In this episode of The Environmental Justice Lab, our host, Dr. Lesley Joseph, responds to a deeply troubling development: the resignation of Dr. Kimberly Terrell from the Environmental Law Clinic at Tulane University. A respected environmental scientist, researcher, and advocate, Dr. Terrell left her position as the Director for Community Engagement, citing political and donor-driven censorship, after years of research exposing the disproportionate health dangers experienced by the residents of Louisiana’s Cancer Alley.
Dr. Joseph unpacks what this moment means for academic freedom, community-centered research, and the future of environmental justice in the U.S. He draws a clear line between truth-telling and power, asking hard questions about whether universities are still safe havens for critical inquiry, or simply extensions of corporate and political interests. Why are researchers being silenced for revealing the truth about pollution, cancer, and environmental injustice? What happens when scientific evidence threatens the bottom line? And how should the environmental justice research community respond?
This episode is both a tribute to Dr. Terrell’s courage and a rallying cry for researchers, activists, and citizens alike to keep fighting. Because justice demands it.
Resources:
Tulane scientist resigns citing university censorship of pollution and racial disparity research - AP News
Research from Dr. Terrell and the Environmental Law Clinic:
Air pollution is linked to higher cancer rates among black or impoverished communities in Louisiana - Environmental Research Journal
Toxic air pollution and concentrated social deprivation are associated with low birthweight and preterm Birth in Louisiana - Environmental Research Journal
Pervasive racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. petrochemical workforce
Connect with our Environmental Justice Lab community:
Instagram: @envjusticelab
YouTube: @envjusticelab
Email: theenvironmentaljusticelab@gmail.com
Don’t forget to subscribe and rate the podcast wherever you listen! Support our work by joining the Supporters Club: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-environmental-justice-lab--5583745/support
Dr. Joseph unpacks what this moment means for academic freedom, community-centered research, and the future of environmental justice in the U.S. He draws a clear line between truth-telling and power, asking hard questions about whether universities are still safe havens for critical inquiry, or simply extensions of corporate and political interests. Why are researchers being silenced for revealing the truth about pollution, cancer, and environmental injustice? What happens when scientific evidence threatens the bottom line? And how should the environmental justice research community respond?
This episode is both a tribute to Dr. Terrell’s courage and a rallying cry for researchers, activists, and citizens alike to keep fighting. Because justice demands it.
Resources:
Tulane scientist resigns citing university censorship of pollution and racial disparity research - AP News
Research from Dr. Terrell and the Environmental Law Clinic:
Air pollution is linked to higher cancer rates among black or impoverished communities in Louisiana - Environmental Research Journal
Toxic air pollution and concentrated social deprivation are associated with low birthweight and preterm Birth in Louisiana - Environmental Research Journal
Pervasive racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. petrochemical workforce
Connect with our Environmental Justice Lab community:
Instagram: @envjusticelab
YouTube: @envjusticelab
Email: theenvironmentaljusticelab@gmail.com
Don’t forget to subscribe and rate the podcast wherever you listen! Support our work by joining the Supporters Club: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-environmental-justice-lab--5583745/support
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Welcome to the Environmental Justice Lab. I am your host,
doctor Leslie Joseph. Thank you so much for joining me.
And I had to rush. I'm in the lab at
USC right now, but I had to jump on the
microphone really quick record something because we had a big
story over the last week that I really want to
talk about and get into and share with you because
I think it's really important to understand what's happening and
(00:44):
to think about what it means for particularly research moving forward.
So here's the story. You know what I'm going to
read it. I wrote it down. This is from the
Associated Press on June eleventh. So last week reported that
doctor Kimberly Terrell, an environmental scientist and the director of
(01:06):
the community Engagement at the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, resigned.
She just resigned, and she said that she resigned. Let's
see what she said. The article says that she resigned
citing censorship from university leaders who had warned that her
(01:28):
advocacy and research exposing the Louisiana petrochemical industries health impacts
and racial disparities and hiring had triggered belowback from donors
and elected officials. That's what she said, that's why she resigned,
(01:48):
that's why she is no longer doing work at the
Tulane University Environmental Law Clinic. So let's just set the
stage just really quickly. The two Lane University Environmental Law Clinic,
led by doctor Kimberly Terrell, has been doing great work
(02:11):
looking at the environmental justice issues all across Louisiana, but
specifically in what we've called Cancer Alley. Now you can
go back to last year's episodes learn a lot more
about Cancer Alley, just real quickly. Cancer Alley is about
an eighty five mile stretch of road of land on
(02:32):
the southern part of Louisiana going into Mississippi, and it
has about two hundred maybe two hundred and fifty chemical
plants along that corridor. And this area is known for
having high rates of cancer, high rates of asthma, high
rates of respiratory illness, higher rates of all of these
(02:54):
different negative health outcomes. And this law clinic was at
the four they probably still are at the forefront of
understanding those impacts, reporting those impacts during the research to
help us understand those impacts as just observers and environmental
justice advocates and researchers and more importantly advocating for things
(03:19):
to get better. So they didn't just do their research
and publish it, go back to their rooms and do
another study. They actually did their research, published it, went
out in the community, and fought to have things done
differently to protect the people in those areas. That's what
they did. That's what they did at Tulane University in
(03:41):
this law clinic. And I will say, just as someone
in academia, somebody who does this research, who was really
passionate about uplifting communities, this is what we want people
to do. This is what we want to see. We
want to see universities supporting clinics and research centers and
(04:02):
programs and initiatives that help our communities, that build them up,
that allow them to flourish, that keep them from dealing
with these kinds of environmental hazards disproportionately over and over
and over again. This is what we really want. That's
what we want. And this law Clinic at Tulane University
(04:25):
was doing that. This young researcher, doctor Kimberly Terrell, she
was doing that. She was publishing her work, she's doing
the data work. She's in the community. She has the
respect of the community, and she's just giving you the facts,
the cancer rates, the hiring practices, the chemicals in the environment,
(04:47):
the impact that it has. That's all she's doing. That's
all this clinic is doing. And she resigned last week
because she says, and I believe her, of course, that
she's being pressured by elected officials in Louisiana, by donors
at the university, to stop doing this work, to stop
(05:09):
doing research that just exposes what's actually happening. Nothing inflammatory,
nothing you know, made up or manufactured. These are just
facts from the ground. She's not giving her opinions, she's
not giving her perspective or views. She's just telling you
(05:32):
what it is in this area. And she resigned because
she knew that she wouldn't be able to continue doing
that work because people are pressuring the Law Clinic to stop,
pressuring the Law Clinic to discontinue this type of environmental
(05:53):
justice research. Here's another quote from the article. It's said that,
according to email, university leaders wrote that the work of
the Law Clinic had become an impediment to a Tulane
redevelopment project reliant on support from state and private funders.
