not disease. A disability is something that doesn't mean that it's all good. You know, there are certainly impairments with disability, just like with deafness or using a wheelchair or anything else. For example, cancer is something we want to eliminate, period. Cancer is a terrible thing that kills people. Alzheimer's, we want to get rid of Alzheimer's. We want to get rid of heart disease. Disability is more defined by how the world disables people rather than it being an actual malady. And I think that what we want is we want people to see autism as something that's a disability. And I say it's a disability because they deserve all the rights that other disabled people deserve. So, that's what I would say. Does that answer your question?Jay Ruderman (26:39):Of course. And they're very powerful points. I want to talk about a couple areas where autistic people are faced with interactions with society that may not be perfect. So, let's talk about medicine. You interviewed an autistic woman named Lydia Wayman in Pittsburgh and her medical complaints were not taken seriously. How has the medical system failed autistic people and what can be done to change that?Eric Garcia (27:06):Lydia's doctor, Arvind Venkat, who's helped her in a lot of ways, he said you cannot think of a worse place for an autistic person than an emergency department. Between all the bright lights and people poking you all at once and all of these intervening things that people pass around you with questions. But I think the other thing, as Lydia said, I should say, is that they often don't take autistic people's needs seriously because they're taught that autistic people can't understand what's going on with them, or they can't advocate for themselves. Or oftentimes, oddly enough, Lydia was doing what people told her, which is to keep a positive attitude and be happy and smile and things like that. But oddly enough, it was those very things that made people think that she wasn't really sick.Eric Garcia (27:54):So oddly enough, it was playing the social games that prevented doctors from really taking her seriously. So, that's one clear example. And then I think another one is that a lot of times autistic people are oftentimes not eligible for organ transplants because people don't see their lives as valuable. We saw this a lot with COVID 19, also, in that a lot of autistic people were more vulnerable because they were in congregate care settings during the pandemic, and they still are.Jay Ruderman (28:22):So, let's move to the issue of the makeup, the portrait, of what the autistic community looks like. And you talked about this, that, historically, the people of color and women in LGBTQ have been left out of the portrait. But also you mentioned that, disproportionately, the autistic community identifies with the LBGTQ community. So, can you talk a little bit about that?Eric Garcia (28:48):So there was a study at autism research in 2018 that surveyed 309 autistic individuals and 310 typically developing individuals. And it found that 30.9% of typically developing autistic people reported being non heterosexual, 69.7% of the autistic group reported being non heterosexual. That's more than double. So, that is definitely a thing. But, for the longest time, I think our focus on autism has been on cisgender, heterosexual, mostly men. In a lot of comedies and dramas and movies like that are focused on this idea that autistic men and reality TV shows are focused on autistic men who can't get a date. And that certainly might be some aspect of it, but it's certainly not the whole of autism. And it's certainly not all of autistic people, especially if that large of a part of the population identifies as LGBTQ+.Jay Ruderman (29:52):Let's talk about policing.Eric Garcia (29:54):Yeah. Always fun.Jay Ruderman (29:55):Yeah. Always fun. Our foundation wrote a white paper. It was essentially our first white paper that said most people who are killed by police are people with disabilities. Talk about law enforcement and how law enforcement can better support people with mental disabilities, especially people of color.Eric Garcia (30:21):I think we see that a lot of times police are ill-equipped, even if they're trained in understanding autism. They still are focusing on, obviously, promoting safety and, oftentimes, that gives them a lot of leeway with shooting or with police violence. I actually think that's too big of an ask for police officers. I actually think that this is not necessarily a job for policing because that's above their pay grade, even if you're trained for a few hours. I don't think it's the best thing. I think that what needs to happen instead, I should say, is focus on how do you reduce interactions between autistic people and a lot of other disabled people are dealing with mental illness and law enforcement, more than anything else.Jay Ruderman (31:06):Yeah. It's so important. And I think that there's been some discussion in some communities about using a mental health professional to be on the scene or to be consulting when an incident does come up, because police, as you say, are not always equipped to deal with these situations.Eric Garcia (31:23):Yeah. And I want to say that, as I said, I'll repeat it again. I think that's too big of an ask for police.Jay Ruderman (31:29):Let's talk about parents. We talked a little bit about this before, but sometimes parents can play a harmful role in perceptions of autistic people, and how can they be better allies for their children?Eric Garcia (31:44):I think one of the things that I think they should do is that they should listen to a lot of autistic adults. Autistic parents will say that they're automatically, and I know because I've seen this even in my own experience and I get sometimes in my Twitter mentions, where they'll say like, I feel like you erased my child's experience when you talk, when you do these interviews. My response