April 5, 2025 • 55 mins
After bringing about the legal action that struck down Affirmative Action, Edward Blum is back, going after grants and fellowships that support marginalized people, especially Black women. Bridget Todd breaks down what's going on and what the future may hold in this classic episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Annie and Samantha.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm hoping to stuff I never told you protection Buyheart Radio,
And today we are bringing back a classic with our
friend bridget Todd about affirmative action, and just with all
(00:31):
of the things that are happening with DEI and the
tax on it, the rollbacks on it, the abandonment of it,
I just think that this conversation we had about the
very legal organized effort to roll back affirmative action is
(00:56):
relevant and we're seeing it play out.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Even now.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
The fact that the lawsuit that came down in order
to contest it has made it worse and harder for
Asian Americans to get into these same universities is quite
the ironic, comical, painful. I don't know one of those words.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Maybe a mixture of all three. Maybe a mixture of
all three.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yes, well, please enjoy this classic episode.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Hey, this is Annie and Samantha.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
I'm what good to Steffan never told you a production
of iHeartRadio, and today we are so happy to once
again it be joined by the marvelous, the fantastic, the
wonderful bridget Todd award winning.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Award winning and book buying because I just bought your
new books stuff I've never told you.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Because I'm so excited.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
We were talking off Mike about how excited I am
so add award winning Comma stuff I'm never told you
book purchasing to that name of who I Am, Who
I Am?
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Thank you?
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Yes, it really really reads a lot. Yeah, and we
are so excited to have you on. I just I
feel like we haven't seen you in forever, even though I.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Know it's not true.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Time flies.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah, so it's great. It's very very great to have
you as always. How have you been, bridget what's been
going on? I know you do have some awards or
potential case trophy case.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
In this case that sounded really sorry, like.
Speaker 5 (02:48):
Do you know think about my legal.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
I am happy to take home the not the winning award,
but the second runner up whatever you want to call it.
Shorty Award for Best Tech and Science Podcast. Major shout
out star team Joey and Tari and Jonathan and Mike. Also,
speaking of Joey, I heard Joey on Stuff I've Never
Told You doing that episode about Coosa and it was
a really good episode. So they did of y'all yeah
(03:15):
for that one. Yeah, this summer is winding down Thank God.
I'm really looking forward to fall. This summer didn't really
take for me. How has the summer been.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
For y'all, you're asking while we're in the middle of
like hurricane season. Yeah, so we've had a lot of rain,
and a lot more rain is coming today, especially in
this week. So I will say though, as a person
who does enjoy like some of the somber parts of
the weather, like the like the darkness and the lightning,
as long as I'm not near it, because I do
(03:46):
have a small fear of that lightning. I am much
like my dog. But the heat, I'm good without it.
But I do have a fear of winter in that
I don't like being cold, so I feel like that's
too close to So I'm just an unhappy person.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
You don't want any of the seasons Like winter, I
don't care for it.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
I love fall and spring, but it's so sure that
i'llo get okay, I'm unhappy again.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
I'm ready for like it's it's been so hot in DC.
I'm I'm so ready to like be contemplative with a
sweater and like walk around holding a coffee and like,
you know, all the little all the things that you
associate with fall.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
I'm ready for it.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Well, I am like a my personality is Cardigan. Like
that's just the personality that I am. So I am
looking forward to that too.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Yeah, your personality can really shine, It's true.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Cardigan'style poncho, A good poncho and what I mean poncho.
I'm talking like you know, the sweater ponchos. I am
that girl. Don't worry about me. I'll be in the
order with my poncho and Cardigans cozy every day. It
sounds great, Annie, now you feel about it.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Uh, I'm ready for it to be over.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
While I was complaining about my AC unit, my window
AC unit just now. But I do agree with you, Bridget.
It didn't feel like it it took because I'm still
I am definitely going out more than I did, but
when the pandemic was like enfuls thing, but I'm still like,
I don't go out nearly as often, so I don't
(05:21):
go outside all the time, and so I'm just getting
like the heat with my sad ac unit and not
any of that other stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
So it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Yeah, it just sort of felt like, oh, falls coming out, Okay,
you know, miss it? Yeah, And I follows my favorite
month of season, so I'm very very excited for that.
But yeah, it is supposed to rain pretty badly today
(05:51):
and this there might be thunder. The power might go up.
My power goes out all the time, so we'll see.
But I feel like it's appropriate for what we're talking.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
About on the horizon to be aware. That is a
masterful segue. You're a real tro Thank you.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
I have a very specific skill set and it's like
bad puns and some interesting segues transitioning perfect.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
Well, yeah, that's a great transition because we gotta be
aware of all the different Supreme Court legal challenges and
storms on the horizon, one of which I am talking
about today, and that's because the man who brought us
the legal challenge that struck down affirmative action earlier this
summer is back, and this time he is coming for
grants and the fellowships that support marginalized people. So you
(06:40):
all probably recall that earlier this summer, back in June,
the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, ruling that race
can no longer play a part in college admissions.
Speaker 5 (06:50):
Notably, the decision just applied to race.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
It did not apply to gender or things like legacy
status or donor status being considered in the college admissions process. Separately,
some colleges, like Harvard have signaled that they might start
re examining the role that things like legacy status plays
in college admissions in light of that Supreme Court ruling.
Do you all remember this. I remember when the ruling
(07:14):
was struck down, how big it felt, especially being a
big Supreme Court ruling about a year after the after
row was struck down, it felt like, you know, one
big torrent of rain and then another big torrent of
rain to continue your metaphor, Annie.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Yes, metaphor nicely done.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Yes, Yeah, No, it definitely did, because that was at
the end of the Supreme Court session and there had
just been a lot of I mean, it turned out
to be true, but a lot of fear around like
what will they do?
Speaker 4 (07:50):
Right?
Speaker 5 (07:50):
It just made like all.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Of these decisions in one day.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
One day. Yeah, you know, it's odd because I was
absolutely alive, and I think, like talking about trying to
get into school and having this whole conversation when I'm
a firmative action was coming into debate to begin with,
and to see it like this, I'm not gonna lie,
I'm gonna be very transparent here as growing up in
a white household who are very conservative, not around any
(08:15):
marginalized groups outside of me, who they rescued and put
that in air quotes out of like a marginalized a
bad situation, seeing what they were saying was feded into
me and being like, yeah, I absolutely agree that I
should not get I don't want to be given a
special spot because of my race. I want to earn it.
Like I said that out loud to my family before
I started college, in any of that, not understanding what
(08:37):
it really was, and I truly believe my parents believe that.
I don't think my siblings believe that because they're they
are educated and they'd understand, but I truly believe that
because that was what was fed into me. So I
have this real, like ugh ick feeling about this whole
action because the face of the suit was an Asian
man who was bitter, bitter little baby that I feel
(08:59):
like so many ways about it, and then coming into
college on my own and then understanding what it truly
was and realizing, oh yeah, that stuff that I spewed
out as a kid was actual white supremacy coming out
of my mouth because I was trying to impress my
white family and being fed a bunch of lies. So
it was it felt like so gross to know that
(09:21):
I was manipulated like that at my young age, at
my young age. Also that I think, I don't know
how old the students. I guess he was trying to
get into college, so I guess maybe around the same time,
and then coming into this now that I'm like, oh
my god, what have we done? Essentially like with allowing
these types of lies to perpetuate and not looking at
the true statistics behind these actual numbers and why affirmative
(09:45):
action was and is necessary. But again, because of that
rhetoric being around, it wasn't surprising that it was undone
because it was truly hanging on by a thread because
of those types of lies. But yeah, I have like
this ache and like mourning in guilt, guilt by association
and guilt by like past actions that I'm like, oh
(10:05):
my god, what is this Like? Part of what I
was spewing is part of the reason this is undone.
Of course, the bigger picture is again white supremacists and
their power that they wanted to play and the overall
arcing like who was doing the main grab and trying
to make sure that what marginalized people stay down and
stay unable to get to any of these places because
(10:29):
they do not have the connections essentially just all connections,
not even money anymore so connections, and it's just disgusting. So, yeah,
I have very strong feelings.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Yeah, I first of all, thank you for sharing that,
and I can kind of identify, I know how you feel.
I don't think that you need to have guilt for
having felt that way, because, first of all, we live
in a society where it's so easy to pit marginalize
people against each other in service as upholding white supremacy.
(10:59):
Like that is a and true method that bad actors
and people interested in upholding white supremacy have engaged for
a very long time. And so the reason they do
it is because it's effective, and so it's not surprising
that it will be effective on you, a young person. Also,
the way that we talk about it, I think just
does not set people up to have a full understanding
(11:21):
of the conversation. Right, So we talk so much about
affirmative action, and when we talk about affirmative action, usually
the face of affirmative action is a black person, right,
And so we're talking about like, oh, well, do you
think that black people should get a leg up in
admissions processes? Of course people are not gonna agree with that.
But the reality is is that that is a myth
because the Department of Labor shows that the primary beneficiaries
(11:45):
of affirmative action are actually white women. That is not
what the way that are, the way that we talk
about it would lead you to believe, right. And so
another idea is that when we talk about admissions.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
So I would say, this is just my opinion, but
I would say that.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
There is an outsized space given to conversations about affirmative action, which,
as I said, are sort of translated through like oh
black people that go the face of it, and so
much less space given to things like legacy.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
Status, which I think I had a stat earlier.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
But it's some astronomical amount of kids in college get
there because they are their parents went to that college,
or their parents are donors to that college, or some
sort of a leg up. And essentially what that is
is like affirmative action for rich people. Yeah, we don't
even it's not even part of the conversation. And certainly
has not been part of the conversation the way that
(12:41):
affirmative action has been. So I would argue that, like,
you were not given a clear picture of the issue
in order to be able to like thoughtfully come up
with a critique or an opinion about it, right, And
I think that that has to be by design.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Right absolutely. I think in the understanding, as you are saying,
is the rhetoric I was given was all anti black.
Like we're going to be very very specific in calling
it what it was. It wasn't about anything else. It
wasn't about me being a minority or like being Asian
and a marginalized woman. Is literally they were trying to
be anti black. They were staying the quiet part out
(13:17):
loud because that's all they see. That's the big enemy
that is built up against white people, which is so
disgusting and it's very prevalent. Like that's the real understanding.
You need to have that whole fact and hold that
conversation is this is an anti black movement, and in
that it had, it did not It did not actually
(13:40):
help to the black community that much at all. It
really did not bring in, as you said, statistically, black
people into colleges. It was again more white women, all
white women essentially, and then again the legacy people that
those are the people who are still remaining and going
to colleges and still getting scholarships to get into these colleges,
and still getting like loans at a reason interest rate
(14:01):
all of those things. But for some reason, they built
this boogieman, not some reason, we know why, but they
built a boogieman in order to make sure that they
put down a specific group of people because they're like, hey,
this is about all we can win. We've always won
with this exactly, let's do this.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
Anti blackness is always that is a train that's always
on time.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
So what's interesting.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
About what you just said is that white women, despite
being the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action, are also the
most likely to be against it. So, according to a
twenty fourteen Cooperative Congressional Election study, nearly seventy percent of
the twenty thousand, six hundred and ninety four self identified
non Hispanic white women surveyed either somewhat or strongly opposed
affirmative action. Again, I think it's like one of those
(14:45):
situations where because the way that it is framed is
like this is a program that helps black people, and
if you don't think black people should be getting a
leg up over you, you should not be into it.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
You should be against it.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
That rhetoric actually ends up hurting all marginalized people, whether
you're a white woman, because you know, like it's one
of those dynamics where the anti blackness becomes a way.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
To get people on board.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
But then that is not an accurate reflection of who
the beneficiaries of programs like affirmative action actually end up being. Right, So, Annie,
you were saying how Asian Americans were kind of made
the face of the sort of victims of affirmative action,
and that is very much by design because of this
guy who is a conservative litigant named Edward Blum.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
I call him a.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Litigant because that's like kind of what he is, like
a professional lawsuit bringer. He is not a lawyer himself,
but he basically connects potential plaintiffs with attorneys who are
willing to represent them in test cases, which he then
uses to try to set legal presidents. He is the
founder and sole member of an organization called Project on
Fair Representation, which he found that in two thousand and five,
(15:56):
which focuses on voting, education, contracting, employment, racial quotas, and
racial reparations. Basically, his whole thing is bringing legal challenges
to strike down laws that I would argue protect non white,
non straight, non men. More on this later. However, if
you were to ask him, he would probably say that
it's not that he wants to elevate like one race
(16:18):
over anybody else, but that he wants all laws and
all like public considerations to be race or identity neutral.