(06:15):
The clinic represents communities that are fighting the chemical industry
in court, and in her letter, dot Terrell wrote that
she was told that the governor would threaten to veto
any funding from the state unless Tulane's president, quote unquote
did something about the clinic. Come on, this is just
(06:38):
straight bullying. So now Tulane's trying to do something on
campus around the area. The governor of Louisiana says, I'm
not gonna let you get any money until you do
something about that clinic over there. Well, what clinic he
means the clinic that is exposing the industry for what
(07:00):
it's doing to the people that live in Louisiana. That's
what he's talking about. And what's so upsetting is not
so much that he disagrees with the work, because that's fine.
You don't have to like the work, you don't have
to enjoy the work. But it's a university. A university
(07:20):
is free, or at least it's supposed to be free,
to explore, to understand the world, to collect information and
to report on it in ways that help us understand
what's happening around us. They have their freedom to do that.
It's called academic freedom. Right. That's why I got into
(07:41):
the whole academic space because I want that freedom. I
want to be able to go out and ask questions
and get answers and to make changes that improve the
lives of people all around. That's what universities are there for.
They're training students to be able to go out and
be productive, helpful citizens, and they're creating new knowledge and
(08:02):
deeper understanding of issues to help us deal with them appropriately.
That's what this law clinic is doing. And whether you
like it or not, or whether you feel like it's
helpful or not, it's not really the question. The question
is will a law clinic at a university be allowed
to do research that exposes That's what it did. It
(08:25):
exposed the harm that was being done by this industry.
Because I promise you if their research expose how much
the industry was helping the community and how much the
industry was supporting the community, they'd have no problem with
that going out being published. They would be encouraged to
do more, they'd be encouraged to keep going, they'd be
(08:47):
encouraged to keep publishing that kind of work. But when
we learn that they're being harmful and hurting people, especially
hurting people disproportionately, not just everybody, but a very specific
group of people in Louisiana, specifically in cancer Alley. We're
talking about black residents, black communities, black neighborhoods that are
(09:10):
being impacted by these industries. And so when the law
clinic just gives you the information and just provides the
studies and provides the data, they do it carefully. It's
peer reviewed, it's examined carefully to make sure that they
didn't make up any numbers, they didn't change anything wrongly,
they didn't do any weird statistics to try to make
(09:32):
it look like something else. They did the work the
way it need to be done, because they're academics. That's
what they do for a living. The governor comes in
and tries to shut them down because he doesn't like it,
because the donors don't like it. And I'm sure the
donors are these industries or they have some connection to
these industries. That's fine too, like that either. But the
(09:57):
university and its research center and it's law clinics, and
it's program officers and managers, they are free to explore
these questions. If the question is how or if these
(10:17):
industries are impacting the communities that are in this area.
What can we learn about that. They get to find out,
they get to do the research, they get to publish
the research that tells us. They don't get to be
bullied into doing something else because a donor or an
(10:43):
elected official or a prominent individual just doesn't like what
they're learning about what's happening in the area. That's just
what it is. And it's unfortunate that this law clinic
in particular is coming under such scrutiny and such harm
(11:03):
from above because they do amazing work. If you listen
to our Cancer Ali episodes, most of that information, most
of the understanding came from this law clinic. I cite
them over and over again. They're right there on the
ground in Louisiana talking to the people collecting the data,
(11:24):
get the information, doing an amazing job doing the research,
and the governor threatens to keep funding from the whole
entire university over it. I mean, you have elected officials
saying that if you don't do something about this clinic,
(11:46):
there's going to be a problem. I mean, that's not
how university should function. That's not how academia should function.
That's not how research works. When you do research and
you learn something, you present it and if you don't
like what you're learning, then you can do something about it. Right,
(12:10):
So nobody's talking about the fact that these industries, these
chemical industries, aren't doing anything to address what her law
clinic is exposing. That's what should be happening. Instead of
her resigning, instead of her saying that she can't do
her work because of this type of overreach and censorship,
(12:31):
that's what is censorship. The governor should be looking at
the funders and saying, hey, why is this happening. Why
are the people in my state suffering like this by
the hands of these facilities. What are you doing to
fix this? That's what you should have been doing. That's
(12:52):
what should be happening. When you get higher and higher
up in these organizations, at these universities. The president shouldn't
turn to the researchers and try to shut them up.
The president should turn to the industries, into the donors
and too the funders, and say, hey, what are you
doing and how are you going to fix this? How
(13:16):
are we going to come together and actually make this
place better? Because my university is showing me things that
are unsettling. Higher cancer rates among these communities in this area,
higher rates of heart disease, higher rates of all these illnesses.
(13:37):
What are you doing about that? That's what should happen,
That's what should be done. That's where the conversation should go.
But instead it's going to this law clinic. It's going
to making sure this law clinic does not do the
(13:58):
kind of work that just shows us what these industries
are doing and how they're hurting people. That's what has
come to. That's what we're doing. I'm going to read
some more from this article. This article is really is
really well done. It's from the AP. I'll put a
link in the descriptions so you can read it too.