is, I don't want to erase anybody's experience. I think that I have more in common with your kid than you might realize. And I think that those similarities might help you. So, I think that's one thing, is listening to other autistic people, even if they look different or they speak differently, or whether they can speak at all, there are so many common modalities that can help autistic people. I think the other thing is starting from a baseline assumption that your kids are human and they deserve all good things and that you wouldn't do to your child what you would do to your other child.Eric Garcia (32:37):I think one of the things that's talked primarily about the Judge Rotenberg Center, which is the facility in Massachusetts that administers shock therapy. Nobody would ever think to do that to a typically developing child. But for some reason we think that it's okay and it's legitimate for autistic people because they're autistic. That's not okay. And I think the thing that you need to do is to start from that assumption of, would this be considered a humane thing if this person was not autistic? And most people, if they saw the Judge Rotenberg Center, they'd say, "Hell no."Jay Ruderman (33:10):It's in Waltham. And it's around the corner from where my daughter goes to school. And, I know the history of it, which is awful. We have so many is that we could get into, but I just want to touch on a couple that I think are so important. I read that only 19% of autistic young adults have ever lived independently. And also that 50% to 75% of autistic people are unemployed or underemployed. So, what's your advice on how more people with autism or autistic people can live independently and how more autistic people can be employed in the workforce?Eric Garcia (33:50):That's not so much your question for autistic people. Those numbers are an indictment of all of us, really. They're an indictment of society. As I say, there are some incredible autistic people I know who deserve good employment, but, because a lot of times education gaps are too big or education isn't accessible or adaptable or accommodating, that prevents them from getting college degrees that will allow them to get jobs. It's expectations from employers or misperceptions from employers. It's also, to the point about parents, a lot of times it might be parents thinking that their kid might be better in a congregate care setting instead of living independently or living within the community. When numbers are that high, it's usually not an individual failing. So, rather than giving advice about how autistic people can change. I think the more things that we need to do is we need to look at how are we failing and how are we not serving autistic people. That these are just such atrocious numbers.Jay Ruderman (34:52):Yeah. They're big issues that society needs to get better at. Let me ask you, what'd you learn about yourself while writing this book? And finally, I want to ask you the most important insights that you want people to take away from reading the book.Eric Garcia (35:09):Yeah. I think the thing that I learned is that there's many ways to be autistic and all of them are valid. I think when I started writing this book, I was worried that I wasn't autistic enough or I wasn't the right kind of autistic. I worried that I didn't know enough about the history or because a lot of my friends growing up were neurotypical, that I didn't have the same experience of other autistic people. It's a lot of my anxieties about me being Mexican American and the fact that I don't speak Spanish and the fact that I've never been to Mexico. And I think that what I learned is meeting so many incredible autistic people is that there's no right or wrong way to be autistic. And then the other thing that I learned was that I'm incredibly fortunate.Eric Garcia (35:50):A lot of things had to go right for me to live a good life. And I think I live a pretty good life now. And the thing that I also saw was how many people, like I said, haven't been able to live good lives through no fault their own. And that's usually because of gaps in society. So I learned how incredibly fortunate I am. And as far as what I want people to take away from autistic people, I want them to take away that autistic people are fine with who they are and that they're fully human and that they deserve all the respect that other people of all walks of life deserve.Jay Ruderman (36:26):Eric, it's been a pleasure having you as a guest. I want to urge my listeners to check you out and your writing in The Independent. I think your political insights in America are really, really interesting. I think people would really enjoy reading your articles. But I also would like to urge my listeners to go out and buy Eric's book, which is We're Not Broken, Changing the Autism Conversation. It's a powerful book. It's a book you need to read and I'm sure you can find it on Amazon and wherever you buy your books. But, do not, not read this book. It's very important. So Eric, thank you so much. I really enjoyed this conversation and I wish you much success in the future.Eric Garcia (37:10):Thank you for having me. I much appreciate it.Jay Ruderman (37:13):All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our editor is Yochai Maital. Jackie Schwartz is our producer. If you enjoyed this episode, please check out all of our previous conversations. Look up All Inclusive wherever you get your podcast. As always, if you have an idea for a guest or just want to share your thoughts, I'd love to hear from you. You can tweet me @jayruderman or email us at allinclusiveatrudermanfoundation.org. Please help us spread the word. Tell a friend or family member and consider writing a review on your favorite podcasting app. That really goes a long way. I'm Jay Ruderman and I'll catch you on the next installment of All Inclusive.Speaker 9 (37:57):Au revoir, but not good-bye.