He has described his ethos like this quote, our history
has been tainted tragically by the use of race in
various public and private arenas. Race discrimination is odious, something
the founding principles of the Civil Rights movement were designed
(16:39):
to eliminate. Personally, I would say that I don't know
if I buy what he is saying. It seems like
an awfully convenient way to justify the fact that he
keeps gutting laws that protect marginalized people. But there you
have it. That is what he says. His motivation is.
He just thinks that everything should be race neutral.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Right.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
The Guardians ripes him as quote a human wrecking ball
on a mission to destroy the landmark achievements of the
Civil Rights era and send the country back to a
dark age of discrimination and harassment of minorities in the
workplace and higher education and at the ballot box.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
H Well, I mean this is the very basis of
hitting that level of if everything was fair from the beginning,
great great, if everything was equal and everybody had same equity,
that would be a beautiful utopia. But as we know,
this land, this country, most countries that have been colonized,
(17:35):
is not based on that level, and that it has
never been about equity, has always been about who has
power and those who have power. Really was like, but
I love that time. That was a great time, But
can't we have that again? Which is like, hmm, you know,
we know what you're really saying exactly.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
The affirmative action ruling was not Flump's first rodeo. A
legal challenge that he brought was what led to the
gutting of the Voting Rights Act. That was the Shelby
County Versus Holder case that he sponsored in twenty thirteen,
and it led to the Supreme Court overturning a key
provision in the nineteen sixty five Voting Rights Act. That
legal challenge is when we saw the introduction of things
like voter ID requirements, cutting back on early voting, eliminating
(18:26):
same day voter registration.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
All of that was because of him. So thank you Edward.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Blum for ushering that into our landscape.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
He's really the villain, yea.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
In all the story on my podcast, there are no
girls on the Internet. We've referred to him a lot
as just like a professional hater, Like he's just someone
who like just like hate hate haty hate hate, like go,
I don't like that hate hate hate like professional hater.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Is he does?
Speaker 5 (18:51):
He is?
Speaker 1 (18:51):
He very rich.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
I think he's wealthy, like I think I think.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
That he I've actually looked into him because I'm he's
one of those figures that.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
I find so cure.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
He did not come from wealth, but I think that
he has wealth now and he's just interested in using
that wealth and influencing those connections into creating these different
legal precedents that I would say harm us.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
All right, he is that evil genius because we've seen
that in a lot of conservative think tanks as well
as essentially right wing groups that have been building up
the legal system to only help them, putting in uh
those in law school that they know that they can
pull back out, educating them and funding them to the
full in order to come back out and do these
(19:36):
types of cases, knowing that if they can do this,
this is going to be the basis of how they
win essential.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Oh yes, did you guys, did you all see that
docuseries on the Duggers on Hulu?
Speaker 1 (19:49):
No, I couldn't get to their yet.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
So that's the whole thing. It's a real like Jeze
as you might imagine.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Sure.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
One of the things they make very clear is that
it's not just about like this one problematic super religious
family on TV.
Speaker 5 (20:06):
It is about this vast network.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Of young people who are being trained and educated and
oursol are very well connected to reach the highest levels
of government and influence to make laws for all of us.
So it's not enough that like their kids are homeschooled,
or that their kids live a certain way. They are
training the next generation of political operatives and lawmakers to
(20:31):
make sure that all of us and all of our
kids live the way that they think that they should
be living. So it's pretty, I guess some diabolical.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
It's the word I would use.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
You mentioned earlier, how when you were having conversations about college,
you remember watching the first wave of the affirmative action
legal challenge go down, and even if folks weren't following
affirmative action very closely, they might remember Blum's earlier attempt
to challenge it. So Blum had been working to challenge
affirmative action since twenty thirteen, when he worked with this woman,
(21:04):
Abigail Fisher, who was the daughter of a good friend
of his who was a white woman.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
She you might umber shid red hair.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
She did not get into University of Texas because her
GPA was frankly mid. She sued the University of Texas
at Austin in two thousand and eight after it denied
her admission. She had a three point five to nine
GPA as a senior, which put her just below the
cutoff for a state law requiring UT to accept any
graduate in the top ten percent of their high school class.
(21:32):
So like mathematically speaking, she was not in the top
ten percent of her.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
High school class.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
She felt that she should have still gotten admission because
of her extracurricular activities combined with her GPA, and that
she would have gotten into UT if the university had
not used race as a factor in selecting its freshman class,
which she argued was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection clause.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
Do you all remember this? Like she was like a
very like memorable figure, Like.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
I feel like when I when I hear about this,
I can see this one image of her standing at
a podium outside of the Supreme Court, which is like
burned in my mind.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
I do remember this because I remember thinking, this is
the dumbest argument I've ever seen, because I'm like, girl,
you didn't make it, Like even without a firmative action,
you wouldn't have you wouldn't have made it. Do you
not understand how many people are struggling to get into
college today because a little more access has happened, not
just because of a firmative action, but like the lottery
(22:30):
and all of those things when we had more scholarships.
I was just like, why are people listening to her?
I think that was the biggest question in my head.
I was like, why are we paying attention to this?
Like she has no case, I think I thought.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
I remember thinking though, like is this an onion headbline?
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Like she did.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
The grades are bad and now she's.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
I think that was the beginning of like, oh, this
is a Becky Sorry Becky's in the world, that's really
just whining because she couldn't get her away like that.
I remember like that was the beginning of that of like, oh,
sorority girl was again no no, no, no hate to
sorority people. I'm so sorry, but you know that level
like stereotype in that my daddy said that I could
get in and now I'm not in.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Why so the way that y'all are reacting is exactly
how I'm this is validating because I remember her being
treated like kind of a joke, like her GP was
like fine, but certainly at three point a lot higher
than my GPA was when I was in high school,
so like I'll.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
Own that, but like you know.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
It's not three point five nine is not an automatic
entrance to wherever you want to go to college.
Speaker 5 (23:32):
It's like a fine GPA, And so I remember people calling.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Her Becky with the bad grades, and the vibe around
her was like she was just salty that she didn't
get in, and so she was like blaming black people.
And so obviously she was not a very I guess,
sympathetic legal challenge to affirmative action.
Speaker 5 (23:52):
So obviously Abigail's legal challenge did not work.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
So bum regrouped and made the strategic choice to make
the face of affirmative action, or the people being harmed
by affirmative action, according to him, Asian Americans. According to
an NPR article he told a gathering of the Houston
Chinese Alliance in twenty fifteen, quote, I needed plaintiffs.
Speaker 5 (24:10):
I needed Asian plaintiffs.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
NPR spoke to Hannay Lopez, a race and constitutional law
scholar at Berkeley, who described this as a deliberate switch
in strategy, and that the argument was no longer centered
on how affirmative action impacts white people. Instead quote, there's
this move to strengthen the surface argument that this is
racism against minorities.
Speaker 5 (24:31):
I think it's part of the appeal.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
And so I've read like Asian American activists and advocates
saying that, like what he was doing was this intentional
shift to make Asian Americans like a proxy stand.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
In for white people to be like, oh no, like this.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Can't be about racial animis because I am trying to
advocate for Asian Americans. And again, I think it's a
really great example of how effective a strategy it is
to pit marginalized groups against one another in service of
white supremacy, because in the end, it's not like I think,
since affirmative action has been struck down, we've already seen
(25:12):
data trickle in that wasn't that long ago, but already
we've seen data trickle in that suggests that like, yeah,
it's it's white.
Speaker 5 (25:19):
People with connections.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
It's white legacy students who are continuing to get more
slots in admissions. It's not you know, it's certainly not
helping the Asian Americans who were who brought this challenge.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
It's actually just opening.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Up more slots for more rich white people, because that's
how college works in the United States, right.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
And of course this play is being used by other
places such as Florida do doing the Asian American history
instead but blacklisting African American history. And we know what
that play is that that's the same type of narrative.
They're like, oh, this is working, let's try this, let's
keep this going exactly.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
So, I really want to talk about so, after on
the heels of successfully getting the Supreme Court to strike
down affirmative action, what is Blum's next move?
Speaker 5 (26:08):
Well, he is.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
Back after gutting affirmative action, his next move is going
after fellowships and grant programs that support marginalized people. He
is suing two corporate law firms on the grounds that
they're fellowship programs that are aimed at students of color,
those who identify as LGBTQ plus, and students with disabilities,
exclude applicants based on race, and he is demanding that
those programs be shut down. He is also suing a
(26:33):
black venture capital firm called the Fearless Fund. So this
is kind of the meat of why I wanted to
bring this conversation to the table today, because he is
alleging that the Fearless Fund is practicing unlawful racial discrimination.
Blum claims the Fearless Fund is engaged in explicit racial
exclusion by operating a grant program quote only open to
(26:54):
black females. According to The Washington Post, the lawsuit is
asked to prevent the Fund from selecting its next round
of grant winners. The claim states that the firm is
quote violating Section nineteen eighty one of the Civil Rights
Act of eighteen sixty six, a US law barring racial
bias in private contracts, by making only black women eligible
in the grant competition.
Speaker 5 (27:14):
So yeah, he's just like coming after anything that he
sees as supporting non white people.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
The Fearless fun was launched in twenty nineteen by three
prominent black women, Keisha Knight Pullman who you might remember
as Rudy Huxtable on The Cosby Show, entrepreneur arian Simone,
and corporate executive Ayana Parsons. They have a strong and
impressive list of investors like Bank of America, Costco, General Mills, MasterCard,
JP Morgan. They've invested in over forty businesses in the
(27:45):
past four years, including Atlanta favorite The Slutty Vegan.
Speaker 5 (27:48):
Have y'all eaten there?
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Oh? Yeah, it was near my house that I lived.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Yeah, Samantha was smart and went during the Super Bowl,
so there was no one there.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
They are open till two am, and so when the
Super Bowl because it's always packed out, and what we
went at it still took forever. They made good food.
It takes a while, but yeah, we would. I think
the only been once though, it's I don't stand in lines.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
It was a long line. I've never been.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
But and she has expanded that business everywhere, especially in
Atlanta and then Georgia. So good on her and owns
a lot of property.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
That wouldn't be possible without the Fearless Fund. And so
the lawsuit that Blum is bringing centers on the Fearless
Funds Fearless Strivers Grant contest, which awards black women who
own small businesses twenty thousand dollars in grants and digital
tools to help them grow their businesses and mentorship opportunities.