In a May twenty first audio recording, the provost said
(14:24):
that when Tulane leadership met with elected officials, they were
pressed they being the Tulane leadership, they were pressed by
the elected officials as to why quote Tulane has taken
a stand on the chemistry chemical industry as harming communities,
(14:48):
and this quote left people feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable. Are
you serious? First of all, it's not a stand or
a position, it's a reality. The reality is the chemical
industry in Louisiana, particularly along that corridor called Cancer Alley,
(15:10):
is harming communities. If you're part of Tulane leadership, when
they tell you that, when they ask you why you
quote unquote took a stand, you turn to them and
you say, we didn't take a stand. We did research
that shows that that is the case, and we don't
(15:31):
like our residents being harmed by these industries. Don't get uncomfortable.
Don't feel embarrassed. Why are you embarrassed. They're the ones
harming the people, They're the ones hurting the communities. They're
the ones creating these pockets throughout Louisiana that are uninhabitable.
(15:54):
But you feel embarrassed. As a Tulane leader, you feel embarrassed, Well,
you shouldn't. You shouldn't feel embarrassed. You should be proud
of your university for uncovering these injustices. You should be
proud of your law clinic for doing the kind of
work that only it could do. There's no other clinic
(16:19):
in Louisiana doing work like this. There isn't. They don't
have the infrastructure, they don't have the staffing, they don't
have the support to do this work. It should be
a proud moment for you. If you are in Tulane's
leadership Group Core, whatever it's called, and an elected official,
(16:40):
some congressperson, a mayor, I don't know the governor comes
to you and says, oh, it looks like Tulane is
taking a stand and suggesting that the chemical industry is
harming communities. You say, well, is it true or false?
(17:04):
Did you read the study that our university commission, that
our research has put together, that's been peer reviewed, that's
been vetted, that's been discussed throughout the world. Have you
even read it? Because the fact is, you are hurting
the communities. The fact is the research shows It's not
(17:27):
my opinion, it's not their perspective, it's not a subjective thought.
It's data driven data research that demonstrates that the chemical
industry is hurting the community. It is, it has been,
(17:52):
it currently is, and it continues to Now. Of course
I get it. I mean, you want these people to
give you money, so if they don't like what they're hearing,
they may not give you the money to do the
stuff on campus, to do your projects, to expand your
reach and your influence. I understand that and so maybe
(18:17):
you don't come off so heavy handed in terms of
what you believe, quote unquote believe or you take a stand.
But you can stand behind the data. You can stand
behind your researchers. You can present to them the evidence
and let them decide. We're taking a stand with the data.
We stand with the truth. Here's the information, here's the data.
(18:41):
Here is what we've published. You tell me what you're reading.
You tell me what you see here, when you go
through these documents, when you look at these graphs, when
you talk to the people that live there, when you
go to these meetings, you don't have to take a
stand in any meaningful way. If you're a university, all
(19:04):
you do is just point them to the data, point
them to the literature, point them to the study, and say, hey,
I understand that you have some concerns about what you
have been hearing. Here's the study. It was published in
this journal, this scientific journal, because we do research here
at Tulane University. Here you go. You can just read it.
(19:28):
We can discuss whatever you like. It's not a problem
for us. We're trying to do business, but this is
a problem for you. Go ahead and read it. You
let me know what you think, because this is just data,
this is research, right, you can take a stand like that.
I wouldn't because people are getting hurt and people are
(19:49):
being harmed by what this industry is doing. But if
you don't want to take that route, that's fine. What
you don't do is try to squeeze and suppress the
only law claim that's doing the work. The only place
where this work can get done at your university. That's
what you don't do. You don't go to the director
(20:09):
and tell the director to stop publishing this, stop talking
about it, stop presenting this work to people in different settings.
That's her job because she's a researcher. She's a scientist,
just like every other scientist. They go to the lab,
they do their experience, do their research, they publish it,
they talk about it. That's just what we do. And
(20:32):
if she doesn't do that, then she's not doing her job.
And why would she even be there? What do you
want her to do? She's trained, and she's equipped, and
she's very capable of doing this kind of work well
funded research, by the way, very well supported research, and
(20:54):
she's a household name in the environmental justice world. Why
would you suppress that that kind of scholarship, that kind
of research. We all know why. We know why, because
the money is talking to you, and the people with
the money don't like what you're saying, so you're trying
to get on their good side by crushing the law clinic.
(21:16):
It's a bad move. It's a bad move. And so
it's really frustrating to know that a research entity at
a university can be treated this way just for doing
research at the university. It's all they're doing, it's all
they're doing. They're just doing research. It just so happens
(21:39):
that the research is community driven and it's impacting our
understanding of what's happening out in the real world. And
because some people don't like for us to know about that,
they're trying to sensor and suppress the truth. It's really unfortunate.
And the worst part about it is that I think
(22:02):
that this kind of thing will happen more and more.
This will happen more and more often. It will happen
to more and more people who are in this environmental justice,
you know, climate change disparity type of research, right equity research.
There's going to be more and more people and more
(22:22):
and more corporations that come against people and places and
researchers and universities that do this type of research that
expose disparities. We're talking about environmental justice here. It could
be education. It could be health, It could be economics.
It could be political engagement. It could be incarceration, criminal justice,
(22:48):
it could be anything. Just doing the research, just showing
the numbers, talking about the realities can get you crushed
and censored. This way, right, This is what happens when
academic freedom and corporate interests donor funding collide. They crash
(23:16):
into each other, and you say, well, which one are
we going to take? Which way we're going to go?
We're going to go with the corporate money and crush
all of this academic stuff you're doing at the university.
Or are we going to support our researchers and our
academic institutions and their freedom to explore and research real
(23:38):
issues to the detriment of our relationship with these corporate interests.