Jay Ruderman (00:02):
Hi. I’m Jay Ruderman and welcome to the All Inclusive podcast. Stories of activism, change, and courage.

‍

Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is all wrong.

‍

Speaker 3 (00:13):
I say, put mental health first, because if you don’t…

‍

Speaker 4 (00:17):
This generation of Americans has already had enough.

‍

Speaker 5 (00:20):
I stand before you not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen.

‍

Jay Ruderman (00:25):
Each episode, we bring you in depth and intimate conversations with inspiring individuals trying to change the world.

‍

Eric Garcia (00:33):
When we have bad ideas about autism, that creates bad policy and, in many ways, that prevents autistic people from being truly able to live the most fulfilling lives.

‍

Jay Ruderman (00:47):
And today on our show, Eric Garcia.

‍

Eric Garcia (00:49):
I know that my story is only that, just one story. But I want to know if my story was indicative of any larger trends.

‍

Jay Ruderman (00:55):
Eric is the senior Washington correspondent for The Independent. As a journalist, Eric is focused on politics and policy, but this past August, he wrote his first book called We’re Not Broken, Changing the Autism Conversation.

‍

Eric Garcia (01:09):
Well, I think we focus too much on trying to cure autism and not enough on trying to help autistic people live fulfilling lives.

‍

Jay Ruderman (01:14):
Eric wrote this book out of a deep frustration with the media’s coverage of autism. It’s his attempt to dispel the many stereotypes that exist about it. We’re Not Broken is a love letter to autistic people.

‍

Eric Garcia (01:26):
We need to see that autistic people are fine as they are and that they’re good people as they are.

‍

Jay Ruderman (01:30):
He dives deep into topics like education, healthcare, and policies, which continue to leave autism and other disabilities out of the conversation. Eric paints a new portrait of what autism in America would look like if the autistic community was allowed to shape and be part of the conversation. Eric, welcome to All Inclusive.

‍

Eric Garcia (01:52):
Thank you for having me.

‍

Jay Ruderman (01:53):
Thank you. So Eric, you’re a political reporter for The Independent and you’ve been involved in politics for a while. So, let me just jump into the issue of how autism has been covered in politics. And I’ve gone through some of what you’ve written in your new book and some of your reporting. And we don’t have to go that far back, when Hillary Clinton, President Obama made comments about curing autism. And in fact, President Trump, in a debate which you talk about, talked about vaccines and the epidemic of autism. Tell me about that whole period and how that made you and others in the autistic community feel and where we may be today.

‍

Eric Garcia (02:45):
Yeah, I think it’s interesting because I think that in the two thousands, which is around the time when you saw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John McCain talking about autism and kind of playing footsy with anti-vaxers and talking about curing autism, that was kind of the conventional, I don’t want to say it was the conventional wisdom. It was more that was just something that was given legitimacy. So, at the time, there’s still Andrew Wakefield, the British physician, who had put out that study about vaccines and autism. His study hadn’t been retracted from the lancets and this was still something that was swirling around on internet circles and pop culture. Oprah Winfrey was talking about it. So it was given an air of legitimacy. And at the same time, this was around the time that Autism Speaks was launched, which focused very heavily on curing autism.

‍

Eric Garcia (03:44):
The difference, I think, between Hillary Clinton and Obama, John McCain, and a lot of these other people, is that they eventually changed as public understanding and public consciousness changed about autism. Donald Trump didn’t really change. So, by the time Donald Trump said in 2015 that autism has become an epidemic. And then by the time he was president and he talked about the increasing rates of autism, those ideas had become thoroughly debunked. We had found out that, of course, vaccines don’t cause autism. We had talked about how the increased rates weren’t really about an increase in autism. It was an increase in diagnosis. But I think that what we saw was that they still were talking about it from a curing perspective. Whereas if autism was something to be avoided, rather than autism being something that should be accepted, and people should be accommodating toward autistic people, I should say.

‍

Jay Ruderman (04:46):
So do you feel that, with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, that they shifted, they understood-

‍

Eric Garcia (04:53):
Yes.

‍

Jay Ruderman (04:53):
That what they were saying was no longer the policy that was being accepted by most people in the autistic community. Do you ever feel that Trump understood that what he was saying about vaccines and the rise in autism? I remember in one of the debates, he talked about a friend whose child had gotten a vaccine and developed a fever and then had autism and that it’s a problem in our country. Did he ever change?

‍

Eric Garcia (05:21):
Not really. He never really retracted his ideas about autism and vaccines. Even before COVID there was a measles outbreak, I remember, in like 2018, 2019. And he said like, oh, the kids need to get the shots. But he never stops, never retracted saying I was wrong about vaccines and autism. I shouldn’t have said that. And then of course, I think that sows the seeds for his supporters to say that the COVID 19 vaccine isn’t safe. But he never really retracted his ideas. And I think that he genuinely believed them. We know that Trump delves into conspiracy theory, is a genuinely conspiratorial person. Some of them are because he wants to just blatantly lie to his supporters, like him talking about the big lie and the election being stolen. But then others, I think he genuinely believes, I think that he genuinely believes in some of his conspiracy theories about the media, or he genuinely believes some of his conspiracy theories about crooked Hillary or any of those other theories.

‍

Eric Garcia (06:33):
But, yeah, I don’t think that he ever really retracted them. And I think that lack of retracting them allowed for anti-vaxxers to sow seeds of doubt for the COVID 19 vaccine. And there’s a direct through line from the autism vaccine panic to the modern day with COVID 19 vaccines. Even the way that he talked about the COVID 19 vaccine. He talked about operation warp speed. That probably gave into some of the conspiracy theories about the vaccine because it made it seem like, oh, this is moving fast. It’s cutting regulations. It’s going around things. So, even though his administration was talking about the vaccine, the way they talked about it gave credence to these ideas from anti-vaxxers that it was done at a quicker pace or was done at a faster clip. And as a result, they skirted some regulations. He’s since, at some rallies, said, “Take the vaccine.” But his lack of a retraction allowed for some really bad people to capitalize on that.