So interestingly enough, Blama did not seek out the Fearless
(28:49):
Fund to sue, but rather, he says that a non
black woman who runs a business reached out to him
via email and flagged like, did you know that these
black women are running a grant program that I can't
be part of? And so the Washington Post reports, but
the lawsuit sites three female business owners, one from New
York and two from Virginia who argued that they could
(29:10):
have benefited from the Fearless Funds grant program, but they
were ineligible because they are not black. So yeah, these
non black women basically just felt like they should be
entitled to this grant program that black women established for
themselves to support black women.
Speaker 5 (29:29):
They were like, we should have a piece of that.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
That's such an interesting take because I'm like, well, you
also didn't get it from every other business grant ever,
so why are you choosing this like you want? Did
you try for it? This just seems like a lazy
part of like I want this one thing, I couldn't
get it. I quit.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
They're biased, Like yeah, I mean, this is just my opinion,
and but like it's so hard to not see this
as like just hater vibe. It's like everything has to
be for you, and if it's not for you, you
have to shut it down. I think it goes back
to what we were saying earlier about the women who
(30:10):
benefit from affirmative action are also the ones who are
the most likely to.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Be against it.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
I firmly believe that there is enough out there for
all of us. And I'm an entrepreneur, right so I
know how hard the funding spaces for women, all women,
but I know how hard it is for black women,
in particular as a black woman. We'll get into some
of the stats in just a moment, but I believe
that despite that, there is enough for everyone. Everyone will
(30:40):
find their lane, everyone will find their people, everyone will
find what they need to make what they want happen.
I believe that as like a meditation that keeps me
in this work and keeps me being an entrepreneur.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
But I feel like the dynamic.
Speaker 4 (30:55):
That says that women need to be pit against each other,
that if you're a white woman you need to be
trying to shut down a grant that.
Speaker 5 (31:04):
Is for black women.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
That's not a dynamic that helps anybody, right, And so
I think that we all have our place, we all
have our niche es enough for all of us. But
that dynamic that we are enemies only serve that does
not serve anybody. It doesn't serve me, It doesn't serve
it. It ultimately won't serve them as either. It just keeps
us pit against each other as opposed to these larger
systems that are actually holding us all down.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
It's such a mind play that they have to people
have to go through to be like, Okay, I can't
get this one thing because they say I can't have it,
So that means no one should have it, because I'm
gonna be miserable, and so are you. Misery Lifts Company.
We're going to keep this mentality going and then also
not look at the like here's the small thing versus
the giant amount of stuff that you also can't get
because you're not a rich white man, But you don't
(31:49):
care about that thing, Like that's the one thing that's
a little bit more accessible to tear someone down who
other people will help you tear down with, instead of
this big giant amount of cash that's just sitting here
for the white man. Like it's just I said, for
the white man, like I'm a native but like, but
you know, that's just like mind level, like how much
you're willing to ignore to be like, Okay, I'm at
(32:10):
the bottom. Who can I make lesser than me? Who
can I push down further than me? So at the
very least I'm not at the very bottom. Oh my god,
that's such a mind trick.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
This reminds me of when I was a little kid
and my brother had this like free coupon for an
ice cream from McDonald's that he got from school. So
he went to McDonald's together and he got one ice cream,
and I didn't have any money because we were little kids,
and so they gave him his ice cream, and I
got very jealous, and so I smacked it out of
his hand on to the ground, and he was like, I.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
Was gonna give you a bite. That's like because I.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Was like, I don't want him to get something that
I can't have it because I got a flattering story.
But I was like seven years old, right, because it's
like he was going to give me a bite. So
I missed out on getting my bite because I could
not just let him have something that I wanted and
felt entitled.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
To you immediately and probably earned an accelerated reader.
Speaker 4 (33:03):
What it was like, it was like a if you
read X amount of books, you get an ice an
ice cream coupon or something.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I weren't for this, but yeah, I think this is
so interesting. And the fact that he, of course Blum
had to pounce on this, I'm sure it was like
a gift for him. Yeah, I must take this.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
He was like, ooh, I was looking for a way
to spread my hater vibes and yeah, I'm sure that
Supreme Court ruling and now this lands this gift lands
on my inbo.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
And also makes me stronger, stronger than the woman who's complaining.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Exactly, So, Blum is using what he has called quote
the shoe on the other foot test. The rhetorical strategy
that he asked himself is if a grant program funded
(33:52):
white male business owners wouldn't be considered fair. But that test,
like you were saying, Sam, really assumes that we're all
equal will and all have equal access, which the data
could not paint a clearer picture about the fact that that.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
Is not happening.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
Black women are the fastest rising group of entrepreneurs in
the country. According to the Harvard Business Review in the US,
an astounding seventeen percent of Black women are in the
process of starting or running a new business. That's compared
to just ten percent of white women and fifteen percent
of white men. Yet, despite this lead, only three percent
of women are running mature businesses.
Speaker 5 (34:27):
Why well, One big reason is access to capital.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
Harvard Business Reviews research found that sixty one percent of
Black women self fund their total startup capital. This is
in spite of the fact that, in their finding, only
twenty nine percent of Black women entrepreneurs live in households
with incomes over seventy five thousand dollars, compared to fifty
two percent of white men. This data is also combined
with data suggesting that Black women are less likely to
own our own homes, pick on a higher level of
(34:53):
debt to do things like go to college and are
often like saddled with debt to go to college, right,
and so ultimately that leaves us saddled with more debt
and having fewer personal resources and low collateral. Black entrepreneurs
typically receive less than two percent of all venture capital
dollars each year, while companies led by black women receive
(35:15):
less than one percent of all funding.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
This is according to Crunchbase.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
So yeah, the funding landscape is not great for black women.
Less than one percent of funding goes to us, and
so the fact that we already don't get that much,
that there are grants and investment funds specifically aimed at
shifting those numbers just a tiny bit, like the Fearless Fund,
(35:40):
and that people are saying, no, we need to go
for that too, that less than one percent.
Speaker 5 (35:44):
That goes to y'all that needs to go to us. Now.
Speaker 4 (35:47):
In twenty twenty, Pew found that just three percent of
US businesses were black owned, while eighty six percent were
white owned. And so, yeah, as I said, like, as
an entrepreneur, this these kind of dismal numbers completely aligned
with my own experiences trying to raise money for projects
that I want to do. There's just not a lot
(36:08):
out there, and you really have to stay focused and
stay positive and not really let that sort of numbers
around how dismal things can be kind of get in
your head. But then on top of it, when you
have people like Blum and these women that he's representing
in this case, to challenge these funds, to challenge what
little is out there for black entrepreneurs who are women,
(36:30):
it's hard to internalize that as anything other than they
don't want us here.
Speaker 5 (36:34):
They don't want us to have anything, you know.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Yeah, absolutely, And it's so frustrating too, because a lot
of companies like to act like they are supporting marginalized people,
they are supporting black people, and they make these like
outward promises and then just don't really follow through with them.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
Yeah, y'all might remember or be thinking like I thought
in twenty twenty, like after all the racial justice uprisings,
I'm the wake of the murder of George Floyd, I
thought that all these businesses and funds and grants were
like going to start funding more diverse people and like
having a more inclusive portfolio. While I remember all those
promises too, businesses committed three hundred and forty billion dollars
(37:24):
between May twenty twenty and October twenty twenty two, according
to McKenzie, and the Post also reports that investments swelled
in the startup world. A record five point one billion
dollars in funding was allocated to black founded startups in
twenty twenty one.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
That sounds like a lot.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
However, all of that interest and excitement and commitment pretty
much eroded very quickly, with funding for black founded startups
plunging fifty percent in twenty twenty two. So remember this
is all happening against the pendulum kind of swinging back
the other way where all of these corporate diversity efforts
became a political lightning rod, and these employers just sort
(38:02):
of backpedaled, right, And so I think that that's where
we're at now, where in twenty twenty people talked a
lot of big games about money they were gonna give
and funds.
Speaker 5 (38:10):
They were gonna give, and how they were gonna you know,
support inclusive people.
Speaker 4 (38:15):
And startups and YadA, YadA, YadA, and all of those
promises just fizzled out, right, And I think that we're
sort of seeing, I would argue, like a backlash to
that now where diversity and inclusion staffers are being let go.
I think like recently, Chick fil A just like happened
to have a diversity and inclusion person on their staff,
(38:36):
and like there was a flurry of like online protests
because of that. Like just having somebody thinking about that
on staff is now a lightning rod. And so obviously,
in that kind of climate, these organizations are not going
to be funding black women, even though they committed to it,
even though it seemed like that was there was a
lot of excitement around that, Like, yeah, I just think
(38:56):
that we're in a.
Speaker 5 (38:57):
Completely different landscape than me we were.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
In twenty twenty. This is definitely that whole level of
they want good publicity, but they're not going to follow through.
It's the black square. Let me pretend like I care,
and at the very least I'll be like, hey, let's
tell the black people in the story. Like that's That's
as far as their their actual actions went was putting
something on Instagram that they obviously deleted soon after because
(39:21):
they wanted to look okay for one group of people.
And I found that interesting that people are mad at
Chick fil A because it's like they're anti LGBTQ plus
so that's not enough for you. They need to be
racist and all of these things be in lune enough
for us to support you. You better be super super
racist and super super homophobic in order for the conservatives.
You can hate everyone except for white sis people. If not,
(39:45):
we're not gonna support you, even if your chicken is okay.
Speaker 4 (39:47):
So it and like this is a little like unrelated,
but like I think that with a lot of these people.
The Chick fil A example that you just gave is
a great example. A lot of these people like just
they'll find anything to be aggrieved about. Like you know,
I saw like Cracker Barrel was adding plant based sausage
to their menu and people were like plant based sausage.
(40:10):
I'm not gonna shop at Cracker Barrel and I'm never
gonna go to Cracker Barrel again. And it's like they're
not taking regular sausage off the menu.
Speaker 5 (40:16):
You don't have to order it.
Speaker 4 (40:18):
Just because they're putting food on the menu that like
someone else might like, that's not you.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
That's cause for upset. And so another thing I wanted.
Speaker 4 (40:26):
To say about your point, Sam, is that there's a
makeup company Tart they got in hot Water earlier this
year because they were doing these brand trips that looked
as if they were.
Speaker 5 (40:37):
Not being inclusive of black influencers.
Speaker 4 (40:40):
That they were asking black influencers like after the fact
to come and like giving them substandard accommodations and all
of that. And somebody found that in twenty twenty, you know,
they when they posted their black Square, this company was like,
we pledged that we're going to be more inclusive and
give more, do more partnerships with black and brown models,
and blah blah blah, and then they quietly removed that
(41:02):
from their website, but somebody found it on the wayback machine.
It was like, oh, let's get to update on all
of these like very specific commitments that you made. And
it turns out that they basically just like didn't do
any of that stuff. But the thing is, nobody put
a gun to your head and forced you to make
these commitments. You made these commitments and just to quietly
(41:24):
be like mm just kidding, like that doesn't sit right
with me, Like nobody told you to do this. Nobody
told you to post a black square. You did it,
you volunteered to do it. So when people expect a
little follow through, that should be that should be a given.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, And I I think about this a lot too.
We talked about this with a lot of the like
what happened with blood Light, what happened with Target, And
you know, then they just backtrack and make everyone angry.
But is I feel like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of
in this case, what it's like to be a transperson,
(41:59):
and then when they get like a little taste of
that the company, it's like, oh my god, oh never mind,
Like they can't even just for that one second, like
if they get this online hate that the cause, the person,
the community they're saying they support, gets, they get it,
and then they're like, never mind, Actually.