I wish we didn't have to choose. But if you're
a university, I mean, let's just be honest, why do
you exist. You don't exist to serve the corporate interests.
(24:00):
The corporate interests exists to support the university, to support
the state. We all work together for a better future.
And so if me saying to your corporation, hey, our
research shows us that your operations are hurting people. Don't
(24:21):
get mad at us for pointing it out. Fix it,
fix it, do something different, or at the very least
apologize for it, or the very least provide some support
to the people that you're harming. Do something other than well,
if you don't take care out law clinic, we're not
giving you any money. So you just keep polluting, you
(24:44):
keep hurting people, and we have to be okay with
it because you have money. Come on, that's not how
that works. That's not how this works. And universities look
to Lane University makes me sad to see how you'
I'll handle this. To Lane University, I'm sure you're like
(25:05):
every other university. They're all the same. Right, we all
talk about what universities represent. Right, We're committed to student success,
We're committed to academic freedom. We're committed to making positive
impacts in our communities on the society. Universities we are here.
(25:25):
We're a public good. We're here for the people to come,
to grow, to learn and to go and to be
amazing blanks right, lawyers, doctors, engineers, historians, writers, actors, singers, artists,
(25:46):
whatever you want to be. The university, we are here
for you. That's what we tell them. That's what we say.
When I was working out in the industry, working out
in the consulting world, I wanted to come into academy
because I believe that I believe that there was academic freedom.
I believe there was an opportunity to really change the
lives of students, young people, to get people moving in
(26:09):
the right direction and do things that are positive in
our community. That's why I got into it. That's why
I'm here. But of course you get into it and
then you learn. And what are we learning with this
instant here with doctor Kimberly Terrell being well, she resigned,
but definitely being pushed in the wrong direction. What we
(26:33):
learn is these universities are less like free thinking institutions
and they're more like corporations. That's the truth, and that's
the thing that's hurtful to think about, that they would
operate like corporations, they would think like corporations, that they
would conduct themselves in the same way corporations do, because
(26:57):
corporations only want one thing, as for larger profits and
smaller costs. And so don't think that a corporation is
coming to a university to have a partnership because of
the mutually beneficial nature of the relationship that we can
(27:17):
both serve the university's purpose to uplift students. Don't think
that for one second. What's actually happenings the corporation is
seeing a way to market itself in a way that
enhances their bottom line, that increases their revenue, their profits,
and their exposure. Let's just be clear about that. Let's
just be honest about that. And you know what, universities
(27:40):
are doing the same thing that the same approach, the
same ideas. Right, Universities are becoming, especially in the kind
of STEM world, they're becoming less about academic freedom and
more about transforming themselves into what I call the R
(28:02):
and D divisions of their local industries. That's what's really happening.
And that's okay. They want to pay you to do
research for them, give us the money, here's your research,
and we can exchange it, no problem. We're still graduating students,
we're still doing good work. But when it collides with
the realities that these clinics and these centers are showing
(28:27):
us in terms of environmental injustice, environmental inequity, environmental inequality. Well,
the university has to pick a side. You have to
stand on one side or the other, and you can't
stand on the corporation side. Who feels like that kind
(28:48):
of research hurts their image, hurts their bottom line, hurts
their ability to grow as a company, And then turn
around and say you support academic freedom. You can't do both.
Where are you going to stay, What are you going
to do? How are you going to manage that type
of situation? If your default setting is to crush the
(29:13):
researcher to maintain the corporate relationship, then you're not being
a university. You're not operating the way university should and
you shouldn't even call yourself a university. That's what you're doing.
You shouldn't do that. What should do is just say
what you are, that you're university incorporated and you're here
(29:36):
to make money and to build corporate relationships that bring
in more money. That's all you're doing. Because if you
truly support academic freedom, if you truly support independent inquiry,
into the social economic, and in this case, environmental problems
(29:58):
around us. Then you got to let us do our work.
Let us do our job, and don't step in and
try to suppress it because it makes one of your
partners uncomfortable, because it makes one of your corporate donors
sad because they don't like to hear about the issues
(30:19):
that are being caused by members of their industry. That's
not how this works. You're either for academic freedom or
you're not. And of course this could be discussed in
all kinds of different contexts, right, I mean, I'm focusing
on environmental justice. That's where I am. That's what this study,
(30:41):
that's what this story is about. Because this amazing researcher
resigned her job as a director of the Two Lane
Environmental Law Clinic because of the way the university treated
the research they were doing that was regarded, that was
(31:02):
community focused and driven, that was upstanding in an academic sense,
like it wasn't shoddy, poorly done research. This is high
quality research that it's published in high quality journals. Because
the elected officials and the private funders didn't like it.
(31:22):
They didn't like it. And so let me just say this,
I get really upset, really frustrated when these kinds of
things happen. And I always wonder if I'm next, like
you know, I publish that study, am are they going
to come for me? Are they going to say that
I'm doing the same thing harming their relationships and interests?
(31:45):
I mean, I hope nobody will say that, but it's possible.
So this is what I want to say to doctor
Kimberly Terrell. I don't know if you're listening. I hope
you are. If you are, please come on the podcast.
I would love to talk to you about this because
it's really infuriating to me. I just cannot I can't
take the fact that you resigned because of this environment
(32:07):
that was created around you. I'm so sorry that happened.
And if you're listening, thank you for your commitment to
environmental justice. Thank you for your research. Your research has
done so much to help people like me over here
in South Carolina understand what's happening in Louisiana, to understand
(32:31):
what's happening in Cancer Alley, and to really have the
right frame for what's occurring in the environmental justice space.
So thank you for that. I know you're going to
land on your feet. When you have the commitment that
you have, the values that you have, it's going to
be better. I'm sure it hurts now to resign from
(32:54):
this position, but I know things are going to get better.