‍

Jay Ruderman (07:44):
So, talk a little bit about why that feeling that vaccines cause autism is a debunked theory, because you’ve had a lot of celebrities, Jenny McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, Jim Carey, people that have come out and been talking about this in the media. Just for the record, why is that a debunked theory?

‍

Eric Garcia (08:07):
First and foremost, it should be noted that Andrew Wakefield who was the physician who put up the study in The Lancet in 1988, he lost his medical license because it turned out that he was being paid by companies that were suing vaccine companies. The other thing is that he just did bad research. He did faulty research. And on top of that, not only did he lose his medical license, but that study in The Lancet that he put out, was retracted in 2010. But even before then, almost as soon as that study came out, there were people who were debunking it. There were people who were saying, there’s little evidence that this is the case. But it was only in 2010 that it was retracted. But, there was never any real legitimate scientific evidence to prove the case that vaccines cause autism.

‍

Jay Ruderman (09:03):
So let’s talk a little bit about your book. We’re Not Broken, Changing the Autism Conversation. When did you first get the idea to write this book?

‍

Eric Garcia (09:12):
So, the way I got the idea to write this book is I was at a party in 2015 and my friend, Tim Mac, he was the host of this party. He offered me a drink and I said, “Oh, I don’t drink because I’m on the autism spectrum.” And he’s like, “Oh, there’s a ton of people in DC who are on the autism spectrum.” He’s like, “You should write a piece about them.” And I thought, oh, when I get good enough, I’ll do it. At the time I was an economics correspondent at National Journal. I was perfectly happy doing that for the rest of my life. Then what happened was the print edition of National Journal was going to shut down. And Richard Just, who was the magazine editor at the time, he said, I want you guys to pitch the most “go for broke” stories, before I’m out of a job at the end of the year.

‍

Eric Garcia (09:57):
So, I pitched this idea to him and, initially, we thought it would be this fun, kind of chatty, talk of the town kind of piece. And then he said, “Well, why should this piece exist?” And then, I guess in a mix of hubris and frustration, I was like, “Well, I think we focus too much on trying to cure autism and not enough on trying to help autistic people live fulfilling lives.”

‍

Eric Garcia (10:14):
He’s like, “There’s your piece. Ten thousand words. Let’s go.” So, I wrote that piece. Blew up in a way that I didn’t really even expect. And you know, I’m a political journalist. And I think initially when that piece came out, I think when I first started talking with people about writing a book, they wanted it to be a memoir. But I’m a political journalist. I’ve written for National Journal, Market Watch, Roll Call, The Washington Post, The New Republic.

‍

Eric Garcia (10:38):
So, I wanted to look at it from a political perspective. And the other thing that I noticed was like, I know that my story is only that. Just one story. But I want to know if my story was indicative of any larger trends or how my story was an outlier. So what I did is I decided to hit the road. And this book is basically a compendium of multiple trips to Nashville, Tennessee, Michigan, the barrier of California, West Virginia, other interviews around Washington DC to see what happened. When we have bad ideas about autism, that creates bad policy. And, in many ways, that prevents autistic people from being truly able to live the most fulfilling lives. So, that was really what I did. And I decided to focus on a number of aspects, but the top ones were policy, education, employment, and poverty, housing, healthcare, relationships, gender, race, and then, the future of all these things.

‍

Jay Ruderman (11:44):
So I want to get into a couple of issues regarding some of the things you brought up, first around policy. From what you’ve written, and based on my experience, many people with autism are left out of the policy debates on issues of autism and disability. Why is that?

‍

Eric Garcia (12:03):
I think that the first, from the time that autism was really being studied in the 1940s, that it was really being comprehensive and studied either in Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore or in Nazi occupied Vienna, the main definitive authorities on autism were clinicians and psychiatrists. And they were the ones who were promoting ideas like refrigerator mothers and unloving parents causing autism. And then afterward, I think that when parents were starting to take back the conversation, when they were trying to take back power, they were the ones who were considered the definitive authority. So the organization that would eventually become the Autism Society of America, it was composed of parents, people like Bernard Rimland and Ruth Christ Sullivan, who, she just passed away a few weeks ago. These were parents trying to assert their power when they had been blamed for autism for so long. They thought that autism needed wealthy benefactors, because there wasn’t a lot of research or a lot of focus on autism.