Speaker 3 (42:21):
Can they have that privilege, that right.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
That ability to step out and be like, Okay, I
don't want to deal with this anymore, which I think
is just very telling of ignorance and just like a oh, sure,
let's do this, and then they get that hate and
they're like, oh, oh never mind.
Speaker 3 (42:41):
Yeah, backtracking.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
That Dylan mulvaney thing that you just mentioned, the thing
that I will never be over is that Dylan mulvany
when she left social media at the height of all
of this and came back and made that video, said
that nobody at bud Light even called her to be like, hey,
are you all right, Like I'm seeing what's going on.
(43:05):
I that is something that will stick with me forever.
That this brand, because she said, happened to say yes
when asked to do a brand collaboration with bud Light,
she was had to go dark, had to probably go
into hiding, like was the target of very severe attacks,
and that bud Light, the company who came to her
(43:28):
to bring her into this, couldn't even follow up with
an email when they saw all of this happening.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
How quickly they abandoned her.
Speaker 4 (43:35):
And I feel like if you are a brand or
an institution who is working with marginalized people, if you're
not going to stand by them when this stuff kind
of stuff happens and when they get into situations that
really like you have put them in. But by offering
them this, you know, these partnerships, that's just not how
you engage people like that. Like, at a certain point,
(43:56):
it's like, I understand that bud Light is a corporation,
and I don't expect corporations to like care about any
of us, certainly not marginalized people, but the people who
run bud Lights marketing or influencer partnerships should really be
taking a good, hard look in the mirror, because that's
just like a failure of like how to be a
(44:17):
human to each other.
Speaker 5 (44:18):
Like, I like that just sticks with me.
Speaker 4 (44:20):
I could not believe that she said that that nobody
even ever reached out to her after they just like
dropped her and never ever followed up again.
Speaker 3 (44:29):
Yeah, and that's going back to your point.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
You know, companies are not big companies, especially you're not
you're not allies, and we shouldn't think of them that way.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
But they.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
If they posted the black Square, if they take these stands,
if they say they're going to do something, then yeah,
they should absolutely be held accountable. That's just backing away
and causing real harm. We were telling you a.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
Story before we started this out of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (44:59):
Some will bought that up and like making these things
so politicized that just to have a diversity inclusion person
at your company becomes oh well, then hate, like all
of this hate, like you keep saying, it's irresponsible and
it's not taking into account like the reality of working
(45:22):
with these groups.
Speaker 5 (45:23):
Yeah, I think that's ultimately what these people want.
Speaker 4 (45:27):
I think that they want just working with a trans
woman to be a lightning rod.
Speaker 5 (45:33):
She's not saying anything untoward, she's not.
Speaker 4 (45:35):
Doing anything untoward, she just is because her existence is
a lightning rod.
Speaker 5 (45:40):
Her existence is politicized.
Speaker 4 (45:41):
I think just having a DEI person, just providing a
grant for black women, they want that to be toxic.
They want people to know that if you do that,
you might be in court, you might you know, be
targeted for a hate campaign, and so to just make
it not and that anybody would want to risk. And
(46:01):
these companies are so spineless that they're going along with it.
It's that they're being held hostage, and they're just like, okay, well,
they don't want us to.
Speaker 5 (46:12):
Have the chicken sausage.
Speaker 4 (46:13):
They don't want anybody who doesn't eat sausage to be
bad at our restaurants.
Speaker 5 (46:16):
So okay, we'll drop.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
Actually, Cracker Barrel did stand by their sausage choices, I
will say that.
Speaker 5 (46:20):
But yeah, I.
Speaker 4 (46:23):
Have been surprised by how these big, huge corporations just
cowtow to people who are not serious, people who are
just interested in flexing their power, their political power for
no real reason.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
I mean absolutely, we see all of these things. Actually
hurting people. They don't even want to be the face
of anything. They just want to exist. Funds like Fearless
fund is to exist and to help and lift up
people that they know need lifting up. The same thing
with Target when they had the small businesses with the
(46:56):
LGBTQ queer content and then taking them off the like,
we we were just existing and feeling like we wanted
to be the representation that no one else is willing
to look at or see or stand behind. And you
literally came after them, taking away their money, taking away
their existence, causing harm because again the mulvany thing, she
(47:17):
was just holding a beer. Yeah, she said, I like
bud Light. Simple, why can't she choose to do that?
And that ended up being a thing of like, well,
she is hurting the beer industry and she is doing
these things. No, she's just existing with a product that
they sent her. They're not like giving her fifty percent
of the shares of bud Light. Like that's what is happening.
(47:39):
Like this whole level of like what people are having
to do and they're having to come back and being
like instead of existing, we have to fight for our
place to exist. And that's such an absurd ideal, like
the fact that this has to be done.
Speaker 4 (48:03):
So this is what Tony Morrison says about racism, and
I think it fits to all of what you're saying.
The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction.
It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you
explaining over and over again your reason for being. Somebody
says you have no language, and you spend twenty years
trying to prove that you do. Somebody says your head
isn't shaped properly, so you have scientists working on the
(48:23):
fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art,
so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdom,
so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary.
There will always be one more thing. So like that
quote really speaks to what I think is happening.
Speaker 5 (48:37):
You know, the Fearless Fund.
Speaker 4 (48:38):
The stats that I just read about black women entrepreneurs
and how little of.
Speaker 5 (48:42):
The funding we get.
Speaker 4 (48:44):
It shows that the women who are running the Fearless Fund,
they have work to do.
Speaker 5 (48:48):
They have serious work to do to.
Speaker 4 (48:51):
Right the wrong and to bake a little more equity
into the funding landscape. So they don't really have time
to play around with these legal challenges. But yet here
they are having to spend their money, money that could
go to the funding landscape, staffing up a legal team,
holding press conferences.
Speaker 5 (49:09):
All of this.
Speaker 4 (49:10):
It is such a distraction at a time when marginalized
people have real work to be doing. Fearless fun is
fighting back.
Speaker 5 (49:18):
They have a.
Speaker 4 (49:18):
Beefy legal team including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Gibson Dunn, Crutcher,
and Ben Crump, the attorney who represented families of George
Floyd and Tyree Nichols in their civil suits over the
men's killing out the hands of the police. And I
feel confident like these women are like.
Speaker 5 (49:35):
Bad as women. They are not going down without a fight.
Speaker 4 (49:38):
But also they shouldn't have to, right Like they should
be able to just do their work and focus on
that work, and they should not have to be spending
their money on these bogus legal challenges just because they
want to exist, just because they want to support other
black women.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
And I find that again we're in this situation that
black women are the ones that have to be the
one to fight like they don't want to. They're tired,
they've been doing this and now we're back again, because
we know there's a lot and I know there's a
lot of fun specifically to women, like point blank women,
and they surely didn't have to go enough after them.
And I bet they were denied some of those and
they're probably better at that. But yet if they didn't,
(50:18):
that seems silly and that seems very targeted. Yeah, so
that's very telling. Uh, But like it again, it has
to be the black women that has to put up
this fight in order to get anything done.
Speaker 4 (50:28):
I mean, tail as old as time, right, and I
think right. I'm worried about this for a couple of reasons.
One is that I think that if these grants and
funds that specifically are meant to boost black women entrepreneurs
are deemed unconstitutional, I really don't know what the landscape
is going to look like because, as I said, like already,
so little of that funding goes to us in the
(50:48):
first place.
Speaker 5 (50:49):
But further, one of the reasons I wanted to talk
about it on the show today is.
Speaker 4 (50:53):
That I don't think it's getting near the same amount
of traction and attention that Blums affirmative action Chot just did.
And I really think that we need to see white
male and white women and really everybody in the startup space.
We need to see vcs and entrepreneurs speaking up about this,
(51:13):
because Blum is essentially arguing that the startup space should
basically just.
Speaker 5 (51:18):
Be for white people. And I think it's up.
Speaker 4 (51:21):
To everybody in the space to push back and say, like,
that is not the kind of funding space that we want,
That is not the kind of startup space that we want,
and to really make that really clear, like what kind
of a space do we want to have for the
next generation of entrepreneurs. We want to tell them that
the tiny little bit that they that might go to
them isn't even for them anymore. I don't I don't
think that's the space that we want.
Speaker 1 (51:42):
Right and absolutely in the same space again, this is
gonna hurt white women as well and the like if
we're saying that all of this is too specific and
it leads out other people of race, it's gonna hurt
gender as well. So this is not even just for
white people. It's be for white men. We're gonna have
more elon musks running running programs into the ground, That's
(52:04):
what we're gonna ten.
Speaker 4 (52:05):
Thousand percent, And I mean kind of like what you
were alluding to before time and time again in tech,
particularly when black women challenge things or do things or
start things, they uplift all women. And so even if
that specific program is for black women owned businesses, you're
(52:27):
gonna tell me that a black woman who is financially
supported is not going to go on to do something
that's going to lift up all women and all marginalized people.
Time and time again we see that that's how it
goes with black women. And so yeah, I just think
that this is just this is me smacking that ice
cream out of my brother's hand when I could have
gotten a bit instead.
Speaker 1 (52:43):
I mean, we already know that people like to still
white women's products because it's that good, So why not
let us have it? Like, yeah, we're gonna get the
good stop this.
Speaker 4 (52:53):
So I hope this is something that we I'm gonna
be following it. I'll give folks updates as they can,
but I really want to see more folks in the
space speaking up about this, because what the Fearless Fund
has done has been really great, and it's they're really
like a good force in the space, and I think
(53:14):
the day we need them, frankly we need them.
Speaker 1 (53:17):
We do, and it's it's a drop in the bucket.
Let's just be real honest, like it's it's nothing in
comparison to what other people get. Essentially, it is like, wow,
you really are going after the little groups for nothing,
just just to make a point, and obviously to keep
that little bit, as you are saying, in your pocket
instead of seeing what this is actually could do for
(53:37):
entire humanity. Humanity is lost.
Speaker 2 (53:41):
I'm sorry what Yeah, yeah, And I mean this is
very important too because obviously professional litigant blom here like
it's going to keep trying and if this succeeds, then
it's gonna make things worse for everyone except for a
certain people and then easier for him to win the
(54:03):
next thing and the next thing. So yes, this is
really really important, and thank you as always Bridget for
bringing it to us.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
Oh thank you for having me. Everyone who is listening
should go out and buy stuff. I've never told you
the book.
Speaker 5 (54:16):
I'd just bought it. Let's read it together.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Yes, yes, we're hoping to do a little crossover. We'll
get to go on your show. Yes, Oh I'm so excited.
But in the meantime, Bridget, where can the good listeners
find you.
Speaker 5 (54:32):
You can listen to my podcast. There are no girls
on the Internet.
Speaker 4 (54:35):
You can find me on Instagram at bridget Marie and
DC or on Twitter at Bridget Marie and you can
find me on TikTok at Bridget makes podcasts.
Speaker 3 (54:42):
Yes, and we really do. You appreciate your support with
the book. We love it so much. Thank you, Thank
you having you on as always.
Speaker 2 (54:51):
Feeling is so mutual, so listeners, if you would like
to contact us, you can our emails Stephanie Moomstuff at
iHeartMedia dot com. You can find us on at mom
Stuff podcast or on Instagram at TikTok at stuff.
Speaker 3 (55:02):
I never told you.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
We have a tea public store and we yeah, we
have a book forget it stuff.
Speaker 3 (55:07):
We should read books dot com.