I just know it. And to all the environmental justice
researchers out there, wherever you are, whatever you're listening to this,
keep pushing, keep working, keep supporting your local EJ communities,
keep giving them sound science, right rigorous academic work, Keep
(33:19):
engaging the community, keep being active, keep speaking out, continue
to use your voice, your research, your support system to
uplift these communities, right, because we're not going anywhere, and
as long as there's environmental injustice in the world, we're
here to fight against it. We're here to push against it.
(33:39):
We don't want to see any community, any population, any
group of people disproportionately impacted by some of these environmental hazards,
these injustices anywhere in the world. And so we need
you to keep going. If you're in a university, look,
it can get difficult, it can get challenging, especially if
(34:02):
you're in the United States. At this point in time,
our current government doesn't like environmental justice research. They've made
that very clear. They're not going to support it financially,
they're not going to promote it at all. They're not
going to be interested whatsoever in uncovering these types of issues.
But there's always a way through. It's not the first
(34:23):
time people have been upset with us for doing this
kind of research, and it won't be the last time.
We remain flexible, we remain you know, vigilant. We continue
to do the work because the work needs to be done.
The communities that are suffering need your voices, need your
research abilities to help build them up, and so keep
(34:46):
doing it. We're still here, and we're going to keep fighting,
keep fighting a good fight, keep doing the work, and
keep uplifting each and every community that's been forgotten, that's
been abandoned, that's been sacrificed for other interests, for other considerations.
(35:13):
We will remain and continue to lift you up. And
that is the episode for today. Thank you so much
for listening. I am doctor Listen jeal if. This is
the Environmental Justice Lab podcast where we are for the
people and the planet. We'll see you next time.
Welcome to the Environmental Justice Lab. I am your host,
doctor Leslie Joseph. Thank you so much for joining me.
And I had to rush. I'm in the lab at
USC right now, but I had to jump on the
microphone really quick record something because we had a big
story over the last week that I really want to
talk about and get into and share with you because
I think it's really important to understand what's happening and
(00:44):
to think about what it means for particularly research moving forward.
So here's the story. You know what I'm going to
read it. I wrote it down. This is from the
Associated Press on June eleventh. So last week reported that
doctor Kimberly Terrell, an environmental scientist and the director of
(01:06):
the community Engagement at the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, resigned.
She just resigned, and she said that she resigned. Let's
see what she said. The article says that she resigned
citing censorship from university leaders who had warned that her
(01:28):
advocacy and research exposing the Louisiana petrochemical industries health impacts
and racial disparities and hiring had triggered belowback from donors
and elected officials. That's what she said, that's why she resigned,
(01:48):
that's why she is no longer doing work at the
Tulane University Environmental Law Clinic. So let's just set the
stage just really quickly. The two Lane University Environmental Law Clinic,
led by doctor Kimberly Terrell, has been doing great work
(02:11):
looking at the environmental justice issues all across Louisiana, but
specifically in what we've called Cancer Alley. Now you can
go back to last year's episodes learn a lot more
about Cancer Alley, just real quickly. Cancer Alley is about
an eighty five mile stretch of road of land on
(02:32):
the southern part of Louisiana going into Mississippi, and it
has about two hundred maybe two hundred and fifty chemical
plants along that corridor. And this area is known for
having high rates of cancer, high rates of asthma, high
rates of respiratory illness, higher rates of all of these
(02:54):
different negative health outcomes. And this law clinic was at
the four they probably still are at the forefront of
understanding those impacts, reporting those impacts during the research to
help us understand those impacts as just observers and environmental
justice advocates and researchers and more importantly advocating for things
(03:19):
to get better. So they didn't just do their research
and publish it, go back to their rooms and do
another study. They actually did their research, published it, went
out in the community, and fought to have things done
differently to protect the people in those areas. That's what
they did. That's what they did at Tulane University in
(03:41):
this law clinic. And I will say, just as someone
in academia, somebody who does this research, who was really
passionate about uplifting communities, this is what we want people
to do. This is what we want to see. We
want to see universities supporting clinics and research centers and
(04:02):
programs and initiatives that help our communities, that build them up,
that allow them to flourish, that keep them from dealing
with these kinds of environmental hazards disproportionately over and over
and over again. This is what we really want. That's
what we want. And this law Clinic at Tulane University
(04:25):
was doing that. This young researcher, doctor Kimberly Terrell, she
was doing that. She was publishing her work, she's doing
the data work. She's in the community. She has the
respect of the community, and she's just giving you the facts,
the cancer rates, the hiring practices, the chemicals in the environment,
(04:47):
the impact that it has. That's all she's doing. That's
all this clinic is doing. And she resigned last week
because she says, and I believe her, of course, that
she's being pressured by elected officials in Louisiana, by donors
at the university, to stop doing this work, to stop
(05:09):
doing research that just exposes what's actually happening. Nothing inflammatory,
nothing you know, made up or manufactured. These are just
facts from the ground. She's not giving her opinions, she's
not giving her perspective or views. She's just telling you
(05:32):
what it is in this area. And she resigned because
she knew that she wouldn't be able to continue doing
that work because people are pressuring the Law Clinic to stop,
pressuring the Law Clinic to discontinue this type of environmental
(05:53):
justice research. Here's another quote from the article. It's said that,
according to email, university leaders wrote that the work of
the Law Clinic had become an impediment to a Tulane
redevelopment project reliant on support from state and private funders.
(06:15):
The clinic represents communities that are fighting the chemical industry
in court, and in her letter, dot Terrell wrote that
she was told that the governor would threaten to veto
any funding from the state unless Tulane's president, quote unquote
did something about the clinic. Come on, this is just
(06:38):
straight bullying. So now Tulane's trying to do something on
campus around the area. The governor of Louisiana says, I'm
not gonna let you get any money until you do
something about that clinic over there. Well, what clinic he
means the clinic that is exposing the industry for what
(07:00):
it's doing to the people that live in Louisiana. That's
what he's talking about. And what's so upsetting is not
so much that he disagrees with the work, because that's fine.