‍

Eric Garcia (13:01):
But once, of course, a famous person’s kid is involved, then, there’s a lot of research into it. But I think the reason why autistic people themselves weren’t included was because a lot of people thought they couldn’t advocate for themselves. The difference is now the first generation that grew up with the Americans with disabilities act and the individuals with individuals disabilities education act and who grew up with better diagnosis criteria, this generation was born and raised from like the 1980s to the 1990s. They’ve now grown up. I’m part of that generation. And now they’re able to speak for themselves. And it wasn’t because they weren’t able to, it’s just that they didn’t have the resources to.

‍

Jay Ruderman (13:43):
Right. There’s been a lot of tension between the Autism Self Advocacy Network and Autism Speaks and sort of feeling like, Hey, we don’t need our parents telling us what to do. We can speak for ourselves. Is that still an ongoing dichotomy within the autism community?

‍

Eric Garcia (14:05):
Yeah. I think that a lot of autistic people are saying that we can speak for ourselves and we can make work to advocate for ourselves and that we do have a lot more similarities than differences. So, I think that divide is still going on. You are starting to see more policy makers listen to autistic advocates, not as much as many self advocates would like, but still, making a decent enough difference. You know, I write in the book that many of the democratic presidential candidates from Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren, to Cory Booker, to Pete Buttigieg, had autistic people advise their presidential campaign, or listened to, or included autistic people in their campaigns or interviewed them, or consulted with them. So, this was a real thing that happened. I think that you’re starting to see the policy conversation change just because more autistic people are involved in it. So, you’re starting to see the change now and that’s why you’re starting to see people like Jessica Benham get elected in Pennsylvania. She’s a Democrat.

‍

Jessica Benham (15:11):
Now, I never thought that somebody like me, a working class kid, queer, autistic, would ever be able to serve in a place like this.

‍

Eric Garcia (15:19):
And Yuh-Line Niou in New York, she’s also a Democrat.

‍

Speaker 8 (15:22):
Yuh-Line Niou was elected to represent the 65th assembly district in lower Manhattan.

‍

Eric Garcia (15:29):
But also Republicans, like Briscoe Cain in Texas, get elected in state legislatures.

‍

Jay Ruderman (15:35):
There’s an interesting fact that I heard and maybe you can correct me on this or comment on it, that there are more people being diagnosed with autism, but it doesn’t mean that there are more autistic people. What does that mean?

‍

Eric Garcia (15:51):
So what happened is that, for a long time, autism had a really narrow definition. It’s important to remember that autism didn’t get its own separate diagnosis in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders until 1980. Of two previous iterations in 1952 and 1968, it was seen as a symptom of schizophrenia. So it was seen as a very narrow and very rare condition. And it wasn’t until there were different per mutations included in the DSM, like pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified and Asperger syndrome and a lot of other conditions, that you saw increase in the diagnosis. Also, the other part about that Individual Disabilities Education Act is that it required public schools who receive money from the government to report how many autistic students they were serving to the federal government. So you just naturally saw more people being reported.

‍

Eric Garcia (16:48):
And then on top of that, what you’re seeing, is that you’ve also seen the numbers increasing in recent years. That’s because we’re getting better at diagnosing girls and women and people of color and black and Latino autistic people. So, it’s more that we’ve included more people, because for a long time we thought that it was only something that affected upper class people. And then now we’re realizing that it affects a lot of other people. So now, it’s just that you’re seeing more people who otherwise wouldn’t be diagnosed, get the diagnosis.

‍

Jay Ruderman (17:23):
So, I want to get back to the book for a second about one of your main arguments as I take it, and I’m going to quote, “Society should stop trying to cure autistic people and instead help autistic people lead fulfilling lives.” Was this an impetus for writing the book?

‍

Eric Garcia (17:40):
It was. It was an impetus for writing that initial magazine article. And it was an impetus for writing the book. Yeah. I think that what I saw was, and I still see it to this day, that I think that a lot of the focus on autism is people being nervous about it, or people being afraid of it, or people wanting to cure autism, or, if not cure autism, then mitigate the symptoms of autism with their kids. But what I also saw was that a lot of times this really hadn’t born a lot of productive fruit. Meanwhile, a lot of autistic people are languishing. One of the things that I also noticed was throughout my time when I traveled throughout the country is I met plenty of incredible autistic people who were much smarter than me, much kinder than me, much harder working than I am, just better people than I am, but who languished. And it was because of misunderstandings about autism or because people tried to fix them or they always felt like they were the odd person out or whatever.

‍

Eric Garcia (18:42):
And my feeling was, it was the lack of understanding and it was the lack of empathy. And it was the focus on and trying to cure autism that was preventing autistic people from leading good, happy lives. So, that was really what this book was meant to counteract in a lot of ways.

‍

Jay Ruderman (19:02):
What do you think are some of the most harmful myths or stereotypes about autism?