Speaker 2 (55:09):
Thanks as always to our super producer Christina, our executive
producer Maya, and our contributor Joey. Thank you and thanks
to you for listening. Steffan Neber Told you is production
of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts on my heart Radio,
you can check out the heart Radio app Apple Podcasts,
or if you listen to your favorite shows,
Hey, this is Annie and Samantha.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm hoping to stuff I never told you protection Buyheart Radio,
And today we are bringing back a classic with our
friend bridget Todd about affirmative action, and just with all
(00:31):
of the things that are happening with DEI and the
tax on it, the rollbacks on it, the abandonment of it,
I just think that this conversation we had about the
very legal organized effort to roll back affirmative action is
(00:56):
relevant and we're seeing it play out.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Even now.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
The fact that the lawsuit that came down in order
to contest it has made it worse and harder for
Asian Americans to get into these same universities is quite
the ironic, comical, painful. I don't know one of those words.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Maybe a mixture of all three. Maybe a mixture of
all three.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yes, well, please enjoy this classic episode.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Hey, this is Annie and Samantha.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
I'm what good to Steffan never told you a production
of iHeartRadio, and today we are so happy to once
again it be joined by the marvelous, the fantastic, the
wonderful bridget Todd award winning.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Award winning and book buying because I just bought your
new books stuff I've never told you.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Because I'm so excited.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
We were talking off Mike about how excited I am
so add award winning Comma stuff I'm never told you
book purchasing to that name of who I Am, Who
I Am?
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Thank you?
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Yes, it really really reads a lot. Yeah, and we
are so excited to have you on. I just I
feel like we haven't seen you in forever, even though I.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Know it's not true.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Time flies.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah, so it's great. It's very very great to have
you as always. How have you been, bridget what's been
going on? I know you do have some awards or
potential case trophy case.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
In this case that sounded really sorry, like.
Speaker 5 (02:48):
Do you know think about my legal.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
I am happy to take home the not the winning award,
but the second runner up whatever you want to call it.
Shorty Award for Best Tech and Science Podcast. Major shout
out star team Joey and Tari and Jonathan and Mike. Also,
speaking of Joey, I heard Joey on Stuff I've Never
Told You doing that episode about Coosa and it was
a really good episode. So they did of y'all yeah
(03:15):
for that one. Yeah, this summer is winding down Thank God.
I'm really looking forward to fall. This summer didn't really
take for me. How has the summer been.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
For y'all, you're asking while we're in the middle of
like hurricane season. Yeah, so we've had a lot of rain,
and a lot more rain is coming today, especially in
this week. So I will say though, as a person
who does enjoy like some of the somber parts of
the weather, like the like the darkness and the lightning,
as long as I'm not near it, because I do
(03:46):
have a small fear of that lightning. I am much
like my dog. But the heat, I'm good without it.
But I do have a fear of winter in that
I don't like being cold, so I feel like that's
too close to So I'm just an unhappy person.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
You don't want any of the seasons Like winter, I
don't care for it.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
I love fall and spring, but it's so sure that
i'llo get okay, I'm unhappy again.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
I'm ready for like it's it's been so hot in DC.
I'm I'm so ready to like be contemplative with a
sweater and like walk around holding a coffee and like,
you know, all the little all the things that you
associate with fall.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
I'm ready for it.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Well, I am like a my personality is Cardigan. Like
that's just the personality that I am. So I am
looking forward to that too.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Yeah, your personality can really shine, It's true.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Cardigan'style poncho, A good poncho and what I mean poncho.
I'm talking like you know, the sweater ponchos. I am
that girl. Don't worry about me. I'll be in the
order with my poncho and Cardigans cozy every day. It
sounds great, Annie, now you feel about it.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Uh, I'm ready for it to be over.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
While I was complaining about my AC unit, my window
AC unit just now. But I do agree with you, Bridget.
It didn't feel like it it took because I'm still
I am definitely going out more than I did, but
when the pandemic was like enfuls thing, but I'm still like,
I don't go out nearly as often, so I don't
(05:21):
go outside all the time, and so I'm just getting
like the heat with my sad ac unit and not
any of that other stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
So it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Yeah, it just sort of felt like, oh, falls coming out, Okay,
you know, miss it? Yeah, And I follows my favorite
month of season, so I'm very very excited for that.
But yeah, it is supposed to rain pretty badly today
(05:51):
and this there might be thunder. The power might go up.
My power goes out all the time, so we'll see.
But I feel like it's appropriate for what we're talking.
Speaker 5 (05:58):
About on the horizon to be aware. That is a
masterful segue. You're a real tro Thank you.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
I have a very specific skill set and it's like
bad puns and some interesting segues transitioning perfect.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
Well, yeah, that's a great transition because we gotta be
aware of all the different Supreme Court legal challenges and
storms on the horizon, one of which I am talking
about today, and that's because the man who brought us
the legal challenge that struck down affirmative action earlier this
summer is back, and this time he is coming for
grants and the fellowships that support marginalized people. So you
(06:40):
all probably recall that earlier this summer, back in June,
the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, ruling that race
can no longer play a part in college admissions.
Speaker 5 (06:50):
Notably, the decision just applied to race.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
It did not apply to gender or things like legacy
status or donor status being considered in the college admissions process. Separately,
some colleges, like Harvard have signaled that they might start
re examining the role that things like legacy status plays
in college admissions in light of that Supreme Court ruling.
Do you all remember this. I remember when the ruling
(07:14):
was struck down, how big it felt, especially being a
big Supreme Court ruling about a year after the after
row was struck down, it felt like, you know, one
big torrent of rain and then another big torrent of
rain to continue your metaphor, Annie.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Yes, metaphor nicely done.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Yes, Yeah, No, it definitely did, because that was at
the end of the Supreme Court session and there had
just been a lot of I mean, it turned out
to be true, but a lot of fear around like
what will they do?
Speaker 4 (07:50):
Right?
Speaker 5 (07:50):
It just made like all.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Of these decisions in one day.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
One day. Yeah, you know, it's odd because I was
absolutely alive, and I think, like talking about trying to
get into school and having this whole conversation when I'm
a firmative action was coming into debate to begin with,
and to see it like this, I'm not gonna lie,
I'm gonna be very transparent here as growing up in
a white household who are very conservative, not around any
(08:15):
marginalized groups outside of me, who they rescued and put
that in air quotes out of like a marginalized a
bad situation, seeing what they were saying was feded into
me and being like, yeah, I absolutely agree that I
should not get I don't want to be given a
special spot because of my race. I want to earn it.
Like I said that out loud to my family before
I started college, in any of that, not understanding what
(08:37):
it really was, and I truly believe my parents believe that.
I don't think my siblings believe that because they're they
are educated and they'd understand, but I truly believe that
because that was what was fed into me. So I
have this real, like ugh ick feeling about this whole
action because the face of the suit was an Asian
man who was bitter, bitter little baby that I feel
(08:59):
like so many ways about it, and then coming into
college on my own and then understanding what it truly
was and realizing, oh yeah, that stuff that I spewed
out as a kid was actual white supremacy coming out
of my mouth because I was trying to impress my
white family and being fed a bunch of lies. So
it was it felt like so gross to know that
(09:21):
I was manipulated like that at my young age, at
my young age. Also that I think, I don't know
how old the students. I guess he was trying to
get into college, so I guess maybe around the same time,
and then coming into this now that I'm like, oh
my god, what have we done? Essentially like with allowing
these types of lies to perpetuate and not looking at
the true statistics behind these actual numbers and why affirmative
(09:45):
action was and is necessary. But again, because of that
rhetoric being around, it wasn't surprising that it was undone
because it was truly hanging on by a thread because
of those types of lies. But yeah, I have like
this ache and like mourning in guilt, guilt by association
and guilt by like past actions that I'm like, oh
(10:05):
my god, what is this Like? Part of what I
was spewing is part of the reason this is undone.
Of course, the bigger picture is again white supremacists and
their power that they wanted to play and the overall
arcing like who was doing the main grab and trying
to make sure that what marginalized people stay down and
stay unable to get to any of these places because
(10:29):
they do not have the connections essentially just all connections,
not even money anymore so connections, and it's just disgusting. So, yeah,
I have very strong feelings.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Yeah, I first of all, thank you for sharing that,
and I can kind of identify, I know how you feel.
I don't think that you need to have guilt for
having felt that way, because, first of all, we live
in a society where it's so easy to pit marginalize
people against each other in service as upholding white supremacy.
(10:59):
Like that is a and true method that bad actors
and people interested in upholding white supremacy have engaged for
a very long time. And so the reason they do
it is because it's effective, and so it's not surprising
that it will be effective on you, a young person. Also,
the way that we talk about it, I think just
does not set people up to have a full understanding
(11:21):
of the conversation. Right, So we talk so much about
affirmative action, and when we talk about affirmative action, usually
the face of affirmative action is a black person, right,
And so we're talking about like, oh, well, do you
think that black people should get a leg up in
admissions processes? Of course people are not gonna agree with that.
But the reality is is that that is a myth
because the Department of Labor shows that the primary beneficiaries
(11:45):
of affirmative action are actually white women. That is not
what the way that are, the way that we talk
about it would lead you to believe, right. And so
another idea is that when we talk about admissions.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
So I would say, this is just my opinion, but
I would say that.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
There is an outsized space given to conversations about affirmative action, which,
as I said, are sort of translated through like oh
black people that go the face of it, and so
much less space given to things like legacy.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
Status, which I think I had a stat earlier.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
But it's some astronomical amount of kids in college get
there because they are their parents went to that college,
or their parents are donors to that college, or some
sort of a leg up. And essentially what that is
is like affirmative action for rich people. Yeah, we don't
even it's not even part of the conversation. And certainly
has not been part of the conversation the way that
(12:41):
affirmative action has been. So I would argue that, like,
you were not given a clear picture of the issue
in order to be able to like thoughtfully come up
with a critique or an opinion about it, right, And
I think that that has to be by design.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Right absolutely. I think in the understanding, as you are saying,
is the rhetoric I was given was all anti black.
Like we're going to be very very specific in calling
it what it was. It wasn't about anything else. It
wasn't about me being a minority or like being Asian
and a marginalized woman. Is literally they were trying to
be anti black. They were staying the quiet part out
(13:17):
loud because that's all they see. That's the big enemy
that is built up against white people, which is so
disgusting and it's very prevalent. Like that's the real understanding.
You need to have that whole fact and hold that
conversation is this is an anti black movement, and in
that it had, it did not It did not actually
(13:40):
help to the black community that much at all. It
really did not bring in, as you said, statistically, black
people into colleges. It was again more white women, all
white women essentially, and then again the legacy people that
those are the people who are still remaining and going
to colleges and still getting scholarships to get into these colleges,
and still getting like loans at a reason interest rate
(14:01):
all of those things. But for some reason, they built
this boogieman, not some reason, we know why, but they
built a boogieman in order to make sure that they
put down a specific group of people because they're like, hey,
this is about all we can win. We've always won
with this exactly, let's do this.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
Anti blackness is always that is a train that's always
on time.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
So what's interesting.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
About what you just said is that white women, despite
being the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action, are also the
most likely to be against it. So, according to a
twenty fourteen Cooperative Congressional Election study, nearly seventy percent of
the twenty thousand, six hundred and ninety four self identified
non Hispanic white women surveyed either somewhat or strongly opposed
affirmative action. Again, I think it's like one of those
(14:45):
situations where because the way that it is framed is
like this is a program that helps black people, and
if you don't think black people should be getting a
leg up over you, you should not be into it.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
You should be against it.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
That rhetoric actually ends up hurting all marginalized people, whether
you're a white woman, because you know, like it's one
of those dynamics where the anti blackness becomes a way.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
To get people on board.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
But then that is not an accurate reflection of who
the beneficiaries of programs like affirmative action actually end up being. Right, So, Annie,
you were saying how Asian Americans were kind of made
the face of the sort of victims of affirmative action,
and that is very much by design because of this
guy who is a conservative litigant named Edward Blum.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
I call him a.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Litigant because that's like kind of what he is, like
a professional lawsuit bringer. He is not a lawyer himself,
but he basically connects potential plaintiffs with attorneys who are
willing to represent them in test cases, which he then
uses to try to set legal presidents. He is the
founder and sole member of an organization called Project on
Fair Representation, which he found that in two thousand and five,
(15:56):
which focuses on voting, education, contracting, employment, racial quotas, and
racial reparations. Basically, his whole thing is bringing legal challenges
to strike down laws that I would argue protect non white,
non straight, non men. More on this later. However, if
you were to ask him, he would probably say that
it's not that he wants to elevate like one race
(16:18):
over anybody else, but that he wants all laws and
all like public considerations to be race or identity neutral.
