October 22, 2025 • 48 mins
Victor Lagunas has taught US History for 13 years at Da Vinci Junior High and has much to say about the ways in which history is not only a study of the past but is relevant to the situations that students & adults face today. While young people are bombarded with information from all sides, it’s teachers who can help break it down. As people become disengaged from current events & politics, Victor’s message is to stay engaged & informed, get clear on issues & know how to exercise our rights.
It's Your Voice is broadcast live Wednesdays at 8PM ET Music on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). It's Your Voice is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
It's Your Voice Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
It's Your Voice is broadcast live Wednesdays at 8PM ET Music on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). It's Your Voice is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
It's Your Voice Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The topics and opinions express in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests and not
those of W four c Y Radio. It's employees are affiliates.
We make no recommendations or endorsements radio show, programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied, shall be extended to W four c
Y Radio or it's employees or affiliates. Any questions or
comments should be directed to those show hosts. Thank you
(00:20):
for choosing W four c Y Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Lo Chic, Let's get Chick, Let's beak shore in Lochic,
Let's breech Lot, Let's breach in Lott's brit and loticle Lot.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Hello and welcome to It's Your Voice, this show that
hosts in enriching conversations in diversity. My name is Bihia Yaxon.
I am a core alignment coach and a diversity educator.
If you're interested in seeing courses I offer to folks,
you can check out my website. It's called Know what
you Want Coaching dot WordPress dot com. And I basically
(01:20):
support organizations or individuals who are trying to align their
actions with their values. And I love this podcast because
you never know what we're going to be talking about.
And today we have a guest who is a US
eighth grade American history teacher, and I've been so eager
to talk to someone who actually teaches American history right
(01:41):
now in these times, I'm really grateful, and let me
do a proper introduction.
Speaker 4 (01:46):
Victor Lagunas, I'm so grateful is here today.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
He's a teacher in the Sacramento area where he's taught
US history for the last thirteen years at DA Vinci
Junior High which is a project based learning school. In
addition to teaching duties, he has served in leadership of
his local teachers' union and various school related political campaign
and it's deeply involved with community issues through nonprofit work. Victor,
(02:12):
thank you so much for taking the time to be
here today.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
Absolutely be here. Thanks so much for having me excited
for it.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Great so you can.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Give us a perspective of what is it like to
teach American history themes and again you can just talk
about that. But like in these unprecedented times, when there's
some things happening in ours, I understand have not really
aren't thematic.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
But let me listen to you.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
Yeah, I think it's it's such a big question, and
we can we can start to kind of peel it
back in a variety of ways. And I think the
place to start with is where we're at now, and
maybe some of the conscious decisions that I've made rather
than ones that have just kind of organically come about
with teaching as it's evolved after we went through I'm
(03:03):
going to use the word unprecedented, which is going to
come up, but the unprecedented times of the pandemic which
really impacted public education, education on the whole. And then
you know, maybe later what will happen is we'll recognize
some of the differences from you know, the pre pandemic times,
some of those shifts. I think that where it is
now is a point where our students and us as people,
(03:26):
I think sometimes that's not a part that's acknowledged. Are
just bombarded with information at just i think, really alarming rates,
and we don't get to process all of that. And
I think one of the conscious decisions I've made is
to not try and tackle every single news related kind
(03:49):
of not to call it clickbait, because these are you know,
current events. There are issues that are coming up, but
the pace at which they move is really difficult to
process with students, and I think the challenge goes a
little bit a little bit further when you're talking about
junior high students. So I teach eighth grade, which is
predominantly thirteen and fourteen year olds, and there is there
(04:12):
are moments where they truly do engage with an issue
when it arises, and sometimes that's just from a tangential
comment that someone makes and we go down that road
and explore it, try and find reliable and credible resources
for it, so that the conversation is geared around, you know,
what is factual. But also sometimes they're planned and they're
(04:34):
they're related to the content that we're studying at that time,
and I think that being able to recognize that we're
not going to be able to talk about all those
especially since we have our own content that we have
to get through, you know, throughout throughout the year through
standards and things like that. But also when is the
appropriate time and how much bandwidth do they have for
all of these issues and the depth that you have
(04:56):
to go through for each one to really understand it.
And I think there's a value to just being aware
of things that are happening in the world, but being
conscious about how often you spend talking about some of
these news stories and what they are and what they mean.
And I think maybe the sad part is that the
amount of bombardment that they have in particular that's not
(05:19):
just about news related but information in general, leads them to,
I think, have fewer questions and potentially I think also
in the current climate that we're in, be worried to
say or think the wrong things, and I would say
the wrong things in quotes rather than you know, making
(05:41):
a judgment on them. And it's clear that our society
that you know, discourse is something that has continually eroded
over time, and I think that they feel that and
are hesitant to engage in it in the same way
for fear of, you know, what may come in terms
of just like are they going to turn into rather
(06:02):
than you know, talking about ideas, Are we going to
be talking about personal attacks? Are they going to feel
bird or like that they have enough credible information to
engage in it and confident with that. So I think
there's a hesitancy to take the time to think about
things and also want to engage with them more than
what I've seen in previous years.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
Wow. Wow, that's that's interesting, And that's sad.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
That the hesitation I mean, and I know you respond
to them to their developmental age, and I'm very glad.
I'm very glad you don't bombard developing teenagers with all
the stuff we're bombarded with.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
But wow, that's just just sitting with what you said
about how they are because of the overall societal lack
of civil communication among adults the country that it's developing,
thirteen four ten year olds are picking up on the
hesitancy and afraid to I'm understanding you correctly, afraid to
(07:05):
take a stance.
Speaker 5 (07:06):
Yeah, that's definitely it. That's what I meant to portray,
And I mean, I can't say that with a certainty, right,
I have a limited scope of what I'm seeing with youth.
You know, the number, the number of classes that I teach,
and the area that I teach in. These are all
going to be things that impact that. And I also
think that it depends on what you're talking about. Some
(07:29):
of these are going to feel a lot more charged
than others. Topics that are going on around the world
and and I think that those come with their own
I think like contextual needs whenever you bring those up. So,
for example, if we're talking about, you know, the acts
(07:49):
of violence that take place, let's say locally here in
the United States, there is that the history that it
takes to understand that is vastly different than say talking
about the variety of conflicts, wars, genocides, reactions that have
taken place in other parts of the globe that are
(08:10):
either currently happening or have happened in you know, more
recent history. Because I've been teaching for the last thirteen years,
so there's been a few to be able to discuss,
and those require so much more. And so, you know,
one of the assignments that we used to do with
regularity when I taught ninth grade, which was World Geography
class was current events and and I think that you
(08:31):
can see the development in students, which it should be
obvious to many, but it's pretty stark. And I think
what was really exciting about teaching ninth graders was the
level at which they had they had to pay attention
to the world outside them and to think about things
a little bit more, not just maturity, but maybe some
(08:51):
patients and some agency towards you know, really delving into things,
meaning that they're willing to take the time to do
the background and those sorts of things. But you know,
I'm comparing these different issues and they require a whole
lot of different sets of information to contextualize. And but
(09:12):
at the at the core regardless, one is local, the
other ones are like international local maybe it's not the
word right national within our country and others are international,
but I think still would require an immense amount to unpack.
And then not everyone if you want to talk about
things that are much more local at their age, are
not quite engaging for them. I think that there's a
(09:36):
there's a critical point at which they start being aware
of the immediate surroundings and uh and that I think
has some delays because of the technology and so so
much of the world is what what is part of
the digital boundaries? Right? Rather than national or international ones
(09:56):
or local ones, it's just about what corners of the
Internet you're on versus the geographic region.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Oh, digital boundaries. That's a good term. I'm going to
write that down. Good one.
Speaker 5 (10:08):
I really think that you know, the I did just
make that one up. I haven't read that one or
how many of us really talk about it. But I
just think it's about considering the world that so much
of our youth is in, and and I really do
think that it doesn't have the same limitations that had
for even people that are only slightly older than them,
(10:32):
let alone you know, uh, those that are part of
generation's past. I believe that the world in which information
came to you from was much more geographically tied and
or like we talked about at the you know, just
in the first part of my response, not the frequency
with which that information was being given to you.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Well, I'm curious, well, thinking about national events, I'm actually
like I'm thinking of like a violence that's occurring nationally,
but also what I consider I feel like the whole
new unprecedented use of ice agents. And I'm also thinking
(11:18):
of people getting together to object to such activities that are,
in my understanding of US history, unprecedented at least in
the last one hundred years. So I don't know, just
the people being grabbed up the street by mask people
with no badges and no identification, not being told why
(11:39):
they're being grabbed, that's I don't know if that's entering
if you're seeing that with eighth graders, and if you do,
like how you help them comprehend, put into context, not
feel threatened, if that's even possible.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
I think that this maybe is a little tongue in cheek,
but I'm fortunate that not many of them are tracking.
