>> THE POLITICS OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS THE PROS AND CONS OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY, AND, ONE YEAR INTO THE WAR IN UKRAINE, WE ASK: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

I'M NINA MOORE OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

THE OTHER PROFESSORS HERE TO DISCUSS THIS WEEKS NEWS ARE ANIRBAN ACHARIYA OF LEMOYNE COLLEGE MICHAEL TILLOTSON OF SUNY CORTLAND AND BEN BAUGHMAN OF GANNON UNIVERSITY.

ORDINARILY BOOKS ARE NOT THE STUFF OF POLITICS, BUT THESE DAYS THEY ARE.

REMEMBER THE CONTROVERSY OVER TEXTBOOKS AND FLORIDA'S GOVERNOR?

NOW THE PUBLISHER OF ROALD DAHL'S CHILDREN'S BOOKS HAS MADE HUNDREDS OF CHANGES TO HIS BOOKS TO REMOVE LANGUAGE THAT SOME MAY DEEM OFFENSIVE ...

THE TERM "FAT" IS REPLACED WITH "ENORMOUS" • INSTEAD OF "SMALL MEN," "SMALL PEOPLE" • "OLD CROW" INSTEAD OF "OLD HAG" • THE PUBLISHER SAID THE CHANGES ARE •.

"MINIMAL" AND INSISTS THEY ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT YOUNG READERS FROM OFFENSIVE CONTENT.

BEN, IS THIS A CASE OF THAT-PROTECTING YOUNG READERS, OR SOMETHING ELSE?

>> IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.

THERE IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN PROTECTING CHILDREN AND EMOTIONALLY EQUIPPING THEM TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY.

AND I THINK WE ARE DOING A REAL DISSERVICE HERE WITH NOT DEVELOPING OUR CHILDREN TO BE MORE RESILIENT TO ADJECTIVES.

IN PARTICULAR, I THINK ABOUT BRINGING MY CHILDREN TO THE GROCERY STORE AND HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT TYPE OF MILK IT IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT FAT-FREE MILK IS AND IT NEEDS TO BE ENORMOUS-FREE MILK INSTEAD.

>> WELL MAYBE WE HAVE OR HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT YET.

BUT ANIRBAN, MAY I ASK YOU THAT THE MEANING OF WORDS CHANGE AS SOCIETY CHANGES.

IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT OR SORT OF, YOU KNOW, A FOLLOWUP TO THAT, TO ADJUST TEXTBOOKS ACCORDINGLY?

>> I REALLY LIKE THAT QUESTION.

AND YOU KNOW, THE TRADITION HAS BEEN THAT WE KNOW MANY STORIES THAT HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED FOR CHILDREN, RIGHT?

I DON'T SEE THIS NECESSARILY AS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT FROM AN ABRIDGED VERSION.

BUT AS A SCHOLAR, I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD-- THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT OR THE ORIGINAL CONTENT OF A WRITER, AS IMPORTANT AS RRAL DAHL SHOULD BE PRESERVED SO OTHERS CAN SEE WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT I THAT PARTICULAR AUTH AUTHOR AND FOR ALL AUTHORS.

I ALSO SEE A CERTAIN NEED FOR PARENTS AND OTHERS TO, WHEN THEY'RE READING A STORY BOOK TO THE CHILD, TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN WORDS.

SO MY ANSWER WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT TO THE MARKET, RIGHT?

HAVE TWO VERSIONS.

OF COURSE HAVE THE ORIGINAL VERSION THAT ANYONE CAN BUY.

AND THEN ONE CAN CREATE, I DON'T KNOW, A WOKE VERSION IF YOU WILL THAT SELLS AT A HIGHER PRICE OR MAYBE A LOWER PRICE.

I DON'T REALLY KNOW.

BUT I THINK WE CAN KEEP BOTH SIDES.

BUT I DO THINK THAT CHANGING ORIGINAL MATERIAL AND SELLING IT AS THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL IS HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC.

AND AS KIDS GROW UP, THEY WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT ROALD DAHL.

THIS WANT TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL CONTENT.

IT'S NOT EITHER OR.

BOTH CAN BE KEPT IN THE MARKET AND PEOPLE CAN DECIDE.

>> A NEW CHOICE WE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW AS THE WOKE VERSION OF IT BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

IN DEVISING WHAT IS THE WOKE VERSION AND EDITING CHUNKS OF THE BOOKS, A PANEL OF SENSITIVITY READERS WERE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

SO HOW DOES ONE GO ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE THINKING BEHIND THE NEWER VERSION?