He has described his ethos like this quote, our history
has been tainted tragically by the use of race in
various public and private arenas. Race discrimination is odious, something
the founding principles of the Civil Rights movement were designed
(16:39):
to eliminate. Personally, I would say that I don't know
if I buy what he is saying. It seems like
an awfully convenient way to justify the fact that he
keeps gutting laws that protect marginalized people. But there you
have it. That is what he says. His motivation is.
He just thinks that everything should be race neutral.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Right.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
The Guardians ripes him as quote a human wrecking ball
on a mission to destroy the landmark achievements of the
Civil Rights era and send the country back to a
dark age of discrimination and harassment of minorities in the
workplace and higher education and at the ballot box.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
H Well, I mean this is the very basis of
hitting that level of if everything was fair from the beginning,
great great, if everything was equal and everybody had same equity,
that would be a beautiful utopia. But as we know,
this land, this country, most countries that have been colonized,
(17:35):
is not based on that level, and that it has
never been about equity, has always been about who has
power and those who have power. Really was like, but
I love that time. That was a great time, But
can't we have that again? Which is like, hmm, you know,
we know what you're really saying exactly.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
The affirmative action ruling was not Flump's first rodeo. A
legal challenge that he brought was what led to the
gutting of the Voting Rights Act. That was the Shelby
County Versus Holder case that he sponsored in twenty thirteen,
and it led to the Supreme Court overturning a key
provision in the nineteen sixty five Voting Rights Act. That
legal challenge is when we saw the introduction of things
like voter ID requirements, cutting back on early voting, eliminating
(18:26):
same day voter registration.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
All of that was because of him. So thank you Edward.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Blum for ushering that into our landscape.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
He's really the villain, yea.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
In all the story on my podcast, there are no
girls on the Internet. We've referred to him a lot
as just like a professional hater, Like he's just someone
who like just like hate hate haty hate hate, like go,
I don't like that hate hate hate like professional hater.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Is he does?
Speaker 5 (18:51):
He is?
Speaker 1 (18:51):
He very rich.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
I think he's wealthy, like I think I think.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
That he I've actually looked into him because I'm he's
one of those figures that.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
I find so cure.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
He did not come from wealth, but I think that
he has wealth now and he's just interested in using
that wealth and influencing those connections into creating these different
legal precedents that I would say harm us.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
All right, he is that evil genius because we've seen
that in a lot of conservative think tanks as well
as essentially right wing groups that have been building up
the legal system to only help them, putting in uh
those in law school that they know that they can
pull back out, educating them and funding them to the
full in order to come back out and do these
(19:36):
types of cases, knowing that if they can do this,
this is going to be the basis of how they
win essential.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Oh yes, did you guys, did you all see that
docuseries on the Duggers on Hulu?
Speaker 1 (19:49):
No, I couldn't get to their yet.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
So that's the whole thing. It's a real like Jeze
as you might imagine.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Sure.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
One of the things they make very clear is that
it's not just about like this one problematic super religious
family on TV.
Speaker 5 (20:06):
It is about this vast network.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Of young people who are being trained and educated and
oursol are very well connected to reach the highest levels
of government and influence to make laws for all of us.
So it's not enough that like their kids are homeschooled,
or that their kids live a certain way. They are
training the next generation of political operatives and lawmakers to
(20:31):
make sure that all of us and all of our
kids live the way that they think that they should
be living. So it's pretty, I guess some diabolical.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
It's the word I would use.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
You mentioned earlier, how when you were having conversations about college,
you remember watching the first wave of the affirmative action
legal challenge go down, and even if folks weren't following
affirmative action very closely, they might remember Blum's earlier attempt
to challenge it. So Blum had been working to challenge
affirmative action since twenty thirteen, when he worked with this woman,
(21:04):
Abigail Fisher, who was the daughter of a good friend
of his who was a white woman.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
She you might umber shid red hair.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
She did not get into University of Texas because her
GPA was frankly mid. She sued the University of Texas
at Austin in two thousand and eight after it denied
her admission. She had a three point five to nine
GPA as a senior, which put her just below the
cutoff for a state law requiring UT to accept any
graduate in the top ten percent of their high school class.
(21:32):
So like mathematically speaking, she was not in the top
ten percent of her.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
High school class.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
She felt that she should have still gotten admission because
of her extracurricular activities combined with her GPA, and that
she would have gotten into UT if the university had
not used race as a factor in selecting its freshman class,
which she argued was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection clause.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
Do you all remember this? Like she was like a
very like memorable figure, Like.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
I feel like when I when I hear about this,
I can see this one image of her standing at
a podium outside of the Supreme Court, which is like
burned in my mind.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
I do remember this because I remember thinking, this is
the dumbest argument I've ever seen, because I'm like, girl,
you didn't make it, Like even without a firmative action,
you wouldn't have you wouldn't have made it. Do you
not understand how many people are struggling to get into
college today because a little more access has happened, not
just because of a firmative action, but like the lottery
(22:30):
and all of those things when we had more scholarships.
I was just like, why are people listening to her?
I think that was the biggest question in my head.
I was like, why are we paying attention to this?
Like she has no case, I think I thought.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
I remember thinking though, like is this an onion headbline?
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Like she did.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
The grades are bad and now she's.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
I think that was the beginning of like, oh, this
is a Becky Sorry Becky's in the world, that's really
just whining because she couldn't get her away like that.
I remember like that was the beginning of that of like, oh,
sorority girl was again no no, no, no hate to
sorority people. I'm so sorry, but you know that level
like stereotype in that my daddy said that I could
get in and now I'm not in.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Why so the way that y'all are reacting is exactly
how I'm this is validating because I remember her being
treated like kind of a joke, like her GP was
like fine, but certainly at three point a lot higher
than my GPA was when I was in high school,
so like I'll.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
Own that, but like you know.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
It's not three point five nine is not an automatic
entrance to wherever you want to go to college.
Speaker 5 (23:32):
It's like a fine GPA, And so I remember people calling.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Her Becky with the bad grades, and the vibe around
her was like she was just salty that she didn't
get in, and so she was like blaming black people.
And so obviously she was not a very I guess,
sympathetic legal challenge to affirmative action.
Speaker 5 (23:52):
So obviously Abigail's legal challenge did not work.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
So bum regrouped and made the strategic choice to make
the face of affirmative action, or the people being harmed
by affirmative action, according to him, Asian Americans. According to
an NPR article he told a gathering of the Houston
Chinese Alliance in twenty fifteen, quote, I needed plaintiffs.
Speaker 5 (24:10):
I needed Asian plaintiffs.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
NPR spoke to Hannay Lopez, a race and constitutional law
scholar at Berkeley, who described this as a deliberate switch
in strategy, and that the argument was no longer centered
on how affirmative action impacts white people. Instead quote, there's
this move to strengthen the surface argument that this is
racism against minorities.
Speaker 5 (24:31):
I think it's part of the appeal.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
And so I've read like Asian American activists and advocates
saying that, like what he was doing was this intentional
shift to make Asian Americans like a proxy stand.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
In for white people to be like, oh no, like this.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Can't be about racial animis because I am trying to
advocate for Asian Americans. And again, I think it's a
really great example of how effective a strategy it is
to pit marginalized groups against one another in service of
white supremacy, because in the end, it's not like I think,
since affirmative action has been struck down, we've already seen
(25:12):
data trickle in that wasn't that long ago, but already
we've seen data trickle in that suggests that like, yeah,
it's it's white.
Speaker 5 (25:19):
People with connections.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
It's white legacy students who are continuing to get more
slots in admissions. It's not you know, it's certainly not
helping the Asian Americans who were who brought this challenge.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
It's actually just opening.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Up more slots for more rich white people, because that's
how college works in the United States, right.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
And of course this play is being used by other
places such as Florida do doing the Asian American history
instead but blacklisting African American history. And we know what
that play is that that's the same type of narrative.
They're like, oh, this is working, let's try this, let's
keep this going exactly.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
So, I really want to talk about so, after on
the heels of successfully getting the Supreme Court to strike
down affirmative action, what is Blum's next move?
Speaker 5 (26:08):
Well, he is.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
Back after gutting affirmative action, his next move is going
after fellowships and grant programs that support marginalized people. He
is suing two corporate law firms on the grounds that
they're fellowship programs that are aimed at students of color,
those who identify as LGBTQ plus, and students with disabilities,
exclude applicants based on race, and he is demanding that
those programs be shut down. He is also suing a
(26:33):
black venture capital firm called the Fearless Fund. So this
is kind of the meat of why I wanted to
bring this conversation to the table today, because he is
alleging that the Fearless Fund is practicing unlawful racial discrimination.
Blum claims the Fearless Fund is engaged in explicit racial
exclusion by operating a grant program quote only open to
(26:54):
black females. According to The Washington Post, the lawsuit is
asked to prevent the Fund from selecting its next round
of grant winners. The claim states that the firm is
quote violating Section nineteen eighty one of the Civil Rights
Act of eighteen sixty six, a US law barring racial
bias in private contracts, by making only black women eligible
in the grant competition.
Speaker 5 (27:14):
So yeah, he's just like coming after anything that he
sees as supporting non white people.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
The Fearless fun was launched in twenty nineteen by three
prominent black women, Keisha Knight Pullman who you might remember
as Rudy Huxtable on The Cosby Show, entrepreneur arian Simone,
and corporate executive Ayana Parsons. They have a strong and
impressive list of investors like Bank of America, Costco, General Mills, MasterCard,
JP Morgan. They've invested in over forty businesses in the
(27:45):
past four years, including Atlanta favorite The Slutty Vegan.
Speaker 5 (27:48):
Have y'all eaten there?
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Oh? Yeah, it was near my house that I lived.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Yeah, Samantha was smart and went during the Super Bowl,
so there was no one there.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
They are open till two am, and so when the
Super Bowl because it's always packed out, and what we
went at it still took forever. They made good food.
It takes a while, but yeah, we would. I think
the only been once though, it's I don't stand in lines.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
It was a long line. I've never been.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
But and she has expanded that business everywhere, especially in
Atlanta and then Georgia. So good on her and owns
a lot of property.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
That wouldn't be possible without the Fearless Fund. And so
the lawsuit that Blum is bringing centers on the Fearless
Funds Fearless Strivers Grant contest, which awards black women who
own small businesses twenty thousand dollars in grants and digital
tools to help them grow their businesses and mentorship opportunities.
So interestingly enough, Blama did not seek out the Fearless
(28:49):
Fund to sue, but rather, he says that a non
black woman who runs a business reached out to him
via email and flagged like, did you know that these
black women are running a grant program that I can't
be part of? And so the Washington Post reports, but
the lawsuit sites three female business owners, one from New
York and two from Virginia who argued that they could
(29:10):
have benefited from the Fearless Funds grant program, but they
were ineligible because they are not black. So yeah, these
non black women basically just felt like they should be
entitled to this grant program that black women established for
themselves to support black women.