You don't have to like the work, you don't have
to enjoy the work. But it's a university. A university
(07:20):
is free, or at least it's supposed to be free,
to explore, to understand the world, to collect information and
to report on it in ways that help us understand
what's happening around us. They have their freedom to do that.
It's called academic freedom. Right. That's why I got into
(07:41):
the whole academic space because I want that freedom. I
want to be able to go out and ask questions
and get answers and to make changes that improve the
lives of people all around. That's what universities are there for.
They're training students to be able to go out and
be productive, helpful citizens, and they're creating new knowledge and
(08:02):
deeper understanding of issues to help us deal with them appropriately.
That's what this law clinic is doing. And whether you
like it or not, or whether you feel like it's
helpful or not, it's not really the question. The question
is will a law clinic at a university be allowed
to do research that exposes That's what it did. It
(08:25):
exposed the harm that was being done by this industry.
Because I promise you if their research expose how much
the industry was helping the community and how much the
industry was supporting the community, they'd have no problem with
that going out being published. They would be encouraged to
do more, they'd be encouraged to keep going, they'd be
(08:47):
encouraged to keep publishing that kind of work. But when
we learn that they're being harmful and hurting people, especially
hurting people disproportionately, not just everybody, but a very specific
group of people in Louisiana, specifically in cancer Alley. We're
talking about black residents, black communities, black neighborhoods that are
(09:10):
being impacted by these industries. And so when the law
clinic just gives you the information and just provides the
studies and provides the data, they do it carefully. It's
peer reviewed, it's examined carefully to make sure that they
didn't make up any numbers, they didn't change anything wrongly,
they didn't do any weird statistics to try to make
(09:32):
it look like something else. They did the work the
way it need to be done, because they're academics. That's
what they do for a living. The governor comes in
and tries to shut them down because he doesn't like it,
because the donors don't like it. And I'm sure the
donors are these industries or they have some connection to
these industries. That's fine too, like that either. But the
(09:57):
university and its research center and it's law clinics, and
it's program officers and managers, they are free to explore
these questions. If the question is how or if these
(10:17):
industries are impacting the communities that are in this area.
What can we learn about that. They get to find out,
they get to do the research, they get to publish
the research that tells us. They don't get to be
bullied into doing something else because a donor or an
(10:43):
elected official or a prominent individual just doesn't like what
they're learning about what's happening in the area. That's just
what it is. And it's unfortunate that this law clinic
in particular is coming under such scrutiny and such harm
(11:03):
from above because they do amazing work. If you listen
to our Cancer Ali episodes, most of that information, most
of the understanding came from this law clinic. I cite
them over and over again. They're right there on the
ground in Louisiana talking to the people collecting the data,
(11:24):
get the information, doing an amazing job doing the research,
and the governor threatens to keep funding from the whole
entire university over it. I mean, you have elected officials
saying that if you don't do something about this clinic,
(11:46):
there's going to be a problem. I mean, that's not
how university should function. That's not how academia should function.
That's not how research works. When you do research and
you learn something, you present it and if you don't
like what you're learning, then you can do something about it. Right,
(12:10):
So nobody's talking about the fact that these industries, these
chemical industries, aren't doing anything to address what her law
clinic is exposing. That's what should be happening. Instead of
her resigning, instead of her saying that she can't do
her work because of this type of overreach and censorship,
(12:31):
that's what is censorship. The governor should be looking at
the funders and saying, hey, why is this happening. Why
are the people in my state suffering like this by
the hands of these facilities. What are you doing to
fix this? That's what you should have been doing. That's
(12:52):
what should be happening. When you get higher and higher
up in these organizations, at these universities. The president shouldn't
turn to the researchers and try to shut them up.
The president should turn to the industries, into the donors
and too the funders, and say, hey, what are you
doing and how are you going to fix this? How
(13:16):
are we going to come together and actually make this
place better? Because my university is showing me things that
are unsettling. Higher cancer rates among these communities in this area,
higher rates of heart disease, higher rates of all these illnesses.
(13:37):
What are you doing about that? That's what should happen,
That's what should be done. That's where the conversation should go.
But instead it's going to this law clinic. It's going
to making sure this law clinic does not do the
(13:58):
kind of work that just shows us what these industries
are doing and how they're hurting people. That's what has
come to. That's what we're doing. I'm going to read
some more from this article. This article is really is
really well done. It's from the AP. I'll put a
link in the descriptions so you can read it too.
In a May twenty first audio recording, the provost said
(14:24):
that when Tulane leadership met with elected officials, they were
pressed they being the Tulane leadership, they were pressed by
the elected officials as to why quote Tulane has taken
a stand on the chemistry chemical industry as harming communities,
(14:48):
and this quote left people feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable. Are
you serious? First of all, it's not a stand or
a position, it's a reality. The reality is the chemical
industry in Louisiana, particularly along that corridor called Cancer Alley,
(15:10):
is harming communities. If you're part of Tulane leadership, when
they tell you that, when they ask you why you
quote unquote took a stand, you turn to them and
you say, we didn't take a stand. We did research
that shows that that is the case, and we don't
(15:31):
like our residents being harmed by these industries. Don't get uncomfortable.
Don't feel embarrassed. Why are you embarrassed. They're the ones
harming the people, They're the ones hurting the communities. They're
the ones creating these pockets throughout Louisiana that are uninhabitable.
(15:54):
But you feel embarrassed. As a Tulane leader, you feel embarrassed, Well,
you shouldn't. You shouldn't feel embarrassed. You should be proud
of your university for uncovering these injustices. You should be
proud of your law clinic for doing the kind of
work that only it could do. There's no other clinic
(16:19):
in Louisiana doing work like this. There isn't. They don't
have the infrastructure, they don't have the staffing, they don't
have the support to do this work. It should be
a proud moment for you. If you are in Tulane's
leadership Group Core, whatever it's called, and an elected official,
(16:40):
some congressperson, a mayor, I don't know the governor comes
to you and says, oh, it looks like Tulane is
taking a stand and suggesting that the chemical industry is
harming communities. You say, well, is it true or false?