Maybe some of the more complex issues, like I said,
to be able to discuss them require a lot of
contextualization because they don't have that, and so I think
they hear words, you know, that they don't quite understand
(12:20):
because they don't have the background to be able to
do it. I would say that even in my scope
as a US history teacher, I wouldn't say that I
would be able to speak to every instance in which
executive power has been abused in order to limit the
rights of individuals. There are your famous examples, you know,
Executive Order ninety sixty six from you know, from the
(12:41):
World War Two are where we interned Japanese American people.
That that is a use of executive power done under
the guise of national security that you know, we have
definitely had to come to terms with in terms of
the history of the United States, the harm that was
done to families, the generational opportunities that were limited or
(13:05):
cut short because of those actions. So we have seen
instances of it in the past, but those are pieces
of content like I have that one, But that example
alone is an entire set of lessons for high schoolers
to unpack, let alone to discuss as an example of
(13:25):
executive how are being used on peoples within the United States.
And so I think that when I said that I'm
fortunate maybe that they're not tracking all these things, it's
not that I don't wish to be able to explore
these with them and to help them think, critically, evaluate
their own sources, and formulate their own opinions about these things.
It's that I think that it may be requiring a
(13:47):
little bit more than what we have the bandwidth to
do when we also have the other curriculums that we study.
And so I think what tends to be more impactful
is when things align with what we see within the
history content that we cover, because then there is an
inroad to be able to provide examples of how there
are themes in history that do repeat themselves and whether
(14:10):
they're identical or not, you know, being able to compare
and contrast what those look like and the impacts that
they have both on the people at the time, but
sustained ones over time as well.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
What are some themes that are aligning now?
Speaker 5 (14:26):
I think sadly, I think that we really are in
a time period where it's hard to find a lot
of inroads to some of these. I think that partly
because of the historical record and the level of detail
that we get into within eighth grade history, you know,
to be able to go down the road of looking at,
(14:49):
let's say, tensions between political parties and ideology throughout US history.
Sure we can talk about you know, anti federalists, you
know in early US hist tree, but does that mean
that we'll be able to comment on how their their
perspectives differed from others and how that led to tensions
and and you know conflict, but interpersonal conflicts even amongst
(15:12):
people that were pretty similarly driven or passionate about the
you know, the governance of the United States. I think
there's maybe some, but they would be pretty weak because
where they would break down is in the issues of
the time. You know, the Constitution was written when you know,
firearms were something that you would have had to be
(15:32):
a well trained soldier to fire three rounds in one minute,
and now we have firearms that do unthinkable get more
damage than what they had. There is nothing in the
Constitution that discusses technologies that we have today. I mean,
I mentioned the Internet, but that's leaps and bounds beyond
(15:53):
even what they considered for the time. You know, we
were talking about a time with no trains. So there's
really the issues that are being discussed. But then I
think what's worse is that nowadays so much of it
is beyond the issues and is being politicized, so literally
making gains in political arguments rather than solutions for the
(16:17):
issues at hand that impact the people. And so I think,
you know, I laughed out of a nervousness almost because
I think that there are a lot of things that
we're seeing now in terms of the divide that are
that is going on politically that don't allow for compromise
between people of different ideologies around governance. That's that does
(16:40):
seem to be at a point that has not happened previously.
And could there be could it be that somebody could
tell me that you know that that the Whig Party
had its own divisions which cause you know, cause factions
and these sorts of uh discussions, It's possible, but I
think that the connections with the history content that we
(17:02):
cover at the depth that we cover don't provide a
whole lot of that, you know, at the eighth grade level,
and that that does make it difficult. And I think
that also does make it interesting and and an opportunity
for us to think about how did we get here,
how are we still here? And what are the things
that have to be done in order to really make
progress and move forward.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
To really make progress and move forward?
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Yeah, Well, something came to mind when you talked about
I guess I'm just I'm just thinking out loud about
we came to mind as the current Speaker of the
House keeping Congress out like not bringing them back when
we have the longest government shutdown in US history. It
(17:48):
as an American citizen, it just seems outrageous.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Wait a minute, don't we want to move forward? Don't
we How do we find and oh?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I heard James Cliburn, the representative from North Carolina last
night talking about it's really difficult to talk to people
with different ideologies when we are not called together by
the House of you know, the Speaker of the House,
and I just thought, wow, yeah, good point. So that
(18:20):
that seems I don't know if that's ever happened before,
but whether it has or not, that kind of leads
me to a question for you about the Constitution, which
I apologize I have not fully reread. I've actually been
looking at it lately because I'm like, wait a minute,
all these is that that's unprecedented?
Speaker 4 (18:38):
That is that if it is that illegal?
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Is that lea? I actually literally would like all of
America have a US eighth grade history class, again.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
The Civics class, but back to the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Just thinking about like the no the no kings, the
no King's Day can't help that reminds me of the Revolution.
I know we don't have a like a all powerful
king who's the President United States. I know it's not
exactly analogous. And yet I also looked at numbers like
have grown, Like in April there was a march protesting
(19:14):
the way the current administration is making some unprecedented moves
that are not constitutionally, that are not in the question
about three million, and then in June five million, and
then I heard this recent one was seven million people.
So more and more and more people are apparently feeling like, wow,
(19:38):
more and more power is being taken away, less and
less attention following the constitution, the US Constitution.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
I don't know, that's a big question I'm handing over.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
To you, but like, yeah, yeah, I mean the opener
was what had its own things to peel back, and
we've just delved deeper and deeper into one.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Sorry.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
I think it's great, you know, it's There's a lot
of ways that I could start talking about this. I
think that it is great to see that people are
engaged and that they know that they have a First
Amendment right to petition the government and to come together
to do so, and that that continues to grow because
(20:19):
they continue to have concerns about how the government is run.
And I think that maybe ironically, the whole idea of
the no King, the titling of it, really does bring
it back to a time which is the you know,
the origins, the impetus of our own nation. But how
(20:40):
different that time was to what we have now. You know,
at the time, the people that were arguing that we
should not have the king and pay taxes weren't mostly elite,
college educated, land owning white men with privilege and it
was not a representation of everyone that was in the
call thees, those that were marginalized or not. And so
(21:03):
the idea that now this is coming full circle to
say that, you know, the the government that we created
was in order to remove absolute power from a single
individual is so interesting because it is true that was
the goal of it, and uh and in many ways
it was a success and is because of the living
(21:23):
nature of our constitution, but the context of it is
vastly different, and it harkens back to a time that
was so different in terms of who did have rights
and had the ability to, you know, to participate in
that discussion and make that decision. You know, I can
recall that there are documents were say that that say
that the taxes being imposed by King Georgia third were
(21:46):
akin to slavery at a time when slavery existed and
there were enslaved people that were having their own rights
and humanity and dignity taken from them. So, uh, it
is the name alone is I think just I hate
the word interesting And so it's such a way to
like just kind of throw out, oh, this is something
(22:06):
to think about. But the difference between when that idea
of not having a king in the United States originate
and where we're at now are so different. I think
that to get back to your question, though, in terms
of the Constitution and reading it, I think the challenge
is that there are some things that are being done
(22:29):
by our current administration that directly relate to the letter
of what's in the Constitution. So President Trump indicated his
willingness to try and get rid of birthright citizenship, which
is granted in the Constitution, and so I think that
like that one, there are students at the end of
(22:50):
my eighth grade year of US history who could point
to the Constitution and say that's where that is a
violation of our founding document or one of its amendments.
I should say, but there are so many others that
require a knowledge of precedents, both legal and actionable, so
(23:11):
judicial precedents in terms of things that I've seen court
cases or actions that have been taken by Congress or
the executive branch previously. There are procedural rules that don't
show up in the Constitution that Congress operates under which
I think do they become extreme, they become a little
bit insider in terms of who has access to them
(23:33):
and who can leverage them to their benefit. And I
think the knowledge of all those things is not something
that the lay person, even somebody that's well read, will
have the time to truly understand from the outside without
being involved day to day. And in those instances, I
think this is where where we really have to trust
(23:56):
in the institutions that we create in our democracy and
ones that we have created over time and that we
still continue to have, because if you look at the
places where democracy fails, it is a lack of trust
in the social contract that's created in terms of a
formation of a government that's by its people and participation
of its people a democracy. And when you lose that trust,
(24:20):
whether it be in the actual institutions in the processes
they use such as elections, then it starts to tear
down the willingness for or excuse me, the ability for
it to be in check. And so I do think
that court systems play an extremely vital role, and our
ability are our What we can do is use our
(24:41):
ability to find information that is reliable and accurate, that
has integrity I think behind the information that it's putting
out there and an attempt to be informed and understand
the content that we're reading a thing critically about that
in order to truly, you know, understand whether things are
(25:05):
or aren't. And I think that is a critical piece
that we have to be able to have because nobody
and I say that, you know, with a little bit
of hyperbole, but nobody's going to have the time to
really understand all the ins and outs of all the
things that are going on. And the reality is that
that's why so many people become disengaged even with local issues.