Speaker 5 (29:29):
They were like, we should have a piece of that.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
That's such an interesting take because I'm like, well, you
also didn't get it from every other business grant ever,
so why are you choosing this like you want? Did
you try for it? This just seems like a lazy
part of like I want this one thing, I couldn't
get it. I quit.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
They're biased, Like yeah, I mean, this is just my opinion,
and but like it's so hard to not see this
as like just hater vibe. It's like everything has to
be for you, and if it's not for you, you
have to shut it down. I think it goes back
to what we were saying earlier about the women who
(30:10):
benefit from affirmative action are also the ones who are
the most likely to.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Be against it.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
I firmly believe that there is enough out there for
all of us. And I'm an entrepreneur, right so I
know how hard the funding spaces for women, all women,
but I know how hard it is for black women,
in particular as a black woman. We'll get into some
of the stats in just a moment, but I believe
that despite that, there is enough for everyone. Everyone will
(30:40):
find their lane, everyone will find their people, everyone will
find what they need to make what they want happen.
I believe that as like a meditation that keeps me
in this work and keeps me being an entrepreneur.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
But I feel like the dynamic.
Speaker 4 (30:55):
That says that women need to be pit against each other,
that if you're a white woman you need to be
trying to shut down a grant that.
Speaker 5 (31:04):
Is for black women.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
That's not a dynamic that helps anybody, right, And so
I think that we all have our place, we all
have our niche es enough for all of us. But
that dynamic that we are enemies only serve that does
not serve anybody. It doesn't serve me, It doesn't serve
it. It ultimately won't serve them as either. It just keeps
us pit against each other as opposed to these larger
systems that are actually holding us all down.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
It's such a mind play that they have to people
have to go through to be like, Okay, I can't
get this one thing because they say I can't have it,
So that means no one should have it, because I'm
gonna be miserable, and so are you. Misery Lifts Company.
We're going to keep this mentality going and then also
not look at the like here's the small thing versus
the giant amount of stuff that you also can't get
because you're not a rich white man, But you don't
(31:49):
care about that thing, Like that's the one thing that's
a little bit more accessible to tear someone down who
other people will help you tear down with, instead of
this big giant amount of cash that's just sitting here
for the white man. Like it's just I said, for
the white man, like I'm a native but like, but
you know, that's just like mind level, like how much
you're willing to ignore to be like, Okay, I'm at
(32:10):
the bottom. Who can I make lesser than me? Who
can I push down further than me? So at the
very least I'm not at the very bottom. Oh my god,
that's such a mind trick.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
This reminds me of when I was a little kid
and my brother had this like free coupon for an
ice cream from McDonald's that he got from school. So
he went to McDonald's together and he got one ice cream,
and I didn't have any money because we were little kids,
and so they gave him his ice cream, and I
got very jealous, and so I smacked it out of
his hand on to the ground, and he was like, I.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
Was gonna give you a bite. That's like because I.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
Was like, I don't want him to get something that
I can't have it because I got a flattering story.
But I was like seven years old, right, because it's
like he was going to give me a bite. So
I missed out on getting my bite because I could
not just let him have something that I wanted and
felt entitled.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
To you immediately and probably earned an accelerated reader.
Speaker 4 (33:03):
What it was like, it was like a if you
read X amount of books, you get an ice an
ice cream coupon or something.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I weren't for this, but yeah, I think this is
so interesting. And the fact that he, of course Blum
had to pounce on this, I'm sure it was like
a gift for him. Yeah, I must take this.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
He was like, ooh, I was looking for a way
to spread my hater vibes and yeah, I'm sure that
Supreme Court ruling and now this lands this gift lands
on my inbo.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
And also makes me stronger, stronger than the woman who's complaining.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Exactly, So, Blum is using what he has called quote
the shoe on the other foot test. The rhetorical strategy
that he asked himself is if a grant program funded
(33:52):
white male business owners wouldn't be considered fair. But that test,
like you were saying, Sam, really assumes that we're all
equal will and all have equal access, which the data
could not paint a clearer picture about the fact that that.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
Is not happening.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
Black women are the fastest rising group of entrepreneurs in
the country. According to the Harvard Business Review in the US,
an astounding seventeen percent of Black women are in the
process of starting or running a new business. That's compared
to just ten percent of white women and fifteen percent
of white men. Yet, despite this lead, only three percent
of women are running mature businesses.
Speaker 5 (34:27):
Why well, One big reason is access to capital.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
Harvard Business Reviews research found that sixty one percent of
Black women self fund their total startup capital. This is
in spite of the fact that, in their finding, only
twenty nine percent of Black women entrepreneurs live in households
with incomes over seventy five thousand dollars, compared to fifty
two percent of white men. This data is also combined
with data suggesting that Black women are less likely to
own our own homes, pick on a higher level of
(34:53):
debt to do things like go to college and are
often like saddled with debt to go to college, right,
and so ultimately that leaves us saddled with more debt
and having fewer personal resources and low collateral. Black entrepreneurs
typically receive less than two percent of all venture capital
dollars each year, while companies led by black women receive
(35:15):
less than one percent of all funding.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
This is according to Crunchbase.
Speaker 4 (35:19):
So yeah, the funding landscape is not great for black women.
Less than one percent of funding goes to us, and
so the fact that we already don't get that much,
that there are grants and investment funds specifically aimed at
shifting those numbers just a tiny bit, like the Fearless Fund,
(35:40):
and that people are saying, no, we need to go
for that too, that less than one percent.
Speaker 5 (35:44):
That goes to y'all that needs to go to us. Now.
Speaker 4 (35:47):
In twenty twenty, Pew found that just three percent of
US businesses were black owned, while eighty six percent were
white owned. And so, yeah, as I said, like, as
an entrepreneur, this these kind of dismal numbers completely aligned
with my own experiences trying to raise money for projects
that I want to do. There's just not a lot
(36:08):
out there, and you really have to stay focused and
stay positive and not really let that sort of numbers
around how dismal things can be kind of get in
your head. But then on top of it, when you
have people like Blum and these women that he's representing
in this case, to challenge these funds, to challenge what
little is out there for black entrepreneurs who are women,
(36:30):
it's hard to internalize that as anything other than they
don't want us here.
Speaker 5 (36:34):
They don't want us to have anything, you know.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Yeah, absolutely, And it's so frustrating too, because a lot
of companies like to act like they are supporting marginalized people,
they are supporting black people, and they make these like
outward promises and then just don't really follow through with them.
Speaker 4 (37:00):
Yeah, y'all might remember or be thinking like I thought
in twenty twenty, like after all the racial justice uprisings,
I'm the wake of the murder of George Floyd, I
thought that all these businesses and funds and grants were
like going to start funding more diverse people and like
having a more inclusive portfolio. While I remember all those
promises too, businesses committed three hundred and forty billion dollars
(37:24):
between May twenty twenty and October twenty twenty two, according
to McKenzie, and the Post also reports that investments swelled
in the startup world. A record five point one billion
dollars in funding was allocated to black founded startups in
twenty twenty one.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
That sounds like a lot.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
However, all of that interest and excitement and commitment pretty
much eroded very quickly, with funding for black founded startups
plunging fifty percent in twenty twenty two. So remember this
is all happening against the pendulum kind of swinging back
the other way where all of these corporate diversity efforts
became a political lightning rod, and these employers just sort
(38:02):
of backpedaled, right, And so I think that that's where
we're at now, where in twenty twenty people talked a
lot of big games about money they were gonna give
and funds.
Speaker 5 (38:10):
They were gonna give, and how they were gonna you know,
support inclusive people.
Speaker 4 (38:15):
And startups and YadA, YadA, YadA, and all of those
promises just fizzled out, right, And I think that we're
sort of seeing, I would argue, like a backlash to
that now where diversity and inclusion staffers are being let go.
I think like recently, Chick fil A just like happened
to have a diversity and inclusion person on their staff,
(38:36):
and like there was a flurry of like online protests
because of that. Like just having somebody thinking about that
on staff is now a lightning rod. And so obviously,
in that kind of climate, these organizations are not going
to be funding black women, even though they committed to it,
even though it seemed like that was there was a
lot of excitement around that, Like, yeah, I just think
(38:56):
that we're in a.
Speaker 5 (38:57):
Completely different landscape than me we were.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
In twenty twenty. This is definitely that whole level of
they want good publicity, but they're not going to follow through.
It's the black square. Let me pretend like I care,
and at the very least I'll be like, hey, let's
tell the black people in the story. Like that's That's
as far as their their actual actions went was putting
something on Instagram that they obviously deleted soon after because
(39:21):
they wanted to look okay for one group of people.
And I found that interesting that people are mad at
Chick fil A because it's like they're anti LGBTQ plus
so that's not enough for you. They need to be
racist and all of these things be in lune enough
for us to support you. You better be super super
racist and super super homophobic in order for the conservatives.
You can hate everyone except for white sis people. If not,
(39:45):
we're not gonna support you, even if your chicken is okay.
Speaker 4 (39:47):
So it and like this is a little like unrelated,
but like I think that with a lot of these people.
The Chick fil A example that you just gave is
a great example. A lot of these people like just
they'll find anything to be aggrieved about. Like you know,
I saw like Cracker Barrel was adding plant based sausage
to their menu and people were like plant based sausage.
(40:10):
I'm not gonna shop at Cracker Barrel and I'm never
gonna go to Cracker Barrel again. And it's like they're
not taking regular sausage off the menu.
Speaker 5 (40:16):
You don't have to order it.
Speaker 4 (40:18):
Just because they're putting food on the menu that like
someone else might like, that's not you.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
That's cause for upset. And so another thing I wanted.
Speaker 4 (40:26):
To say about your point, Sam, is that there's a
makeup company Tart they got in hot Water earlier this
year because they were doing these brand trips that looked
as if they were.
Speaker 5 (40:37):
Not being inclusive of black influencers.
Speaker 4 (40:40):
That they were asking black influencers like after the fact
to come and like giving them substandard accommodations and all
of that. And somebody found that in twenty twenty, you know,
they when they posted their black Square, this company was like,
we pledged that we're going to be more inclusive and
give more, do more partnerships with black and brown models,
and blah blah blah, and then they quietly removed that
(41:02):
from their website, but somebody found it on the wayback machine.
It was like, oh, let's get to update on all
of these like very specific commitments that you made. And
it turns out that they basically just like didn't do
any of that stuff. But the thing is, nobody put
a gun to your head and forced you to make
these commitments. You made these commitments and just to quietly
(41:24):
be like mm just kidding, like that doesn't sit right
with me, Like nobody told you to do this. Nobody
told you to post a black square. You did it,
you volunteered to do it. So when people expect a
little follow through, that should be that should be a given.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, And I I think about this a lot too.
We talked about this with a lot of the like
what happened with blood Light, what happened with Target, And
you know, then they just backtrack and make everyone angry.
But is I feel like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of
in this case, what it's like to be a transperson,
(41:59):
and then when they get like a little taste of
that the company, it's like, oh my god, oh never mind,
Like they can't even just for that one second, like
if they get this online hate that the cause, the person,
the community they're saying they support, gets, they get it,
and then they're like, never mind, Actually.
Speaker 3 (42:21):
Can they have that privilege, that right.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
That ability to step out and be like, Okay, I
don't want to deal with this anymore, which I think
is just very telling of ignorance and just like a oh, sure,
let's do this, and then they get that hate and
they're like, oh, oh never mind.