>> I DON'T-- I HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THEIR PROCESS OF WORK, BUT I DO THINK THEY HAVE TAKEN WORDS THAT WE, SOME AMERICAN SOCIETY, THAT WE DON'T USE OR SPEAK.

SO THE WORD FAT IS NOT USED ANYMORE TO DESCRIBE ANYONE.

IT IS IMPOLITE.

BUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, IT IS NOT, I TELL YOU THAT COMING FROM SOUTH ASIA.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS, BUT I THINK THEY WERE GOING FOR CLEARLY OFFENSIVE WORDS THAT AMERICAN SOCIETY DO NOT USE WHEN THEY DESCRIBE OTHER PEOPLE AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS.

I THINK THAT WAS THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS.

I HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK BUT ACCORDING TO THEM IT WAS A MAN MALCHANGE AND THE COMPANY WORKED WITH A GROUP OF EXPERTS TO KIND OF SEE WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE CAN BE REMOVED.

>> RIGHT, AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, MICHAEL, NEITHER NETFLIX NOR THE PUBLISHER HAVE OFFERED COMMENT, AT LEAST REGARDING THE CHANGES BEYOND WHAT WE JUST MENTIONED.

SO, TO ANIRBAN'S POINT, THERE ARE 300 MILLION COPIES OF ALL OF DAHL'S BOOKS THAT HAVE BEEN SOLD, AND YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED INTO SOME 63 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.

SO THIS IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST AMERICA, WOULD YOU SAY?

AND WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON HERE MORE GENERALLY?

>> HERE IS A NOVEL APPROACH.

HOW DO WE NOT SUPPORT AUTHORS IN THEIR WORK WHO RIGHT RACIAL LIES AND TROPES.

IF ONE CHOOSES TO USE BOOKS IN THE CLA IS ROOM, I THINK THE PUBLISHER COULD HAVE DONE A GREAT SERVICE, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE A USEFUL EXERCISE PUTTING A DISCLAIMER PAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THEY ARE USING.

THE DANGER FOR ME IS WHEN WILL THIS SPILL OVER INTO SENSOR CENSORING TOPICS OF BOOKS.

IN ARKANSAS, THIRD OR FOURTH DAY IN OFFICE, HUCKABEE DECIDED TO BAN THE WORD LATINX FROM DOCUMENTS IN STATE DOCUMENTS SAY IT IS ETHICALLY AND PEJORATIVE LANGUAGE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN GOVERNMENT DEWPOINTS OR OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

THIS IS A DANGEROUS MOMENT.

BECAUSE WHAT THIS THIS MOMENT TURNS INTO THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ENGAGE IN THE EARNT WOKE MOVEMENT?

>> CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT POINT AND SAY THAT THERE IS A LEADER OF AN ORGANIZATION, AN ANTI-CENSORSHIP ORGANIZATION WHO HAS SAID THAT THERE IS A REAL SLIPPERY SLOPE HERE AND IF MICHAEL, I COULD JUST QUOTE, SHE SAYS "WORKS OF LITERATURE THAT CONFORM TO PARTICULAR SENSIBILITIES COULD REPRESENT A DANGEROUS NEW WEAPON."

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT?

>> MY THOUGHTS ARE IT DEPENDS ON THE PARENT.

I BELIEVE IN PERSONAL CHOICE, EVEN LIBERTY WHEN IT COMES TO LIBERTY.

I BELIEVE IN LIBERTY IN LITERATURE.

THE PARENTS IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS ON WHAT IS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD COME FROM THE THEE OKAY BY.

>> FROM THE THEOCRACY, SO BEN, THERE IS THE WHAT ABOUT-ISM THAT COULD BE APPLIED HERE.

WHAT ABOUT THE LIBERALS COMPLAINTS THAT BOOKS ARE BEING BANNED, THAT DeSANTIS IS DOING WHAT HE IS DOING IN FLORIDA?

IS THAT A LOT LIKE THIS OR IS THERE NOT AN EQUIVALENCY HERE?

>> I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE ARE THE INCREMENTAL CHANGES THAT MAY SEEM LIKE A MAUL THING RIGHT NOW.

IT'S NOT JUST WORDS THEY'RE CHANGING.

THEY'RE CHANGING FULL PARAGRAPHS.

THEY'RE CHANGING PARTS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE PART OF A POEM THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR THAT IS NO LONGER WITH US AND THEY'RE MAKING A WHOLE NEW POEM AND PUTTING IT IN THERE REPRESENTING IT AS IF IT FROM THAT PERSON.

AT WHAT POINT DO WE GET TO WHERE THE STORY, YOU OPEN UP THE BOOK AND IT HAPPENED SOMEWHERE, BY SOMEBODY TO SOME THING.