(25:27):
You know, if I just want to talk about the
community I live in and city issues, the number of
people that are disengaged because there's so much to process
in terms of the history for just one town or city,
and you put that at the national scale and you
really get people that are disengaged, or if they are engaged,
it's around the politicized nature of the of the world
(25:49):
that we're living in in the United States right now.
Speaker 3 (25:51):
Well, before we go to local issues, I actually thank
you for reminding me that we do need more than
an eighth grade street education to.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Intelligently understand the Constitution. Thanks for that.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
Yeah, not to interrupt you if you if you're leading
into another question, but I do think on that point,
what is maybe a greater irony is that we.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
Have a test to become citizens of this nation. So
my parents were both immigrants, they tested, and there have
been numerous attempts at understanding where civics education is in
this country, and and you can look at a variety
of these sources, but overall, the the it looks pretty
(26:41):
grim in terms of what so many citizens of the
United States know about their own country and civics and
whether they would be able to pass the tests that
we hold the immigrants that come to this country and
want to become citizens and and you know, start a
life here. And that part is I mean, has been
(27:01):
something that I remember my student teaching years. I taught
seniors and we gave them as as part of their curriculum,
we gave them the test that is required of immigrants
to this country. Because that should be a bar that
we all hold ourselves too. Not necessarily I'm saying, I'm
not saying the government should, but shouldn't we as citizens
(27:23):
hold ourselves to that.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
I really appreciate that because my father was also an immigrant,
and he knew more about America, American history and the
constitutions than so many of us who grew up here
in putting myself so I really really should be a bar.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
I really appreciate that. One more thing, I want to
kind of underscored that you said.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
They helped me think more clearly about trying to interpret
the Constitution which.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
It depends.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
I mean, even if I were an attorney, or there's
like strict interpretations like when you mentioned the Second Amendment
right to bear arms, or that it's like it's so
different now and if I there's just so many different
ways to interpret it.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
So again, I really don't think our family.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Fathers would have thought it was you know, I should
be able to go have a semi automatic and take
it on the streets.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
But I won't be labored that anymore.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
But I wanted to ask you, if you are, is
this a good time to talk about a local issue.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Sure, let's do that.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
I was just thinking about people who work really hard.
Like you said, it takes time to understand issues. Even
at one local proposal we have in California, Prop fifty.
It's it's really kind of painful to see how much
thinking it takes and time it takes, and communication it's effort.
(28:46):
It's effort and thinking and patients to help understand, like
like get my own clarity, do my own research, and
then see what other people are thinking, and then like
I'm just going to say, one true example is that
some people who are just working really hard doing physical
(29:08):
labor jobs have heard top fifty in California doesn't sound
fair because it's gerrymandering and redistriching, and didn't we settle that,
you know, years ago, and why are we doing that now?
And it's like good question, but it takes time to contextualize.
It's in response to something else that's happening nationally to
try to actually reach temporarily change that changed the districting
(29:34):
so that we could be perhaps more equitable, which.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
Is kind of ironic. I don't know, you explain it
better than I can.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
I mean, I think that I would hesitate to think
that I can explain it better. But I think there's
there's so much to think about in terms of the
reasons people do or don't engage. And I believe that,
you know, from my perspective as a teacher, I'll start there.
You know, where we see it is there is a
bandwidth that people have in terms of what time they
(30:05):
have available and attention they have available and the impact
that they see on them. And so, you know, you
mentioned like people that are working day to day and
you know, the ability for them to attend to some
of these issues and to think is this something that
does impact me? And then to be able to understand
the background of all of these and the motives for
why these propositions prop up, crop up and fordy and
(30:29):
slip there. But they do get propped up. They get
propped up by individuals that are either for or against them,
and and you know where what are the origins of
those arguments, what are the motives of those arguments? And
I really do feel for the amount of people that
you know, their goal right now is survival first rights.
(30:53):
It's about work. It's about raising a family if they
have one, or taking care of family members. It's about
being able to work enough to pay for the variety
of things in the United States that are rising in
cost at really high rates when we talk about simple
things like groceries, when we talk about you know, pretty
pretty obvious and now long standing debates around healthcare. So
(31:18):
I start with a little bit of patience and understanding
for people that don't feel that they have the time
or the ability to truly understand issues, and so, you know,
rather than villainize, I think it's empower and say like
it can be easy. You can go and find the
resources necessary, and especially as long as we maintain easily
(31:45):
accessible free I say free, they are free. But what
I mean is without limitations, elections, you know, elections without limitations,
without barriers to people's participation, and then you can see
an increase in in those things and people attending to them.
(32:07):
I think that for you know, there's a couple of
other things in your in your question or prompt that
that you gave me to talk about, and so you know,
we start with why are some people disengaged? Okay, that's
that's maybe a starting point about where they're where they're
at in their lives and what what time do they
have to participate in this? But then you know, it's
(32:27):
about each issue as well, and each issue can be
vastly different and have people react differently. I think, you know,
you brought up Prop fifty, which is here in California,
are proposition that's on the ballot about you know, districting
and jerrymandering, and I think that there are concerns around
you know, does is it something that looks like it's fair?
(32:49):
And because the word jerrymandering inherently means that it is unfair,
we you know, you can look at the most basic
pictures and you can draw districts to have, you know, say,
magnificant minorities have more voice in representative governments, but it
requires so much more of a discussion beyond that, which
is a national one. You know, it's a state based issue.
(33:11):
But the reaction and the reason that it's on the
ballot is a response to a national push to try
and skew congressional representation as well. And I think that
many people are at the point now where they're frustrated
by our national government and legislature in that we have
a few set of clear cut issues that a majority
(33:34):
of Americans are on a side of restructuring and changing. Namely,
the top three are common sense gun reform, reproductive rights,
and healthcare. And these are all polling in sixties and
over in terms of favorability to change, and Congress has
done nothing for that. And I don't just mean under
(33:56):
the current administration, right, I am taught thing about for
a long standing time. And that frustration builds and it
manifests in different ways, and so I think that but
what that means also is that people are even more
sensitive to if there are going to be seats lost
in that Congress because they know the power of having
a majority in a world when the two political the
(34:19):
two dominant political parties don't interact, do not compromise, do
not work together in order to solve problems for the
everyday American. And so I think that that's that you're
looking at that with Prop fifty and then the propositions
that are on ballots in many states across the United
States that are dealing with districting in a response to that,
and I think maybe getting back to the No King's
(34:42):
rally in response to the threat or of a president
who we have seen take action to try and overthrow
the the results of an election, and a fear that
that could be something that happened again, and how much
easier would it be if more of Congress was continuing
to be part of the same political party that has
(35:04):
been willing to back those sorts of ideas. And so
I think that if you start to understand all of
those things, it becomes it becomes clear as to why
this is on the ballot, even though this seems to
be something that we should all be against, right, is
temporarily giving up control the you know, the independent commission,
control of jerry mandering, redistricting and pseudo jerrymandering them is
(35:32):
something that many people are like, well, you know why
we came up with a solution for this. It seems
to be working. And the realities are is that the
ability to influence the outcome of elections through the drawing
lines is something that has existed in our country for
a long time when we talk about the redlining of
people in terms of housing and where they lived and
(35:54):
how those lines were drawn. And that doesn't excuse it,
but I think it does provide context for what is
the thing that you're upset about? Right if you think
that this is unfair? Because if you're if you think
this one thing is unfair, can we look at the
number of other things that are happening as well and
then begin to weigh where's our where are our priorities,
(36:16):
and where do we prioritize the things that we need
to get done now in order to have our government
work for the.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
People well put And it helped also when you just
pointed out like this is a state aprosal, but it's
in the context against a national push to actually read
district in a much more profoundly unfair way.
Speaker 5 (36:38):
Yeah, correct, correct, And I think that it cannot be
understated the ability to poor people to be able to
access voting, like to be able to go vote, to
participate in their own democracy is limited in so many places.