(17:04):
Did you read the study that our university commission, that
our research has put together, that's been peer reviewed, that's
been vetted, that's been discussed throughout the world. Have you
even read it? Because the fact is, you are hurting
the communities. The fact is the research shows It's not
(17:27):
my opinion, it's not their perspective, it's not a subjective thought.
It's data driven data research that demonstrates that the chemical
industry is hurting the community. It is, it has been,
(17:52):
it currently is, and it continues to Now. Of course
I get it. I mean, you want these people to
give you money, so if they don't like what they're hearing,
they may not give you the money to do the
stuff on campus, to do your projects, to expand your
reach and your influence. I understand that and so maybe
(18:17):
you don't come off so heavy handed in terms of
what you believe, quote unquote believe or you take a stand.
But you can stand behind the data. You can stand
behind your researchers. You can present to them the evidence
and let them decide. We're taking a stand with the data.
We stand with the truth. Here's the information, here's the data.
(18:41):
Here is what we've published. You tell me what you're reading.
You tell me what you see here, when you go
through these documents, when you look at these graphs, when
you talk to the people that live there, when you
go to these meetings, you don't have to take a
stand in any meaningful way. If you're a university, all
(19:04):
you do is just point them to the data, point
them to the literature, point them to the study, and say, hey,
I understand that you have some concerns about what you
have been hearing. Here's the study. It was published in
this journal, this scientific journal, because we do research here
at Tulane University. Here you go. You can just read it.
(19:28):
We can discuss whatever you like. It's not a problem
for us. We're trying to do business, but this is
a problem for you. Go ahead and read it. You
let me know what you think, because this is just data,
this is research, right, you can take a stand like that.
I wouldn't because people are getting hurt and people are
(19:49):
being harmed by what this industry is doing. But if
you don't want to take that route, that's fine. What
you don't do is try to squeeze and suppress the
only law claim that's doing the work. The only place
where this work can get done at your university. That's
what you don't do. You don't go to the director
(20:09):
and tell the director to stop publishing this, stop talking
about it, stop presenting this work to people in different settings.
That's her job because she's a researcher. She's a scientist,
just like every other scientist. They go to the lab,
they do their experience, do their research, they publish it,
they talk about it. That's just what we do. And
(20:32):
if she doesn't do that, then she's not doing her job.
And why would she even be there? What do you
want her to do? She's trained, and she's equipped, and
she's very capable of doing this kind of work well
funded research, by the way, very well supported research, and
(20:54):
she's a household name in the environmental justice world. Why
would you suppress that that kind of scholarship, that kind
of research. We all know why. We know why, because
the money is talking to you, and the people with
the money don't like what you're saying, so you're trying
to get on their good side by crushing the law clinic.
(21:16):
It's a bad move. It's a bad move. And so
it's really frustrating to know that a research entity at
a university can be treated this way just for doing
research at the university. It's all they're doing, it's all
they're doing. They're just doing research. It just so happens
(21:39):
that the research is community driven and it's impacting our
understanding of what's happening out in the real world. And
because some people don't like for us to know about that,
they're trying to sensor and suppress the truth. It's really unfortunate.
And the worst part about it is that I think
(22:02):
that this kind of thing will happen more and more.
This will happen more and more often. It will happen
to more and more people who are in this environmental justice,
you know, climate change disparity type of research, right equity research.
There's going to be more and more people and more
(22:22):
and more corporations that come against people and places and
researchers and universities that do this type of research that
expose disparities. We're talking about environmental justice here. It could
be education. It could be health, It could be economics.
It could be political engagement. It could be incarceration, criminal justice,
(22:48):
it could be anything. Just doing the research, just showing
the numbers, talking about the realities can get you crushed
and censored. This way, right, This is what happens when
academic freedom and corporate interests donor funding collide. They crash
(23:16):
into each other, and you say, well, which one are
we going to take? Which way we're going to go?
We're going to go with the corporate money and crush
all of this academic stuff you're doing at the university.
Or are we going to support our researchers and our
academic institutions and their freedom to explore and research real
(23:38):
issues to the detriment of our relationship with these corporate interests.
I wish we didn't have to choose. But if you're
a university, I mean, let's just be honest, why do
you exist. You don't exist to serve the corporate interests.
(24:00):
The corporate interests exists to support the university, to support
the state. We all work together for a better future.
And so if me saying to your corporation, hey, our
research shows us that your operations are hurting people. Don't
(24:21):
get mad at us for pointing it out. Fix it,
fix it, do something different, or at the very least
apologize for it, or the very least provide some support
to the people that you're harming. Do something other than well,
if you don't take care out law clinic, we're not
giving you any money. So you just keep polluting, you
(24:44):
keep hurting people, and we have to be okay with
it because you have money. Come on, that's not how
that works. That's not how this works. And universities look
to Lane University makes me sad to see how you'
I'll handle this. To Lane University, I'm sure you're like
(25:05):
every other university. They're all the same. Right, we all
talk about what universities represent. Right, We're committed to student success,
We're committed to academic freedom. We're committed to making positive
impacts in our communities on the society. Universities we are here.
(25:25):
We're a public good. We're here for the people to come,
to grow, to learn and to go and to be
amazing blanks right, lawyers, doctors, engineers, historians, writers, actors, singers, artists,
(25:46):
whatever you want to be. The university, we are here
for you. That's what we tell them. That's what we say.
When I was working out in the industry, working out
in the consulting world, I wanted to come into academy
because I believe that I believe that there was academic freedom.