THE END?

WHAT HAPPENS?

>> AND THIS SORT OF GOES BACK TO MICHAEL'S POINT ABOUT THE AUTHOR, IN THIS CASE, DAHL WAS ACCUSED OF ANTI-SEM SEMITISM AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS.

SO WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE IMAGES?

DO WE REALLY NOT WANT THE READERS TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHOR, WHOSE WORKS THEY'RE READING?

SO WE ARE GOING TO GO ON TO OUR NEXT TOPIC.

I HAVE A FEELING THAT WE WILL SEE ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO OTHER BOOKS GOING FORWARD AND, OF COURSE, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THEM HERE.

FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE COMMON.

THE TECHNOLOGY MATCHES A PICTURE OF YOUR FACE AGAINST A DATABASE OF FACES.

SOME STORES USE THE TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE THEFT.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY USES IT AT AIRPORTS TO ENFORCE THE NO FLY LIST.

SOME OF US USE IT TO UNLOCK OUR MADISON SQUARE GARDEN?

HE'S USING IT TO BAN LAWYERS THAT ARE SUING HIM.

WALK US THROUGH SOME OF THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.

>> WOO THEY ABOUT-- WHEN WE THINK ABOUT A.I.

OR FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND BEN MIGHT AGREE, IF YOU TAKE BIG CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO RECRUIT PEOPLE, FACE RECOGNITION A.I.

CAN INCREASE THEIR MAN POWER AND ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE FOR SURE.

THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THAT.

A.I.

CAN BE A GREAT TOOL FOR INCREASING MAN POWER AND INVESTIGATIVE ABILITY FOR DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE SHORT CHANGED RIGHT NOW.

HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ALGORITHM JUSTICE LEAGUE AND FRONTIER FOUNDATION, THEY HIGHLIGHT THE IDEA THAT FACIAL RECOGNITION IN THE WRONG HANDS CAN HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON POLICING.

SO NOW WE HAVE GEORGE OR WELL SITUATION OF GOOD BIG BROTHER AND BAD BIG BROTHER SO TO SPEAK.

GOOD BIG BROTHER BEING LICENSE PLATE READERS.

BAD BIG BROTHER BEING TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON LOW LEVEL CRIME AND NOW WE HAVE STOP AND FRISK IN THE CYBER WORLD IN TERMS OF PRIVACY AND HUMAN ABUSE.

IF TRANSPARENCY IS REGULATED TO SOME DEGREE AND NOT TOTALLY OPAQUE, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO HAVE SOME VALUE IN THE RIGHT HANDS.

BUT IN THE WRONG HANDS IT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC.

FOR EXAMPLE, PUTIN USES IT TO QUELL DISSENT, TO OPPRESS HIS OWN PEOPLE BECAUSE HE CALLS THESE PROTESTORS, THEY'RE AGGRESSIVELY SUPPORTING WESTERN INTERESTS SO HE USES FACIAL RECOGNITION TO ARREST AND DETAIN PROTESTORS IN RUSSIA.

IN THE RIGHT HANDS, NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.

IN THE WRONG HANDS, PROBLEMATIC FOR SOCIETY.

>> YEAH, YOU ARE REALLY GOING TO THE QUESTION OF IMPLEMENTATION MORE SO THAN TECHNOLOGY ITSELF.

AND BY THE WAY, THE FBI REPORTEDLY HAS USED IT TO IDENTIFY PROTESTORS IN CERTAIN PROTESTS HERE IN THE U.S.

SO BEN, IF I COULD TURN TO YOU AND ASK YOU, GOING TO MICHAEL'S POINT ABOUT THE ALGORITHMIC BIASES, ONE STUDY FOUND THAT FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IS 10 TO 100 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO MISIDENTIFY A BLACK PERSON AND COMPARED TO A WHITE PERSON.

SO IS THAT A DISQUALIFIER, OR, LIKE MICHAEL SAID, AN INDICATION THAT IT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED AND USED CAREFULLY?

>> IT WOULD BE A DISQUALIFIER IF THAT'S THE SOLE THING IT IS DOING.

IF WE RELY ON IT AND THAT'S IT.

>> FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

>> FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR ANYTHING.

BUT IT'S ONLY A TOOL.

IT'S ONLY AS GOOD AS THE HUMANS THAT ARE UTILIZING THE TOOL.

AS A DETECTIVE, I HAD UTILIZED FACE RECOGNITION SOFTWARE FOR A LOT OF CASES AND I GOT A LOT OF BAD HITS, MORE BAD HITS THAN GOOD HITS.