And and I mean, if you want to have a
(36:59):
true Democrat, Chris, you should be making that easily accessible
and you know, being doing more to provide availability for that,
and mail in ballots have done a great job of that.
And I think that the potential for having a national
holiday for certain elections would be a really great way
to be able to provide more access for working people
(37:20):
who are paid by the hour and taking time off
if that's a limitation for them easing that up. I
mentioned mail in ballots. But you know, the other thing
that we know is that there are a lot of
there's you know, when I talked about you know, trust
and institutions earlier in the podcast, I think that one
of the things we've seen is that there is there
is a credibility around elections that has continue been attacked
(37:44):
and it mostly in the recent ten years. And uh
and I you know, in the last instance where I
was doing some volunteer work, doing some canvassing, I had
a few people speak to me about how in local
television it said that mail in balot are not counted
and that they are that it is a wasted vote,
and that you won't have your say if you do
(38:06):
a mail in, and that is an extremely dangerous narrative
to put out there. And this is how democracies crumble
because people start failing. They fail because people don't hold
that trust in their institutions and the value of voting,
and that provides more weight for people that do vote
(38:26):
because they know that it is not that way. So
it really there's so many layers to these sorts of things.
And you know, I want to circle back to the
beginning part. I understand why it's overwhelming for people, but
I do think that if you can have meaningful discourse,
if you can have calm and you know, I think
(38:49):
focused on ideas rather than people, then what you can
do is uncover these things and think through the facts
together and then be able to come to the conclusions
that you want without need it to be about whether
or not you agree means whether or not you can
continue to interact with that person. And you know I
always talk about it's whether you agree or not you
(39:10):
should be able to sit down and finish that cup
of coffee, whatever that moment is. And uh, and I
think that's the critical piece that we're missing nowadays. And
you know, it does take time, it takes effort. It's
not easy. It's not easy.
Speaker 4 (39:24):
No, Wow, Okay, I'm trying to decide. I think I
have three work questions.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
I mean, you know, like I'm like free form answering here.
I feel like it's there's a stream of consciousness that
I'm going down and uh, and it helps when you
give me these loose prompts, but it's also maybe I'm
not as focused as you want me to be.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
Oh no, the new questions.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
And I think we have about eight and half nine minutes,
so I think we can do this, okay, and then
and then and then go back to like what you're
pointing to is how to move forward.
Speaker 4 (39:56):
That's you know, I was like to always end on
that note.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
My I guess what we can do, but before we
get there, hopefully this is just constructive thinking out loud
when you talked about having faith institutions, I just feel
like I've been watching, like you mentioned, the last ten years,
there's any thing particular and some on some subjects you
(40:21):
can talk about, like what does that phrase bothism or
both sides ism?
Speaker 4 (40:25):
But then but in the last ten years, I've kind
of had to admit.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
To myself, no, wait, actually there's clearly uh, clearly, and
believe me, there are a lot of people in my
family that I know and love who are on the right,
so to speak, on the right. So I don't say
this with hate, but clearly it was I just feel
like there's been a creeping, a cumulative effect from the
right trying to sowing seeds of doubt in the institutions
(40:51):
and doubt in the government. And for quite some time
I was like, actually, no, you know, we get this
is this democracy is unique, it's amazing. America has a
lot of flaws. I do think we're becoming a more
perfect union. I'm not giving up on our government. I know,
I believe in this democracy. I'm going to keep using
my rights and hopefully power to also benefit others who
(41:13):
don't have as much as I have. But in the
last since since the current president was re elected. In
the last few months, I found myself feeling like, oh
my gosh, this the Supreme Court is like not acting
very objectively. It seems like they're truly favoring I don't.
(41:33):
I don't see an objectivity that I've saw before, or
like again to pick on the Speaker of the House,
like why is he not installed Representative Arizona who was
elected and her election was certified, but it's been four
weeks and the people who voted for are not She's
not able to represent them yet. So I started realizing,
(41:56):
oh my gosh, am I starting to doubt the institutions.
And then it's like, no, no, I don't doubt the institutions.
It's the current people in those positions of power that
I feel like or abusing power and not really paying
attention to what the seven million people plus who are saying, hey,
you know what we want those things that you mentioned,
you know, healthcare. We don't want healthcare subsidies taken away
(42:18):
and I forgot which you know, thousands of people could
die literally in one year if those things are taken away.
Speaker 5 (42:25):
So I think I think you bring up a good point,
which is the institutions are different than the people that
run them, you know, I think I said that a
trust in a court system, and then you bring up
the obvious questions around the Supreme Court and its leanings
and compared to the you know, maybe recent history, let's say.
(42:47):
But it's also the manner in which they're appointed is
by Senate commissions, which are elected by people, which are
a representation mostly of you know, the current viewpoints nationally
there you would hope at least, But I do think
that to your point, you know, you can dismantle those things,
and that's the dangerous thing. It's not just our own
faith in them, but how well they're preserved. So if
(43:09):
there are dissenting opinions of people within our government and
they get fired from positions because they were not in
line with the current administration, that is a dismantling of
our institutions, right, and that that is that is going
to harm our republic. And I think that that that's
part of it is absolutely is like you said, it's
(43:30):
the people that participate in it. There was another point
that you made, though, I think that that you know,
it kind of comes up, which is, you know, when
when we're talking about the court seemingly leaning in a
way I think that you know, you there there are
a lot of parts of our our government that have
never been revised either, you know, two year terms for
(43:54):
House of Representative members, lifelong terms for peoples that that
sit on the Supreme Court, and you know, those discussions
won't go anywhere. Unfortunately, there won't ever be easy times
to do those because of the politicized nature of where
we're at. People will want to make wins in those
and I think those are things that you know, if
we were in a healthier state, we'd be willing to think,
(44:17):
does the government do what it's supposed to do in
terms of representing people and the needs of them, and
you know what would it be better if it could
be modified in small ways, you know, over time. But
you have to be able to address that with a
certain amount of selflessness that we don't see from many politicians,
especially at the national level or even at state levels.
(44:40):
Sometimes I would say that any level can have people
that don't don't approach it with some selflessness, right, they
serve the people. It is a public service to be there,
and that's the way that it should be approached.
Speaker 4 (44:53):
In my opinion, I think that the there was.
Speaker 5 (44:56):
One other thought that like really resonated with me when
you were talking about that, and when you were talking
about you know, people starting to question and doubt elections
because I mentioned in the last ten years, and I
think sadly. The thing is, though, is that there have
always been people that have felt that it is rigged
against them. I would, you know, like, I am not
(45:18):
somebody that has experienced what it is to be black
in America, but I know from history that there have
been set You know, there's uncountable number of instances in
which people feel like they are not represented as part
of the dominant narrative. And whether things feel bought and
paid for from that perspective is not something new. The
question is is are they question that you know, is
(45:40):
there a doubt of the integrity of the system to
begin with, right, whether the rules are fair or not
in terms of who can participate and how it's done.
You know, political parties have their own rules and their
own agendas in politics as well, which is super fascinating,
excuse me, And so there's always room for people to
(46:03):
have doubts about the legitimacy of how things come out
compared to whether that was based on merit, let's say merit.
But I do think that the dangerous point that we're
in is things that we know quantifiably are fund such
as the security of voting and voting by mail and
the ability to count those accurately, when you start to
(46:26):
question those things and so that doubt, that's where we
have some real danger great distinction.
Speaker 4 (46:33):
Wow, thank you well. So we do have like a
man and a half.
Speaker 3 (46:38):
So I watched the documentary on Andrew Young that is
just really excellent and encouraging. And when I heard him say,
who was the assistant to Martin Luther King? Accomplished so
many things through so many fights. At the end of
the documentary, so alive. I think he's ninety six, he
said he has hope and that, you know, protest. There's
(47:02):
a recurring theme of protests that eventually can end up
affecting laws and creating more more perfect union.
Speaker 4 (47:10):
And I'll turn it over to Victor, which your closing thoughts.
Speaker 5 (47:15):
I think, you know, since you're quoting somebody that worked
with doctor Martin Luther King Jr. I think it's it's
easy to just, uh, you know, put out the most
memorable quote, which is the what is it that the
moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends
towards justice. And I think as long as people continue
(47:35):
to stay engaged and fight for what they believe is right,
and do so in ways that don't harm others, and
stay informed and think critically based on fact, it will
continue to do so.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Thank you so much great having you here today. I
also want to thank our viewers and listeners are Engineer
Rebel our producer Dane and please tune in next Wednesday
at a pm Eastern time Talk for TV or it's
before cy dot com.
Speaker 4 (48:02):
And thank you. Victory lagoonis really appreciate your time.