‍

Eric Garcia (19:08):
Let’s start with the big one, that vaccines cause autism, that’s not the case. Let’s talk about what the anti-vaccine that really is talking about. Yes, it’s about vaccines. But also at its core, it’s arguing that autism is something to be avoided. It is something that is dangerous. It is something that is scary. And it is something that, if you could do that, you should do whatever it takes to make sure your kid isn’t autistic. Right? That’s what it is at its core. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be fear about your kids becoming autistic because of vaccines. The other one, what I say is that there’s a lot of dichotomy between quote unquote, “high functioning” and “low functioning” autistic people. I think that a lot of people might say that I’m quote unquote “high functioning” because I can speak, I have a job, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a lot of other difficulties like sensory processing or that I don’t have meltdowns, that I don’t get overwhelmed, that I don’t have trouble reading social cues or social interactions, or that I misread situations.

‍

Eric Garcia (20:10):
I think that a lot of people we consider quote, unquote, “low functioning” are capable of many good things and they just need the right services. Or even if they have difficulty with meltdowns or difficulty with communication, a lot of times it’s the focus on trying to stop those symptoms rather than listening to what’s causing them that leads to problems. So that’s why I tend to prefer terms like “high support needs” for people we would normally consider low functioning and “lower support needs” for people we consider high functioning, because it’s focused more on what they need rather than how people see them or perceive them.

‍

Eric Garcia (20:47):
The other one is the idea that autistic people, that it’s mainly a condition that affects upper class, white male adolescents. It affects a lot of adults. A lot of women and non-binary people and transgender people are autistic and there are plenty of people of color.

‍

Eric Garcia (21:07):
And I think when we don’t understand that people of color can be autistic, and that can sometimes have deadly consequences. Or they get misdiagnosed as having behavior disorders, or it leads to police interactions and police violence, like the case with Arnoldo Rios when his caretaker Charles Kinsey was shot because he was trying to protect him. So, there are plenty of misperceptions, I think, because of how we see autism.

‍

Jay Ruderman (21:34):
So I want to ask you a couple of personal questions. You’re a very successful political journalist in Washington. You are a quantity and people want to read you, but why did you speak out about being autistic until your second job? What made you want to open up about it?

‍

Eric Garcia (21:55):
I think that I still was dealing with a lot of, and I still think I still do deal with a lot of internalized labels. I was worried that it would prevent me from getting jobs. It would prevent me from finding stable employment. I didn’t want to be judged simply for being autistic, but I think that also came at a big expense because that prevented me from getting accommodations that I otherwise would’ve gotten.

‍

Eric Garcia (22:18):
I thought that, oh, well I must have a job. So, I must not be quote unquote “that autistic” or I must not really need to disclose being autistic when, really, that was doing myself a disservice because I wasn’t getting the help I needed. And I was really languishing in my first job. And I was really struggling at my first job, which was when I was a reporter at Market Watch and, B, I was really doing a disservice to my coworkers because they didn’t know how to help me. And they didn’t know how to be a good coworker for me. So, it was bad all around. And at the same time, I also completely empathize with why people wouldn’t want to disclose.

‍

Jay Ruderman (22:57):
I have a nephew who’s autistic and he’s young. He is a teenager. But I’m thinking about some of the personal challenges that you’ve written about, about dating and work. And what did you learn from those experiences?

‍

Eric Garcia (23:10):
In dating, I’m still figuring that out. I’m single right now. But I think that I’ve learned is that you should be with someone who accepts you completely for who you are. I’ve dated neurotypical women, I’ve dated autistic women. A lot of people say, do you prefer one neurotype over the other? My response always it’s I prefer someone who’s cool. It’s not one is better than the other. It’s that there are pluses and minuses with every person and every neurotype,

‍

Jay Ruderman (23:40):
But why is it, in your opinion, important to label autism as a disability and not a disease. And also, what language should people refrain from when discussing autism?

‍

Eric Garcia (23:54):
Let me answer the second question first. Like I mentioned, I’m not a fan of the terms, high functioning and low functioning, because I think they set really unrealistic expectations for both types of people. If you call someone low functioning, I think that it sets expectations so criminally low that it either allows people to be super patronizing to autistic people, or what it does is, it says, whoa, they are low functioning, so we really don’t need to spend that much money on them. Or we don’t focus that much on them. We don’t need to think about educating them, or we don’t need to think about making sure that they have good housing or enough money to live or things like that. Conversely, if you are called high functioning then the feeling is well, they’re high functioning. So we really don’t need to spend that much money on them because they can do without things.

‍

Eric Garcia (24:45):
They don’t need that much accommodations. And either way, they’re getting screwed. And rather, I would prefer terms like I said, high support need or low support need. Also, I think autistic people, ourselves, instead of saying person with autism, we prefer that people say autistic people, because what we want people to recognize, at least what I want people to recognize, is I want people to say that autism is an inextricable part of who I am, and this is going to segue into the diseases, not disability. I need to you to see the disability. And I think people need to see the disability as inextricable part of someone, and that to change their autism is to change who they are fundamentally. That’s what I want. And that’s not to say that you don’t want to mitigate some of the symptoms like meltdowns or you don’t want to change some of the comorbidities or the other conditions that might come with autism, like heart disease or epilepsy, but we need you to see the autism.