SO IT'S NOT PERFECT.

IT'S NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO PERFECT.

THE WAY IT'S BEING UTILIZED FOR THE CURRENT SITUATION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN NEW YORK, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SITUATION, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING-- >> YOU MEAN THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN?

>> THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN.

IT'S NOT BEING USED TO HELP PROTECT PEOPLE FROM DANGEROUS, YOU KNOW, FOLKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR TO IDENTIFY A SUSPECT IN A HOMICIDE CASE.

IT IS BEING USED TO, IN A PUNITIVE METHOD, TO, YOU KNOW,HURT COMPANIES OR INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE GOING AFTER THEM.

>> RIGHT, AND IN THIS CASE, BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.

SO THERE IS A BILL THAT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED-- I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR ALONG IT IS IN THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE THAT WOULD DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SITUATION.

BUT ANIRBAN, IF I COULD TURN TO YOU AND ASK YOU TO SPEAK TO WHAT I THINK BOTH MIAMI CAL AND BEN HAVE-- MY-- THAT MICHAEL AND BEN HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT.

SOME HAVE BANNED, SOME HAVE SET RESTRICTIONS.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW.

YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT REGULATING IT AND OTHER THINGS YOU THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERING HERE?

>> I DO ABSOLUTELY THINK THIS KINDS OF SOFTWARE SHOULD BE REGULATED BY THE PUBLIC THROUGH LAWS, THROUGH LEGISLATION.

AND, YOU KNOW, AS MY ESTEEM PANEL HERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSING, THERE HAS BEEN VERY GOOD WORK, ESPECIALLY BY RUJA BENJAMIN CALLING THE USAGE OF A.I.

IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND OTHER WAYS, CALLING IT THE NEW JIM CODE BECAUSE WITHIN THAT CODE THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS #E CULTURE OF HISTORICAL DATA, YOU KNOW, THE DATA THAT IT ACTUALLY RELIES ON IS CREATED FROM A SOCIETY THAT RACIALLY DIVISIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY, THEN IT WILL BE REFLECTED BACK INTO THAT CODE.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE REALLY, REALLY COGNIZANT ABOUT.

THE SECOND THING I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN A NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

THESE THINGS CANNOT BE STOPPED.

LIKE WHAT IF YOUR NEST DOOR BELL HAS ONE OF THE FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE TOMORROW?

WHAT IF I SELL A PAIR OF GLASSES THAT CAN RECOGNIZE ANYONE AND, YOU KNOW, FEEDS INTO A DATABASE TO TELL YOU WHO THEY ARE?

SO YOU CAN TAKE IT TO I PLACE HER IT'S VERY DEMOCRATIZED AND YOU CANNOT STOP IT BUT YOU CAN DEFINITELY REGULATE IT.

I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE THING FROM A VERY FAMOUS GERMAN PHILOSOPHER THAT SAID ALL THAT IS SOLID MELTS INTO AIR, ALL THAT IS SACRED IS PROPANE.

AND MAYBE IN THIS NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, THE SACREDNESS OF PRIVACY, MAYBE THAT'S CHANGING.

MAYBE WITH THE NEWER GENERATION, PRIVACY IS NOT KIND OF THEIR SOCIAL NORM ANYMORE.

I DON'T KNOW.

BUT I DO THINK IT HAS TO BE HEAVILY REGULATED AND TAKEN AWAY FROM PRIVATE ENTITIES AND USED RESPONSIBLY BY THE STATE.

AS YOU POINT OUT, SOME OF THEM IN SOME CASES, THEY'RE USING IT FOR BAD REASONS, FOR EXAMPLE, WATCHING PROTESTS AND SO ON.

SO IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED SITUATION.

I DON'T THINK THOUGH THAT THE TECHNOLOGY CAN BE STOPPED.

IT MUST BE, HOWEVER, REGULATED.

>> THERE IS NO WAY TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM PRIVATE COMPANIES.

I MEAN THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE LEADING THE GOVERNMENT IN ALL AREAS TECHNOLOGY WISE.

SO I THINK THAT'S A WASTE OF TIME.

I THINK WE ARE SPINNING OUR WHEEMS IF WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM PRIVATE COMPANIES.

WHAT I DO THINK THOUGH, IS THAT THE INJUNCTION THAT THE LAWYERS HAVE PUT FORWARD HERE IN NEW YORK, PARTICULARLY THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ISSUE, THEY'RE RELYING ON A 1941 CIVIL RIGHTS CASE, RIGHT?

>> VERY NARROW ONE.

>> THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE SPORTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO WATCH THE KNICKS PLAY.