Speaker 5 (48:04):
Thanks so much, it was a real pleasure. Appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (48:07):
Chic. Let's beech logic, Let's speak of the in logic, yell,
let's speech in logic yellow. Let's beach all the in
logic yellow. Let's pitch a logic.
Speaker 4 (48:29):
Let's beech
The topics and opinions express in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests and not
those of W four c Y Radio. It's employees are affiliates.
We make no recommendations or endorsements radio show, programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied, shall be extended to W four c
Y Radio or it's employees or affiliates. Any questions or
comments should be directed to those show hosts. Thank you
(00:20):
for choosing W four c Y Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Lo Chic, Let's get Chick, Let's beak shore in Lochic,
Let's breech Lot, Let's breach in Lott's brit and loticle Lot.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Hello and welcome to It's Your Voice, this show that
hosts in enriching conversations in diversity. My name is Bihia Yaxon.
I am a core alignment coach and a diversity educator.
If you're interested in seeing courses I offer to folks,
you can check out my website. It's called Know what
you Want Coaching dot WordPress dot com. And I basically
(01:20):
support organizations or individuals who are trying to align their
actions with their values. And I love this podcast because
you never know what we're going to be talking about.
And today we have a guest who is a US
eighth grade American history teacher, and I've been so eager
to talk to someone who actually teaches American history right
(01:41):
now in these times, I'm really grateful, and let me
do a proper introduction.
Speaker 4 (01:46):
Victor Lagunas, I'm so grateful is here today.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
He's a teacher in the Sacramento area where he's taught
US history for the last thirteen years at DA Vinci
Junior High which is a project based learning school. In
addition to teaching duties, he has served in leadership of
his local teachers' union and various school related political campaign
and it's deeply involved with community issues through nonprofit work. Victor,
(02:12):
thank you so much for taking the time to be
here today.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
Absolutely be here. Thanks so much for having me excited
for it.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Great so you can.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Give us a perspective of what is it like to
teach American history themes and again you can just talk
about that. But like in these unprecedented times, when there's
some things happening in ours, I understand have not really
aren't thematic.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
But let me listen to you.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
Yeah, I think it's it's such a big question, and
we can we can start to kind of peel it
back in a variety of ways. And I think the
place to start with is where we're at now, and
maybe some of the conscious decisions that I've made rather
than ones that have just kind of organically come about
with teaching as it's evolved after we went through I'm
(03:03):
going to use the word unprecedented, which is going to
come up, but the unprecedented times of the pandemic which
really impacted public education, education on the whole. And then
you know, maybe later what will happen is we'll recognize
some of the differences from you know, the pre pandemic times,
some of those shifts. I think that where it is
now is a point where our students and us as people,
(03:26):
I think sometimes that's not a part that's acknowledged. Are
just bombarded with information at just i think, really alarming rates,
and we don't get to process all of that. And
I think one of the conscious decisions I've made is
to not try and tackle every single news related kind
(03:49):
of not to call it clickbait, because these are you know,
current events. There are issues that are coming up, but
the pace at which they move is really difficult to
process with students, and I think the challenge goes a
little bit a little bit further when you're talking about
junior high students. So I teach eighth grade, which is
predominantly thirteen and fourteen year olds, and there is there
(04:12):
are moments where they truly do engage with an issue
when it arises, and sometimes that's just from a tangential
comment that someone makes and we go down that road
and explore it, try and find reliable and credible resources
for it, so that the conversation is geared around, you know,
what is factual. But also sometimes they're planned and they're
(04:34):
they're related to the content that we're studying at that time,
and I think that being able to recognize that we're
not going to be able to talk about all those
especially since we have our own content that we have
to get through, you know, throughout throughout the year through
standards and things like that. But also when is the
appropriate time and how much bandwidth do they have for
all of these issues and the depth that you have
(04:56):
to go through for each one to really understand it.
And I think there's a value to just being aware
of things that are happening in the world, but being
conscious about how often you spend talking about some of
these news stories and what they are and what they mean.
And I think maybe the sad part is that the
amount of bombardment that they have in particular that's not
(05:19):
just about news related but information in general, leads them to,
I think, have fewer questions and potentially I think also
in the current climate that we're in, be worried to
say or think the wrong things, and I would say
the wrong things in quotes rather than you know, making
(05:41):
a judgment on them. And it's clear that our society
that you know, discourse is something that has continually eroded
over time, and I think that they feel that and
are hesitant to engage in it in the same way
for fear of, you know, what may come in terms
of just like are they going to turn into rather
(06:02):
than you know, talking about ideas, Are we going to
be talking about personal attacks? Are they going to feel
bird or like that they have enough credible information to
engage in it and confident with that. So I think
there's a hesitancy to take the time to think about
things and also want to engage with them more than
what I've seen in previous years.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
Wow. Wow, that's that's interesting, And that's sad.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
That the hesitation I mean, and I know you respond
to them to their developmental age, and I'm very glad.
I'm very glad you don't bombard developing teenagers with all
the stuff we're bombarded with.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
I appreciate that.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
But wow, that's just just sitting with what you said
about how they are because of the overall societal lack
of civil communication among adults the country that it's developing,
thirteen four ten year olds are picking up on the
hesitancy and afraid to I'm understanding you correctly, afraid to
(07:05):
take a stance.
Speaker 5 (07:06):
Yeah, that's definitely it. That's what I meant to portray,
And I mean, I can't say that with a certainty, right,
I have a limited scope of what I'm seeing with youth.
You know, the number, the number of classes that I teach,
and the area that I teach in. These are all
going to be things that impact that. And I also
think that it depends on what you're talking about. Some
(07:29):
of these are going to feel a lot more charged
than others. Topics that are going on around the world
and and I think that those come with their own
I think like contextual needs whenever you bring those up. So,
for example, if we're talking about, you know, the acts
(07:49):
of violence that take place, let's say locally here in
the United States, there is that the history that it
takes to understand that is vastly different than say talking
about the variety of conflicts, wars, genocides, reactions that have
taken place in other parts of the globe that are
(08:10):
either currently happening or have happened in you know, more
recent history. Because I've been teaching for the last thirteen years,
so there's been a few to be able to discuss,
and those require so much more. And so, you know,
one of the assignments that we used to do with
regularity when I taught ninth grade, which was World Geography
class was current events and and I think that you
(08:31):
can see the development in students, which it should be
obvious to many, but it's pretty stark. And I think
what was really exciting about teaching ninth graders was the
level at which they had they had to pay attention
to the world outside them and to think about things
a little bit more, not just maturity, but maybe some
(08:51):
patients and some agency towards you know, really delving into things,
meaning that they're willing to take the time to do
the background and those sorts of things. But you know,
I'm comparing these different issues and they require a whole
lot of different sets of information to contextualize. And but
(09:12):
at the at the core regardless, one is local, the
other ones are like international local maybe it's not the
word right national within our country and others are international,
but I think still would require an immense amount to unpack.
And then not everyone if you want to talk about
things that are much more local at their age, are
not quite engaging for them. I think that there's a
(09:36):
there's a critical point at which they start being aware
of the immediate surroundings and uh and that I think
has some delays because of the technology and so so
much of the world is what what is part of
the digital boundaries? Right? Rather than national or international ones
(09:56):
or local ones, it's just about what corners of the
Internet you're on versus the geographic region.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Oh, digital boundaries. That's a good term. I'm going to
write that down. Good one.
Speaker 5 (10:08):
I really think that you know, the I did just
make that one up. I haven't read that one or
how many of us really talk about it. But I
just think it's about considering the world that so much
of our youth is in, and and I really do
think that it doesn't have the same limitations that had
for even people that are only slightly older than them,
(10:32):
let alone you know, uh, those that are part of
generation's past. I believe that the world in which information
came to you from was much more geographically tied and
or like we talked about at the you know, just
in the first part of my response, not the frequency
with which that information was being given to you.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Well, I'm curious, well, thinking about national events, I'm actually
like I'm thinking of like a violence that's occurring nationally,
but also what I consider I feel like the whole
new unprecedented use of ice agents. And I'm also thinking
(11:18):
of people getting together to object to such activities that are,
in my understanding of US history, unprecedented at least in
the last one hundred years. So I don't know, just
the people being grabbed up the street by mask people
with no badges and no identification, not being told why
(11:39):
they're being grabbed, that's I don't know if that's entering
if you're seeing that with eighth graders, and if you do,
like how you help them comprehend, put into context, not
feel threatened, if that's even possible.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
I think that this maybe is a little tongue in cheek,
but I'm fortunate that not many of them are tracking.