Speaker 3 (42:41):
Yeah, backtracking.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
That Dylan mulvaney thing that you just mentioned, the thing
that I will never be over is that Dylan mulvany
when she left social media at the height of all
of this and came back and made that video, said
that nobody at bud Light even called her to be like, hey,
are you all right, Like I'm seeing what's going on.
(43:05):
I that is something that will stick with me forever.
That this brand, because she said, happened to say yes
when asked to do a brand collaboration with bud Light,
she was had to go dark, had to probably go
into hiding, like was the target of very severe attacks,
and that bud Light, the company who came to her
(43:28):
to bring her into this, couldn't even follow up with
an email when they saw all of this happening.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
How quickly they abandoned her.
Speaker 4 (43:35):
And I feel like if you are a brand or
an institution who is working with marginalized people, if you're
not going to stand by them when this stuff kind
of stuff happens and when they get into situations that
really like you have put them in. But by offering
them this, you know, these partnerships, that's just not how
you engage people like that. Like, at a certain point,
(43:56):
it's like, I understand that bud Light is a corporation,
and I don't expect corporations to like care about any
of us, certainly not marginalized people, but the people who
run bud Lights marketing or influencer partnerships should really be
taking a good, hard look in the mirror, because that's
just like a failure of like how to be a
(44:17):
human to each other.
Speaker 5 (44:18):
Like, I like that just sticks with me.
Speaker 4 (44:20):
I could not believe that she said that that nobody
even ever reached out to her after they just like
dropped her and never ever followed up again.
Speaker 3 (44:29):
Yeah, and that's going back to your point.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
You know, companies are not big companies, especially you're not
you're not allies, and we shouldn't think of them that way.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
But they.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
If they posted the black Square, if they take these stands,
if they say they're going to do something, then yeah,
they should absolutely be held accountable. That's just backing away
and causing real harm. We were telling you a.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
Story before we started this out of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (44:59):
Some will bought that up and like making these things
so politicized that just to have a diversity inclusion person
at your company becomes oh well, then hate, like all
of this hate, like you keep saying, it's irresponsible and
it's not taking into account like the reality of working
(45:22):
with these groups.
Speaker 5 (45:23):
Yeah, I think that's ultimately what these people want.
Speaker 4 (45:27):
I think that they want just working with a trans
woman to be a lightning rod.
Speaker 5 (45:33):
She's not saying anything untoward, she's not.
Speaker 4 (45:35):
Doing anything untoward, she just is because her existence is
a lightning rod.
Speaker 5 (45:40):
Her existence is politicized.
Speaker 4 (45:41):
I think just having a DEI person, just providing a
grant for black women, they want that to be toxic.
They want people to know that if you do that,
you might be in court, you might you know, be
targeted for a hate campaign, and so to just make
it not and that anybody would want to risk. And
(46:01):
these companies are so spineless that they're going along with it.
It's that they're being held hostage, and they're just like, okay, well,
they don't want us to.
Speaker 5 (46:12):
Have the chicken sausage.
Speaker 4 (46:13):
They don't want anybody who doesn't eat sausage to be
bad at our restaurants.
Speaker 5 (46:16):
So okay, we'll drop.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
Actually, Cracker Barrel did stand by their sausage choices, I
will say that.
Speaker 5 (46:20):
But yeah, I.
Speaker 4 (46:23):
Have been surprised by how these big, huge corporations just
cowtow to people who are not serious, people who are
just interested in flexing their power, their political power for
no real reason.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
I mean absolutely, we see all of these things. Actually
hurting people. They don't even want to be the face
of anything. They just want to exist. Funds like Fearless
fund is to exist and to help and lift up
people that they know need lifting up. The same thing
with Target when they had the small businesses with the
(46:56):
LGBTQ queer content and then taking them off the like,
we we were just existing and feeling like we wanted
to be the representation that no one else is willing
to look at or see or stand behind. And you
literally came after them, taking away their money, taking away
their existence, causing harm because again the mulvany thing, she
(47:17):
was just holding a beer. Yeah, she said, I like
bud Light. Simple, why can't she choose to do that?
And that ended up being a thing of like, well,
she is hurting the beer industry and she is doing
these things. No, she's just existing with a product that
they sent her. They're not like giving her fifty percent
of the shares of bud Light. Like that's what is happening.
(47:39):
Like this whole level of like what people are having
to do and they're having to come back and being
like instead of existing, we have to fight for our
place to exist. And that's such an absurd ideal, like
the fact that this has to be done.
Speaker 4 (48:03):
So this is what Tony Morrison says about racism, and
I think it fits to all of what you're saying.
The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction.
It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you
explaining over and over again your reason for being. Somebody
says you have no language, and you spend twenty years
trying to prove that you do. Somebody says your head
isn't shaped properly, so you have scientists working on the
(48:23):
fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art,
so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdom,
so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary.
There will always be one more thing. So like that
quote really speaks to what I think is happening.
Speaker 5 (48:37):
You know, the Fearless Fund.
Speaker 4 (48:38):
The stats that I just read about black women entrepreneurs
and how little of.
Speaker 5 (48:42):
The funding we get.
Speaker 4 (48:44):
It shows that the women who are running the Fearless Fund,
they have work to do.
Speaker 5 (48:48):
They have serious work to do to.
Speaker 4 (48:51):
Right the wrong and to bake a little more equity
into the funding landscape. So they don't really have time
to play around with these legal challenges. But yet here
they are having to spend their money, money that could
go to the funding landscape, staffing up a legal team,
holding press conferences.
Speaker 5 (49:09):
All of this.
Speaker 4 (49:10):
It is such a distraction at a time when marginalized
people have real work to be doing. Fearless fun is
fighting back.
Speaker 5 (49:18):
They have a.
Speaker 4 (49:18):
Beefy legal team including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Gibson Dunn, Crutcher,
and Ben Crump, the attorney who represented families of George
Floyd and Tyree Nichols in their civil suits over the
men's killing out the hands of the police. And I
feel confident like these women are like.
Speaker 5 (49:35):
Bad as women. They are not going down without a fight.
Speaker 4 (49:38):
But also they shouldn't have to, right Like they should
be able to just do their work and focus on
that work, and they should not have to be spending
their money on these bogus legal challenges just because they
want to exist, just because they want to support other
black women.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
And I find that again we're in this situation that
black women are the ones that have to be the
one to fight like they don't want to. They're tired,
they've been doing this and now we're back again, because
we know there's a lot and I know there's a
lot of fun specifically to women, like point blank women,
and they surely didn't have to go enough after them.
And I bet they were denied some of those and
they're probably better at that. But yet if they didn't,
(50:18):
that seems silly and that seems very targeted. Yeah, so
that's very telling. Uh, But like it again, it has
to be the black women that has to put up
this fight in order to get anything done.
Speaker 4 (50:28):
I mean, tail as old as time, right, and I
think right. I'm worried about this for a couple of reasons.
One is that I think that if these grants and
funds that specifically are meant to boost black women entrepreneurs
are deemed unconstitutional, I really don't know what the landscape
is going to look like because, as I said, like already,
so little of that funding goes to us in the
(50:48):
first place.
Speaker 5 (50:49):
But further, one of the reasons I wanted to talk
about it on the show today is.
Speaker 4 (50:53):
That I don't think it's getting near the same amount
of traction and attention that Blums affirmative action Chot just did.
And I really think that we need to see white
male and white women and really everybody in the startup space.
We need to see vcs and entrepreneurs speaking up about this,
(51:13):
because Blum is essentially arguing that the startup space should
basically just.
Speaker 5 (51:18):
Be for white people. And I think it's up.
Speaker 4 (51:21):
To everybody in the space to push back and say, like,
that is not the kind of funding space that we want,
That is not the kind of startup space that we want,
and to really make that really clear, like what kind
of a space do we want to have for the
next generation of entrepreneurs. We want to tell them that
the tiny little bit that they that might go to
them isn't even for them anymore. I don't I don't
think that's the space that we want.
Speaker 1 (51:42):
Right and absolutely in the same space again, this is
gonna hurt white women as well and the like if
we're saying that all of this is too specific and
it leads out other people of race, it's gonna hurt
gender as well. So this is not even just for
white people. It's be for white men. We're gonna have
more elon musks running running programs into the ground, That's
(52:04):
what we're gonna ten.
Speaker 4 (52:05):
Thousand percent, And I mean kind of like what you
were alluding to before time and time again in tech,
particularly when black women challenge things or do things or
start things, they uplift all women. And so even if
that specific program is for black women owned businesses, you're
(52:27):
gonna tell me that a black woman who is financially
supported is not going to go on to do something
that's going to lift up all women and all marginalized people.
Time and time again we see that that's how it
goes with black women. And so yeah, I just think
that this is just this is me smacking that ice
cream out of my brother's hand when I could have
gotten a bit instead.
Speaker 1 (52:43):
I mean, we already know that people like to still
white women's products because it's that good, So why not
let us have it? Like, yeah, we're gonna get the
good stop this.
Speaker 4 (52:53):
So I hope this is something that we I'm gonna
be following it. I'll give folks updates as they can,
but I really want to see more folks in the
space speaking up about this, because what the Fearless Fund
has done has been really great, and it's they're really
like a good force in the space, and I think
(53:14):
the day we need them, frankly we need them.
Speaker 1 (53:17):
We do, and it's it's a drop in the bucket.
Let's just be real honest, like it's it's nothing in
comparison to what other people get. Essentially, it is like, wow,
you really are going after the little groups for nothing,
just just to make a point, and obviously to keep
that little bit, as you are saying, in your pocket
instead of seeing what this is actually could do for
(53:37):
entire humanity. Humanity is lost.
Speaker 2 (53:41):
I'm sorry what Yeah, yeah, And I mean this is
very important too because obviously professional litigant blom here like
it's going to keep trying and if this succeeds, then
it's gonna make things worse for everyone except for a
certain people and then easier for him to win the
(54:03):
next thing and the next thing. So yes, this is
really really important, and thank you as always Bridget for
bringing it to us.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
Oh thank you for having me. Everyone who is listening
should go out and buy stuff. I've never told you
the book.
Speaker 5 (54:16):
I'd just bought it. Let's read it together.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Yes, yes, we're hoping to do a little crossover. We'll
get to go on your show. Yes, Oh I'm so excited.
But in the meantime, Bridget, where can the good listeners
find you.
Speaker 5 (54:32):
You can listen to my podcast. There are no girls
on the Internet.
Speaker 4 (54:35):
You can find me on Instagram at bridget Marie and
DC or on Twitter at Bridget Marie and you can
find me on TikTok at Bridget makes podcasts.
Speaker 3 (54:42):
Yes, and we really do. You appreciate your support with
the book. We love it so much. Thank you, Thank
you having you on as always.
Speaker 2 (54:51):
Feeling is so mutual, so listeners, if you would like
to contact us, you can our emails Stephanie Moomstuff at
iHeartMedia dot com. You can find us on at mom
Stuff podcast or on Instagram at TikTok at stuff.
Speaker 3 (55:02):
I never told you.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
We have a tea public store and we yeah, we
have a book forget it stuff.
Speaker 3 (55:07):
We should read books dot com.
Speaker 2 (55:09):
Thanks as always to our super producer Christina, our executive
producer Maya, and our contributor Joey. Thank you and thanks
to you for listening. Steffan Neber Told you is production
of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts on my heart Radio,
you can check out the heart Radio app Apple Podcasts,
or if you listen to your favorite shows,
Stuff Mom Never Told You News
Hosts And Creators
Anney Reese
Samantha McVey
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.