‍

Eric Garcia (25:44):
We need to see that autistic people are fine as they are, that they’re good people as they are. They can live good and happy lives. And that goes to your question about disability and not disease. A disability is something that doesn’t mean that it’s all good. You know, there are certainly impairments with disability, just like with deafness or using a wheelchair or anything else. For example, cancer is something we want to eliminate, period. Cancer is a terrible thing that kills people. Alzheimer’s, we want to get rid of Alzheimer’s. We want to get rid of heart disease. Disability is more defined by how the world disables people rather than it being an actual malady. And I think that what we want is we want people to see autism as something that’s a disability. And I say it’s a disability because they deserve all the rights that other disabled people deserve. So, that’s what I would say. Does that answer your question?

‍

Jay Ruderman (26:39):
Of course. And they’re very powerful points. I want to talk about a couple areas where autistic people are faced with interactions with society that may not be perfect. So, let’s talk about medicine. You interviewed an autistic woman named Lydia Wayman in Pittsburgh and her medical complaints were not taken seriously. How has the medical system failed autistic people and what can be done to change that?

‍

Eric Garcia (27:06):
Lydia’s doctor, Arvind Venkat, who’s helped her in a lot of ways, he said you cannot think of a worse place for an autistic person than an emergency department. Between all the bright lights and people poking you all at once and all of these intervening things that people pass around you with questions. But I think the other thing, as Lydia said, I should say, is that they often don’t take autistic people’s needs seriously because they’re taught that autistic people can’t understand what’s going on with them, or they can’t advocate for themselves. Or oftentimes, oddly enough, Lydia was doing what people told her, which is to keep a positive attitude and be happy and smile and things like that. But oddly enough, it was those very things that made people think that she wasn’t really sick.

‍

Eric Garcia (27:54):
So oddly enough, it was playing the social games that prevented doctors from really taking her seriously. So, that’s one clear example. And then I think another one is that a lot of times autistic people are oftentimes not eligible for organ transplants because people don’t see their lives as valuable. We saw this a lot with COVID 19, also, in that a lot of autistic people were more vulnerable because they were in congregate care settings during the pandemic, and they still are.

‍

Jay Ruderman (28:22):
So, let’s move to the issue of the makeup, the portrait, of what the autistic community looks like. And you talked about this, that, historically, the people of color and women in LGBTQ have been left out of the portrait. But also you mentioned that, disproportionately, the autistic community identifies with the LBGTQ community. So, can you talk a little bit about that?

‍

Eric Garcia (28:48):
So there was a study at autism research in 2018 that surveyed 309 autistic individuals and 310 typically developing individuals. And it found that 30.9% of typically developing autistic people reported being non heterosexual, 69.7% of the autistic group reported being non heterosexual. That’s more than double. So, that is definitely a thing. But, for the longest time, I think our focus on autism has been on cisgender, heterosexual, mostly men. In a lot of comedies and dramas and movies like that are focused on this idea that autistic men and reality TV shows are focused on autistic men who can’t get a date. And that certainly might be some aspect of it, but it’s certainly not the whole of autism. And it’s certainly not all of autistic people, especially if that large of a part of the population identifies as LGBTQ+.

‍

Jay Ruderman (29:52):
Let’s talk about policing.

‍

Eric Garcia (29:54):
Yeah. Always fun.

Jay Ruderman (29:55):
Yeah. Always fun. Our foundation wrote a white paper. It was essentially our first white paper that said most people who are killed by police are people with disabilities. Talk about law enforcement and how law enforcement can better support people with mental disabilities, especially people of color.

‍

Eric Garcia (30:21):
I think we see that a lot of times police are ill-equipped, even if they’re trained in understanding autism. They still are focusing on, obviously, promoting safety and, oftentimes, that gives them a lot of leeway with shooting or with police violence. I actually think that’s too big of an ask for police officers. I actually think that this is not necessarily a job for policing because that’s above their pay grade, even if you’re trained for a few hours. I don’t think it’s the best thing. I think that what needs to happen instead, I should say, is focus on how do you reduce interactions between autistic people and a lot of other disabled people are dealing with mental illness and law enforcement, more than anything else.

‍

Jay Ruderman (31:06):
Yeah. It’s so important. And I think that there’s been some discussion in some communities about using a mental health professional to be on the scene or to be consulting when an incident does come up, because police, as you say, are not always equipped to deal with these situations.

‍

Eric Garcia (31:23):
Yeah. And I want to say that, as I said, I’ll repeat it again. I think that’s too big of an ask for police.

‍

Jay Ruderman (31:29):
Let’s talk about parents. We talked a little bit about this before, but sometimes parents can play a harmful role in perceptions of autistic people, and how can they be better allies for their children?