Maybe some of the more complex issues, like I said,
to be able to discuss them require a lot of
contextualization because they don't have that, and so I think
they hear words, you know, that they don't quite understand
(12:20):
because they don't have the background to be able to
do it. I would say that even in my scope
as a US history teacher, I wouldn't say that I
would be able to speak to every instance in which
executive power has been abused in order to limit the
rights of individuals. There are your famous examples, you know,
Executive Order ninety sixty six from you know, from the
(12:41):
World War Two are where we interned Japanese American people.
That that is a use of executive power done under
the guise of national security that you know, we have
definitely had to come to terms with in terms of
the history of the United States, the harm that was
done to families, the generational opportunities that were limited or
(13:05):
cut short because of those actions. So we have seen
instances of it in the past, but those are pieces
of content like I have that one, But that example
alone is an entire set of lessons for high schoolers
to unpack, let alone to discuss as an example of
(13:25):
executive how are being used on peoples within the United States.
And so I think that when I said that I'm
fortunate maybe that they're not tracking all these things, it's
not that I don't wish to be able to explore
these with them and to help them think, critically, evaluate
their own sources, and formulate their own opinions about these things.
It's that I think that it may be requiring a
(13:47):
little bit more than what we have the bandwidth to
do when we also have the other curriculums that we study.
And so I think what tends to be more impactful
is when things align with what we see within the
history content that we cover, because then there is an
inroad to be able to provide examples of how there
are themes in history that do repeat themselves and whether
(14:10):
they're identical or not, you know, being able to compare
and contrast what those look like and the impacts that
they have both on the people at the time, but
sustained ones over time as well.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
What are some themes that are aligning now?
Speaker 5 (14:26):
I think sadly, I think that we really are in
a time period where it's hard to find a lot
of inroads to some of these. I think that partly
because of the historical record and the level of detail
that we get into within eighth grade history, you know,
to be able to go down the road of looking at,
(14:49):
let's say, tensions between political parties and ideology throughout US history.
Sure we can talk about you know, anti federalists, you
know in early US hist tree, but does that mean
that we'll be able to comment on how their their
perspectives differed from others and how that led to tensions
and and you know conflict, but interpersonal conflicts even amongst
(15:12):
people that were pretty similarly driven or passionate about the
you know, the governance of the United States. I think
there's maybe some, but they would be pretty weak because
where they would break down is in the issues of
the time. You know, the Constitution was written when you know,
firearms were something that you would have had to be
(15:32):
a well trained soldier to fire three rounds in one minute,
and now we have firearms that do unthinkable get more
damage than what they had. There is nothing in the
Constitution that discusses technologies that we have today. I mean,
I mentioned the Internet, but that's leaps and bounds beyond
(15:53):
even what they considered for the time. You know, we
were talking about a time with no trains. So there's
really the issues that are being discussed. But then I
think what's worse is that nowadays so much of it
is beyond the issues and is being politicized, so literally
making gains in political arguments rather than solutions for the
(16:17):
issues at hand that impact the people. And so I think,
you know, I laughed out of a nervousness almost because
I think that there are a lot of things that
we're seeing now in terms of the divide that are
that is going on politically that don't allow for compromise
between people of different ideologies around governance. That's that does
(16:40):
seem to be at a point that has not happened previously.
And could there be could it be that somebody could
tell me that you know that that the Whig Party
had its own divisions which cause you know, cause factions
and these sorts of uh discussions, It's possible, but I
think that the connections with the history content that we
(17:02):
cover at the depth that we cover don't provide a
whole lot of that, you know, at the eighth grade level,
and that that does make it difficult. And I think
that also does make it interesting and and an opportunity
for us to think about how did we get here,
how are we still here? And what are the things
that have to be done in order to really make
progress and move forward.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
To really make progress and move forward?
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Yeah, Well, something came to mind when you talked about
I guess I'm just I'm just thinking out loud about
we came to mind as the current Speaker of the
House keeping Congress out like not bringing them back when
we have the longest government shutdown in US history. It
(17:48):
as an American citizen, it just seems outrageous.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Wait a minute, don't we want to move forward? Don't
we How do we find and oh?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I heard James Cliburn, the representative from North Carolina last
night talking about it's really difficult to talk to people
with different ideologies when we are not called together by
the House of you know, the Speaker of the House,
and I just thought, wow, yeah, good point. So that
(18:20):
that seems I don't know if that's ever happened before,
but whether it has or not, that kind of leads
me to a question for you about the Constitution, which
I apologize I have not fully reread. I've actually been
looking at it lately because I'm like, wait a minute,
all these is that that's unprecedented?
Speaker 4 (18:38):
That is that if it is that illegal?
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Is that lea? I actually literally would like all of
America have a US eighth grade history class, again.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
The Civics class, but back to the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Just thinking about like the no the no kings, the
no King's Day can't help that reminds me of the Revolution.
I know we don't have a like a all powerful
king who's the President United States. I know it's not
exactly analogous. And yet I also looked at numbers like
have grown, Like in April there was a march protesting
(19:14):
the way the current administration is making some unprecedented moves
that are not constitutionally, that are not in the question
about three million, and then in June five million, and
then I heard this recent one was seven million people.
So more and more and more people are apparently feeling like, wow,
(19:38):
more and more power is being taken away, less and
less attention following the constitution, the US Constitution.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
I don't know, that's a big question I'm handing over.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
To you, but like, yeah, yeah, I mean the opener
was what had its own things to peel back, and
we've just delved deeper and deeper into one.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Sorry.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
I think it's great, you know, it's There's a lot
of ways that I could start talking about this. I
think that it is great to see that people are
engaged and that they know that they have a First
Amendment right to petition the government and to come together
to do so, and that that continues to grow because
(20:19):
they continue to have concerns about how the government is run.
And I think that maybe ironically, the whole idea of
the no King, the titling of it, really does bring
it back to a time which is the you know,
the origins, the impetus of our own nation. But how
(20:40):
different that time was to what we have now. You know,
at the time, the people that were arguing that we
should not have the king and pay taxes weren't mostly elite,
college educated, land owning white men with privilege and it
was not a representation of everyone that was in the
call thees, those that were marginalized or not. And so
(21:03):
the idea that now this is coming full circle to
say that, you know, the the government that we created
was in order to remove absolute power from a single
individual is so interesting because it is true that was
the goal of it, and uh and in many ways
it was a success and is because of the living
(21:23):
nature of our constitution, but the context of it is
vastly different, and it harkens back to a time that
was so different in terms of who did have rights
and had the ability to, you know, to participate in
that discussion and make that decision. You know, I can
recall that there are documents were say that that say
that the taxes being imposed by King Georgia third were
(21:46):
akin to slavery at a time when slavery existed and
there were enslaved people that were having their own rights
and humanity and dignity taken from them. So, uh, it
is the name alone is I think just I hate
the word interesting And so it's such a way to
like just kind of throw out, oh, this is something
(22:06):
to think about. But the difference between when that idea
of not having a king in the United States originate
and where we're at now are so different. I think
that to get back to your question, though, in terms
of the Constitution and reading it, I think the challenge
is that there are some things that are being done
(22:29):
by our current administration that directly relate to the letter
of what's in the Constitution. So President Trump indicated his
willingness to try and get rid of birthright citizenship, which
is granted in the Constitution, and so I think that
like that one, there are students at the end of
(22:50):
my eighth grade year of US history who could point
to the Constitution and say that's where that is a
violation of our founding document or one of its amendments.
I should say, but there are so many others that
require a knowledge of precedents, both legal and actionable, so
(23:11):
judicial precedents in terms of things that I've seen court
cases or actions that have been taken by Congress or
the executive branch previously. There are procedural rules that don't
show up in the Constitution that Congress operates under which
I think do they become extreme, they become a little
bit insider in terms of who has access to them
(23:33):
and who can leverage them to their benefit. And I
think the knowledge of all those things is not something
that the lay person, even somebody that's well read, will
have the time to truly understand from the outside without
being involved day to day. And in those instances, I
think this is where where we really have to trust
(23:56):
in the institutions that we create in our democracy and
ones that we have created over time and that we
still continue to have, because if you look at the
places where democracy fails, it is a lack of trust
in the social contract that's created in terms of a
formation of a government that's by its people and participation
of its people a democracy. And when you lose that trust,
(24:20):
whether it be in the actual institutions in the processes
they use such as elections, then it starts to tear
down the willingness for or excuse me, the ability for
it to be in check. And so I do think
that court systems play an extremely vital role, and our
ability are our What we can do is use our
(24:41):
ability to find information that is reliable and accurate, that
has integrity I think behind the information that it's putting
out there and an attempt to be informed and understand
the content that we're reading a thing critically about that
in order to truly, you know, understand whether things are
(25:05):
or aren't. And I think that is a critical piece
that we have to be able to have because nobody
and I say that, you know, with a little bit
of hyperbole, but nobody's going to have the time to
really understand all the ins and outs of all the
things that are going on. And the reality is that
that's why so many people become disengaged even with local issues.