I believe there was an opportunity to really change the
lives of students, young people, to get people moving in
(26:09):
the right direction and do things that are positive in
our community. That's why I got into it. That's why
I'm here. But of course you get into it and
then you learn. And what are we learning with this
instant here with doctor Kimberly Terrell being well, she resigned,
but definitely being pushed in the wrong direction. What we
(26:33):
learn is these universities are less like free thinking institutions
and they're more like corporations. That's the truth, and that's
the thing that's hurtful to think about, that they would
operate like corporations, they would think like corporations, that they
would conduct themselves in the same way corporations do, because
(26:57):
corporations only want one thing, as for larger profits and
smaller costs. And so don't think that a corporation is
coming to a university to have a partnership because of
the mutually beneficial nature of the relationship that we can
(27:17):
both serve the university's purpose to uplift students. Don't think
that for one second. What's actually happenings the corporation is
seeing a way to market itself in a way that
enhances their bottom line, that increases their revenue, their profits,
and their exposure. Let's just be clear about that. Let's
just be honest about that. And you know what, universities
(27:40):
are doing the same thing that the same approach, the
same ideas. Right, Universities are becoming, especially in the kind
of STEM world, they're becoming less about academic freedom and
more about transforming themselves into what I call the R
(28:02):
and D divisions of their local industries. That's what's really happening.
And that's okay. They want to pay you to do
research for them, give us the money, here's your research,
and we can exchange it, no problem. We're still graduating students,
we're still doing good work. But when it collides with
the realities that these clinics and these centers are showing
(28:27):
us in terms of environmental injustice, environmental inequity, environmental inequality. Well,
the university has to pick a side. You have to
stand on one side or the other, and you can't
stand on the corporation side. Who feels like that kind
(28:48):
of research hurts their image, hurts their bottom line, hurts
their ability to grow as a company, And then turn
around and say you support academic freedom. You can't do both.
Where are you going to stay, What are you going
to do? How are you going to manage that type
of situation? If your default setting is to crush the
(29:13):
researcher to maintain the corporate relationship, then you're not being
a university. You're not operating the way university should and
you shouldn't even call yourself a university. That's what you're doing.
You shouldn't do that. What should do is just say
what you are, that you're university incorporated and you're here
(29:36):
to make money and to build corporate relationships that bring
in more money. That's all you're doing. Because if you
truly support academic freedom, if you truly support independent inquiry,
into the social economic, and in this case, environmental problems
(29:58):
around us. Then you got to let us do our work.
Let us do our job, and don't step in and
try to suppress it because it makes one of your
partners uncomfortable, because it makes one of your corporate donors
sad because they don't like to hear about the issues
(30:19):
that are being caused by members of their industry. That's
not how this works. You're either for academic freedom or
you're not. And of course this could be discussed in
all kinds of different contexts, right, I mean, I'm focusing
on environmental justice. That's where I am. That's what this study,
(30:41):
that's what this story is about. Because this amazing researcher
resigned her job as a director of the Two Lane
Environmental Law Clinic because of the way the university treated
the research they were doing that was regarded, that was
(31:02):
community focused and driven, that was upstanding in an academic sense,
like it wasn't shoddy, poorly done research. This is high
quality research that it's published in high quality journals. Because
the elected officials and the private funders didn't like it.
(31:22):
They didn't like it. And so let me just say this,
I get really upset, really frustrated when these kinds of
things happen. And I always wonder if I'm next, like
you know, I publish that study, am are they going
to come for me? Are they going to say that
I'm doing the same thing harming their relationships and interests?
(31:45):
I mean, I hope nobody will say that, but it's possible.
So this is what I want to say to doctor
Kimberly Terrell. I don't know if you're listening. I hope
you are. If you are, please come on the podcast.
I would love to talk to you about this because
it's really infuriating to me. I just cannot I can't
take the fact that you resigned because of this environment
(32:07):
that was created around you. I'm so sorry that happened.
And if you're listening, thank you for your commitment to
environmental justice. Thank you for your research. Your research has
done so much to help people like me over here
in South Carolina understand what's happening in Louisiana, to understand
(32:31):
what's happening in Cancer Alley, and to really have the
right frame for what's occurring in the environmental justice space.
So thank you for that. I know you're going to
land on your feet. When you have the commitment that
you have, the values that you have, it's going to
be better. I'm sure it hurts now to resign from
(32:54):
this position, but I know things are going to get better.
I just know it. And to all the environmental justice
researchers out there, wherever you are, whatever you're listening to this,
keep pushing, keep working, keep supporting your local EJ communities,
keep giving them sound science, right rigorous academic work, Keep
(33:19):
engaging the community, keep being active, keep speaking out, continue
to use your voice, your research, your support system to
uplift these communities, right, because we're not going anywhere, and
as long as there's environmental injustice in the world, we're
here to fight against it. We're here to push against it.
(33:39):
We don't want to see any community, any population, any
group of people disproportionately impacted by some of these environmental hazards,
these injustices anywhere in the world. And so we need
you to keep going. If you're in a university, look,
it can get difficult, it can get challenging, especially if
(34:02):
you're in the United States. At this point in time,
our current government doesn't like environmental justice research. They've made
that very clear. They're not going to support it financially,
they're not going to promote it at all. They're not
going to be interested whatsoever in uncovering these types of issues.
But there's always a way through. It's not the first
(34:23):
time people have been upset with us for doing this
kind of research, and it won't be the last time.
We remain flexible, we remain you know, vigilant. We continue
to do the work because the work needs to be done.
The communities that are suffering need your voices, need your
research abilities to help build them up, and so keep
(34:46):
doing it. We're still here, and we're going to keep fighting,
keep fighting a good fight, keep doing the work, and
keep uplifting each and every community that's been forgotten, that's
been abandoned, that's been sacrificed for other interests, for other considerations.
(35:13):
We will remain and continue to lift you up. And
that is the episode for today. Thank you so much
for listening. I am doctor Listen jeal if. This is
the Environmental Justice Lab podcast where we are for the
people and the planet. We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
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.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.