‍

Eric Garcia (31:44):
I think one of the things that I think they should do is that they should listen to a lot of autistic adults. Autistic parents will say that they’re automatically, and I know because I’ve seen this even in my own experience and I get sometimes in my Twitter mentions, where they’ll say like, I feel like you erased my child’s experience when you talk, when you do these interviews. My response is, I don’t want to erase anybody’s experience. I think that I have more in common with your kid than you might realize. And I think that those similarities might help you. So, I think that’s one thing, is listening to other autistic people, even if they look different or they speak differently, or whether they can speak at all, there are so many common modalities that can help autistic people. I think the other thing is starting from a baseline assumption that your kids are human and they deserve all good things and that you wouldn’t do to your child what you would do to your other child.

‍

Eric Garcia (32:37):
I think one of the things that’s talked primarily about the Judge Rotenberg Center, which is the facility in Massachusetts that administers shock therapy. Nobody would ever think to do that to a typically developing child. But for some reason we think that it’s okay and it’s legitimate for autistic people because they’re autistic. That’s not okay. And I think the thing that you need to do is to start from that assumption of, would this be considered a humane thing if this person was not autistic? And most people, if they saw the Judge Rotenberg Center, they’d say, “Hell no.”

‍

Jay Ruderman (33:10):
It’s in Waltham. And it’s around the corner from where my daughter goes to school. And, I know the history of it, which is awful. We have so many is that we could get into, but I just want to touch on a couple that I think are so important. I read that only 19% of autistic young adults have ever lived independently. And also that 50% to 75% of autistic people are unemployed or underemployed. So, what’s your advice on how more people with autism or autistic people can live independently and how more autistic people can be employed in the workforce?

‍

Eric Garcia (33:50):
That’s not so much your question for autistic people. Those numbers are an indictment of all of us, really. They’re an indictment of society. As I say, there are some incredible autistic people I know who deserve good employment, but, because a lot of times education gaps are too big or education isn’t accessible or adaptable or accommodating, that prevents them from getting college degrees that will allow them to get jobs. It’s expectations from employers or misperceptions from employers. It’s also, to the point about parents, a lot of times it might be parents thinking that their kid might be better in a congregate care setting instead of living independently or living within the community. When numbers are that high, it’s usually not an individual failing. So, rather than giving advice about how autistic people can change. I think the more things that we need to do is we need to look at how are we failing and how are we not serving autistic people. That these are just such atrocious numbers.

‍

Jay Ruderman (34:52):
Yeah. They’re big issues that society needs to get better at. Let me ask you, what’d you learn about yourself while writing this book? And finally, I want to ask you the most important insights that you want people to take away from reading the book.

‍

Eric Garcia (35:09):
Yeah. I think the thing that I learned is that there’s many ways to be autistic and all of them are valid. I think when I started writing this book, I was worried that I wasn’t autistic enough or I wasn’t the right kind of autistic. I worried that I didn’t know enough about the history or because a lot of my friends growing up were neurotypical, that I didn’t have the same experience of other autistic people. It’s a lot of my anxieties about me being Mexican American and the fact that I don’t speak Spanish and the fact that I’ve never been to Mexico. And I think that what I learned is meeting so many incredible autistic people is that there’s no right or wrong way to be autistic. And then the other thing that I learned was that I’m incredibly fortunate.

‍

Eric Garcia (35:50):
A lot of things had to go right for me to live a good life. And I think I live a pretty good life now. And the thing that I also saw was how many people, like I said, haven’t been able to live good lives through no fault their own. And that’s usually because of gaps in society. So I learned how incredibly fortunate I am. And as far as what I want people to take away from autistic people, I want them to take away that autistic people are fine with who they are and that they’re fully human and that they deserve all the respect that other people of all walks of life deserve.

‍

Jay Ruderman (36:26):
Eric, it’s been a pleasure having you as a guest. I want to urge my listeners to check you out and your writing in The Independent. I think your political insights in America are really, really interesting. I think people would really enjoy reading your articles. But I also would like to urge my listeners to go out and buy Eric’s book, which is We’re Not Broken, Changing the Autism Conversation. It’s a powerful book. It’s a book you need to read and I’m sure you can find it on Amazon and wherever you buy your books. But, do not, not read this book. It’s very important. So Eric, thank you so much. I really enjoyed this conversation and I wish you much success in the future.

‍

Eric Garcia (37:10):
Thank you for having me. I much appreciate it.

‍

Jay Ruderman (37:13):
All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman Family Foundation. Our editor is Yochai Maital. Jackie Schwartz is our producer. If you enjoyed this episode, please check out all of our previous conversations. Look up All Inclusive wherever you get your podcast. As always, if you have an idea for a guest or just want to share your thoughts, I’d love to hear from you. You can tweet me @jayruderman or email us at allinclusiveatrudermanfoundation.org. Please help us spread the word. Tell a friend or family member and consider writing a review on your favorite podcasting app. That really goes a long way. I’m Jay Ruderman and I’ll catch you on the next installment of All Inclusive.

‍

Speaker 9 (37:57):
Au revoir, but not good-bye.

‍