(25:27):
You know, if I just want to talk about the
community I live in and city issues, the number of
people that are disengaged because there's so much to process
in terms of the history for just one town or city,
and you put that at the national scale and you
really get people that are disengaged, or if they are engaged,
it's around the politicized nature of the of the world
(25:49):
that we're living in in the United States right now.
Speaker 3 (25:51):
Well, before we go to local issues, I actually thank
you for reminding me that we do need more than
an eighth grade street education to.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Intelligently understand the Constitution. Thanks for that.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
Yeah, not to interrupt you if you if you're leading
into another question, but I do think on that point,
what is maybe a greater irony is that we.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
Have a test to become citizens of this nation. So
my parents were both immigrants, they tested, and there have
been numerous attempts at understanding where civics education is in
this country, and and you can look at a variety
of these sources, but overall, the the it looks pretty
(26:41):
grim in terms of what so many citizens of the
United States know about their own country and civics and
whether they would be able to pass the tests that
we hold the immigrants that come to this country and
want to become citizens and and you know, start a
life here. And that part is I mean, has been
(27:01):
something that I remember my student teaching years. I taught
seniors and we gave them as as part of their curriculum,
we gave them the test that is required of immigrants
to this country. Because that should be a bar that
we all hold ourselves too. Not necessarily I'm saying, I'm
not saying the government should, but shouldn't we as citizens
(27:23):
hold ourselves to that.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
I really appreciate that because my father was also an immigrant,
and he knew more about America, American history and the
constitutions than so many of us who grew up here
in putting myself so I really really should be a bar.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
I really appreciate that. One more thing, I want to
kind of underscored that you said.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
They helped me think more clearly about trying to interpret
the Constitution which.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
It depends.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
I mean, even if I were an attorney, or there's
like strict interpretations like when you mentioned the Second Amendment
right to bear arms, or that it's like it's so
different now and if I there's just so many different
ways to interpret it.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
So again, I really don't think our family.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Fathers would have thought it was you know, I should
be able to go have a semi automatic and take
it on the streets.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
But I won't be labored that anymore.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
But I wanted to ask you, if you are, is
this a good time to talk about a local issue.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Sure, let's do that.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
I was just thinking about people who work really hard.
Like you said, it takes time to understand issues. Even
at one local proposal we have in California, Prop fifty.
It's it's really kind of painful to see how much
thinking it takes and time it takes, and communication it's effort.
(28:46):
It's effort and thinking and patients to help understand, like
like get my own clarity, do my own research, and
then see what other people are thinking, and then like
I'm just going to say, one true example is that
some people who are just working really hard doing physical
(29:08):
labor jobs have heard top fifty in California doesn't sound
fair because it's gerrymandering and redistriching, and didn't we settle that,
you know, years ago, and why are we doing that now?
And it's like good question, but it takes time to contextualize.
It's in response to something else that's happening nationally to
try to actually reach temporarily change that changed the districting
(29:34):
so that we could be perhaps more equitable, which.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
Is kind of ironic. I don't know, you explain it
better than I can.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
I mean, I think that I would hesitate to think
that I can explain it better. But I think there's
there's so much to think about in terms of the
reasons people do or don't engage. And I believe that,
you know, from my perspective as a teacher, I'll start there.
You know, where we see it is there is a
bandwidth that people have in terms of what time they
(30:05):
have available and attention they have available and the impact
that they see on them. And so, you know, you
mentioned like people that are working day to day and
you know, the ability for them to attend to some
of these issues and to think is this something that
does impact me? And then to be able to understand
the background of all of these and the motives for
why these propositions prop up, crop up and fordy and
(30:29):
slip there. But they do get propped up. They get
propped up by individuals that are either for or against them,
and and you know where what are the origins of
those arguments, what are the motives of those arguments? And
I really do feel for the amount of people that
you know, their goal right now is survival first rights.
(30:53):
It's about work. It's about raising a family if they
have one, or taking care of family members. It's about
being able to work enough to pay for the variety
of things in the United States that are rising in
cost at really high rates when we talk about simple
things like groceries, when we talk about you know, pretty
pretty obvious and now long standing debates around healthcare. So
(31:18):
I start with a little bit of patience and understanding
for people that don't feel that they have the time
or the ability to truly understand issues, and so, you know,
rather than villainize, I think it's empower and say like
it can be easy. You can go and find the
resources necessary, and especially as long as we maintain easily
(31:45):
accessible free I say free, they are free. But what
I mean is without limitations, elections, you know, elections without limitations,
without barriers to people's participation, and then you can see
an increase in in those things and people attending to them.
(32:07):
I think that for you know, there's a couple of
other things in your in your question or prompt that
that you gave me to talk about, and so you know,
we start with why are some people disengaged? Okay, that's
that's maybe a starting point about where they're where they're
at in their lives and what what time do they
have to participate in this? But then you know, it's
(32:27):
about each issue as well, and each issue can be
vastly different and have people react differently. I think, you know,
you brought up Prop fifty, which is here in California,
are proposition that's on the ballot about you know, districting
and jerrymandering, and I think that there are concerns around
you know, does is it something that looks like it's fair?
(32:49):
And because the word jerrymandering inherently means that it is unfair,
we you know, you can look at the most basic
pictures and you can draw districts to have, you know, say,
magnificant minorities have more voice in representative governments, but it
requires so much more of a discussion beyond that, which
is a national one. You know, it's a state based issue.
(33:11):
But the reaction and the reason that it's on the
ballot is a response to a national push to try
and skew congressional representation as well. And I think that
many people are at the point now where they're frustrated
by our national government and legislature in that we have
a few set of clear cut issues that a majority
(33:34):
of Americans are on a side of restructuring and changing. Namely,
the top three are common sense gun reform, reproductive rights,
and healthcare. And these are all polling in sixties and
over in terms of favorability to change, and Congress has
done nothing for that. And I don't just mean under
(33:56):
the current administration, right, I am taught thing about for
a long standing time. And that frustration builds and it
manifests in different ways, and so I think that but
what that means also is that people are even more
sensitive to if there are going to be seats lost
in that Congress because they know the power of having
a majority in a world when the two political the
(34:19):
two dominant political parties don't interact, do not compromise, do
not work together in order to solve problems for the
everyday American. And so I think that that's that you're
looking at that with Prop fifty and then the propositions
that are on ballots in many states across the United
States that are dealing with districting in a response to that,
and I think maybe getting back to the No King's
(34:42):
rally in response to the threat or of a president
who we have seen take action to try and overthrow
the the results of an election, and a fear that
that could be something that happened again, and how much
easier would it be if more of Congress was continuing
to be part of the same political party that has
(35:04):
been willing to back those sorts of ideas. And so
I think that if you start to understand all of
those things, it becomes it becomes clear as to why
this is on the ballot, even though this seems to
be something that we should all be against, right, is
temporarily giving up control the you know, the independent commission,
control of jerry mandering, redistricting and pseudo jerrymandering them is
(35:32):
something that many people are like, well, you know why
we came up with a solution for this. It seems
to be working. And the realities are is that the
ability to influence the outcome of elections through the drawing
lines is something that has existed in our country for
a long time when we talk about the redlining of
people in terms of housing and where they lived and
(35:54):
how those lines were drawn. And that doesn't excuse it,
but I think it does provide context for what is
the thing that you're upset about? Right if you think
that this is unfair? Because if you're if you think
this one thing is unfair, can we look at the
number of other things that are happening as well and
then begin to weigh where's our where are our priorities,
(36:16):
and where do we prioritize the things that we need
to get done now in order to have our government
work for the.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
People well put And it helped also when you just
pointed out like this is a state aprosal, but it's
in the context against a national push to actually read
district in a much more profoundly unfair way.
Speaker 5 (36:38):
Yeah, correct, correct, And I think that it cannot be
understated the ability to poor people to be able to
access voting, like to be able to go vote, to
participate in their own democracy is limited in so many places.
And and I mean, if you want to have a
(36:59):
true Democrat, Chris, you should be making that easily accessible
and you know, being doing more to provide availability for that,
and mail in ballots have done a great job of that.
And I think that the potential for having a national
holiday for certain elections would be a really great way
to be able to provide more access for working people
(37:20):
who are paid by the hour and taking time off
if that's a limitation for them easing that up. I
mentioned mail in ballots. But you know, the other thing
that we know is that there are a lot of
there's you know, when I talked about you know, trust
and institutions earlier in the podcast, I think that one
of the things we've seen is that there is there
is a credibility around elections that has continue been attacked
(37:44):
and it mostly in the recent ten years. And uh
and I you know, in the last instance where I
was doing some volunteer work, doing some canvassing, I had
a few people speak to me about how in local
television it said that mail in balot are not counted
and that they are that it is a wasted vote,
and that you won't have your say if you do
(38:06):
a mail in, and that is an extremely dangerous narrative
to put out there. And this is how democracies crumble
because people start failing. They fail because people don't hold
that trust in their institutions and the value of voting,
and that provides more weight for people that do vote
(38:26):
because they know that it is not that way. So
it really there's so many layers to these sorts of things.
And you know, I want to circle back to the
beginning part. I understand why it's overwhelming for people, but
I do think that if you can have meaningful discourse,
if you can have calm and you know, I think
(38:49):
focused on ideas rather than people, then what you can
do is uncover these things and think through the facts
together and then be able to come to the conclusions
that you want without need it to be about whether
or not you agree means whether or not you can
continue to interact with that person. And you know I
always talk about it's whether you agree or not you
(39:10):
should be able to sit down and finish that cup
of coffee, whatever that moment is. And uh, and I
think that's the critical piece that we're missing nowadays. And
you know, it does take time, it takes effort. It's
not easy. It's not easy.
Speaker 4 (39:24):
No, Wow, Okay, I'm trying to decide. I think I
have three work questions.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
I mean, you know, like I'm like free form answering here.
I feel like it's there's a stream of consciousness that
I'm going down and uh, and it helps when you
give me these loose prompts, but it's also maybe I'm
not as focused as you want me to be.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
Oh no, the new questions.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
And I think we have about eight and half nine minutes,
so I think we can do this, okay, and then
and then and then go back to like what you're
pointing to is how to move forward.
Speaker 4 (39:56):
That's you know, I was like to always end on
that note.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
My I guess what we can do, but before we
get there, hopefully this is just constructive thinking out loud
when you talked about having faith institutions, I just feel
like I've been watching, like you mentioned, the last ten years,
there's any thing particular and some on some subjects you
(40:21):
can talk about, like what does that phrase bothism or
both sides ism?
Speaker 4 (40:25):
But then but in the last ten years, I've kind
of had to admit.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
To myself, no, wait, actually there's clearly uh, clearly, and
believe me, there are a lot of people in my
family that I know and love who are on the right,
so to speak, on the right. So I don't say
this with hate, but clearly it was I just feel
like there's been a creeping, a cumulative effect from the
right trying to sowing seeds of doubt in the institutions
(40:51):
and doubt in the government. And for quite some time
I was like, actually, no, you know, we get this
is this democracy is unique, it's amazing. America has a
lot of flaws. I do think we're becoming a more
perfect union. I'm not giving up on our government. I know,
I believe in this democracy. I'm going to keep using
my rights and hopefully power to also benefit others who
(41:13):
don't have as much as I have. But in the
last since since the current president was re elected. In
the last few months, I found myself feeling like, oh
my gosh, this the Supreme Court is like not acting
very objectively. It seems like they're truly favoring I don't.
(41:33):
I don't see an objectivity that I've saw before, or
like again to pick on the Speaker of the House,
like why is he not installed Representative Arizona who was
elected and her election was certified, but it's been four
weeks and the people who voted for are not She's
not able to represent them yet. So I started realizing,
(41:56):
oh my gosh, am I starting to doubt the institutions.
And then it's like, no, no, I don't doubt the institutions.
It's the current people in those positions of power that
I feel like or abusing power and not really paying
attention to what the seven million people plus who are saying, hey,
you know what we want those things that you mentioned,
you know, healthcare. We don't want healthcare subsidies taken away
(42:18):
and I forgot which you know, thousands of people could
die literally in one year if those things are taken away.
Speaker 5 (42:25):
So I think I think you bring up a good point,
which is the institutions are different than the people that
run them, you know, I think I said that a
trust in a court system, and then you bring up
the obvious questions around the Supreme Court and its leanings
and compared to the you know, maybe recent history, let's say.
(42:47):
But it's also the manner in which they're appointed is
by Senate commissions, which are elected by people, which are
a representation mostly of you know, the current viewpoints nationally
there you would hope at least, But I do think
that to your point, you know, you can dismantle those things,
and that's the dangerous thing. It's not just our own
faith in them, but how well they're preserved. So if
(43:09):
there are dissenting opinions of people within our government and
they get fired from positions because they were not in
line with the current administration, that is a dismantling of
our institutions, right, and that that is that is going
to harm our republic. And I think that that that's
part of it is absolutely is like you said, it's
(43:30):
the people that participate in it. There was another point
that you made, though, I think that that you know,
it kind of comes up, which is, you know, when
when we're talking about the court seemingly leaning in a
way I think that you know, you there there are
a lot of parts of our our government that have
never been revised either, you know, two year terms for
(43:54):
House of Representative members, lifelong terms for peoples that that
sit on the Supreme Court, and you know, those discussions
won't go anywhere. Unfortunately, there won't ever be easy times
to do those because of the politicized nature of where
we're at. People will want to make wins in those
and I think those are things that you know, if
we were in a healthier state, we'd be willing to think,
(44:17):
does the government do what it's supposed to do in
terms of representing people and the needs of them, and
you know what would it be better if it could
be modified in small ways, you know, over time. But
you have to be able to address that with a
certain amount of selflessness that we don't see from many politicians,
especially at the national level or even at state levels.
(44:40):
Sometimes I would say that any level can have people
that don't don't approach it with some selflessness, right, they
serve the people. It is a public service to be there,
and that's the way that it should be approached.
Speaker 4 (44:53):
In my opinion, I think that the there was.
Speaker 5 (44:56):
One other thought that like really resonated with me when
you were talking about that, and when you were talking
about you know, people starting to question and doubt elections
because I mentioned in the last ten years, and I
think sadly. The thing is, though, is that there have
always been people that have felt that it is rigged
against them. I would, you know, like, I am not
(45:18):
somebody that has experienced what it is to be black
in America, but I know from history that there have
been set You know, there's uncountable number of instances in
which people feel like they are not represented as part
of the dominant narrative. And whether things feel bought and
paid for from that perspective is not something new. The
question is is are they question that you know, is
(45:40):
there a doubt of the integrity of the system to
begin with, right, whether the rules are fair or not
in terms of who can participate and how it's done.
You know, political parties have their own rules and their
own agendas in politics as well, which is super fascinating,
excuse me, And so there's always room for people to
(46:03):
have doubts about the legitimacy of how things come out
compared to whether that was based on merit, let's say merit.
But I do think that the dangerous point that we're
in is things that we know quantifiably are fund such
as the security of voting and voting by mail and
the ability to count those accurately, when you start to
(46:26):
question those things and so that doubt, that's where we
have some real danger great distinction.
Speaker 4 (46:33):
Wow, thank you well. So we do have like a
man and a half.
Speaker 3 (46:38):
So I watched the documentary on Andrew Young that is
just really excellent and encouraging. And when I heard him say,
who was the assistant to Martin Luther King? Accomplished so
many things through so many fights. At the end of
the documentary, so alive. I think he's ninety six, he
said he has hope and that, you know, protest. There's
(47:02):
a recurring theme of protests that eventually can end up
affecting laws and creating more more perfect union.
Speaker 4 (47:10):
And I'll turn it over to Victor, which your closing thoughts.
Speaker 5 (47:15):
I think, you know, since you're quoting somebody that worked
with doctor Martin Luther King Jr. I think it's it's
easy to just, uh, you know, put out the most
memorable quote, which is the what is it that the
moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends
towards justice. And I think as long as people continue
(47:35):
to stay engaged and fight for what they believe is right,
and do so in ways that don't harm others, and
stay informed and think critically based on fact, it will
continue to do so.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Thank you so much great having you here today. I
also want to thank our viewers and listeners are Engineer
Rebel our producer Dane and please tune in next Wednesday
at a pm Eastern time Talk for TV or it's
before cy dot com.
Speaker 4 (48:02):
And thank you. Victory lagoonis really appreciate your time.
Speaker 5 (48:04):
Thanks so much, it was a real pleasure. Appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (48:07):
Chic. Let's beech logic, Let's speak of the in logic, yell,
let's speech in logic yellow. Let's beach all the in
logic yellow. Let's pitch a logic.
Speaker 4 (48:29):
Let's beech
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.