BUT THE INJUNCTION THAT THE JUDGE HAS SIGNED OFF ON, THEY TRIED TO USE IT.

BENJAMIN NOLAN WITH THE LAW FIRM WENT THERE AND TRIED TO USE THAT.

HE WAS PULLED OUT OF THE LINE EVEN WITH THE ORDER SIGNED BY THE JUDGE AND THEY INVALIDATED HIS TICKET SAYING THAT'S THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.

SO I DO THINK THAT NOT ONLY IS THIS AN ISSUE NOW, BUT IT HAS BEEN.

THIS IS PROOF THAT BEFORE FACIAL RECOGNITION, BEFORE WE CAN BLAME SOME ALGORITHM, PEOPLE WERE DOING THIS TO OTHER PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S AT THE HEART OF THIS; THAT THIS-- THAT YOU ARE PUNISHING SOMEBODY FOR DOING THEIR JOB.

AND IN THIS CASE, THAT PERSON WAS THERE CRITIQUING THEATER AND THAT'S WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT CASE.

>> YEAH WE ARE SUPPOSED TO MOVE ON.

BUT I HAVE TO SAY, AS THE MODERATOR FOR THIS SHOW, THAT I'M REALLY SURPRISED THAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE NOT LIKE NO, THIS IS A PROBLEM!

AND WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE PERVASIVENESS, THE POTENTIAL FOR IT BEING PERVASIVE IN THAT EVERY SINGLE PATRON IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN UNDER WENT THAT SCREENING AND THE MATCHING AND IT'S HAPPENING WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT.

AND SO THAT JUST FEELS SORT OF CREEPY TO ME.

NOBODY ELSE AT THE TABLE...?

>> PRIVATE COMPANIES SHOULD NOT HAVE IT.

I'M BEING VERY, VERY EMPHATIC ABOUT IT.

THAT PRIVATE ENTITIES LIKE TARGET, WEGMANS, THERE SHOULD BE HEAVY REGULATION OF THEM USING IT.

>> REAL QUICK, THERE ARE TWO STATES THAT ARE AHEAD OF THE BALL WITH THIS.

AND THAT'S ILLINOIS AND SORRY, I FORGOT THE OTHER STATE.

TEXAS.

TEXAS AND ILLINOIS.

YOU HAVE TO GIVE PERMISSION FOR YOUR BIO METRICS DATA TO BE USED.

>> WELL THAT COULD BE A HUGE SAVING GRACE THERE.

PUT ME A LITTLE AT EASE.

BUT YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS UNFOLDS.

FOR OUR THIRD TOPIC, WE WANT TO JOIN IN ON MASHING THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT BIDEN MARKED THE OCCASION WITH A SECRET TRIP TO KYIV.

WHILE THERE HE ACCUSED RUSSIA OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND HE PLEDGED AMERICA'S SUPPORT FOR THE LONG HAUL.

BUT, BACK HOME CALLS TO END OR RESTRICT OUR SUPPORT OF UKRAINE ARE GETTING LOUDER.

ESPECIALLY ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

SO, ANIRBAN, SHOULD WE STAY THE COURSE OR SHIFT GEARS?

>> WELL, LET ME JUST FIRST SAY, START BY SAY THAGHT ONE NEEDS TO CONDEMN RUSSIA UNEQUIVOCALLY FOR, YOU KNOW, THIS IMPERIALISTIC AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE.

NOW, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AFTER THIS CONDEMNATIONS ARE DONE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT AT A SCHOLARLY NON-NATIONALIST MANNER, THIS WAR INCREASINGLY LOOK LIKES UNITED STATES PROXY WAR AGAINST RUSSIA WHILE USING UKRAINE.

>> RUSSIA CERTAINLY SEES IT THAT WAY.

>> AND MIGHT I ADD, TO THIRDS OF THE WORLD HUMANITY ALSO SEES IT THAT WAY.

ONLY 33 COUNTRIES HAVE USED SANCTIONS.

BUT AGAIN 14 IS COUNTRIES HAVE CONDEMNED.

BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE IT AS THEIR WAR.

AND THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO BUY THIS KIND OF EXCEPTIONALLIST AMERICAN NARRATIVE OF GOOD AND BAD WHAT AMERICA THINKS IS GOOD AND BAD.

INCREASINGLY IT SEEMS LIKE A PROXY WAR THAT AMERICA WANTS TO USE IN UKRAINE, WEAKEN RUSSIA AND AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO CROSS CHINA'S RED LINE.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE UNITED STATES TALKS A BIG DEAL ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

WHAT THEY SHOULD DO IS ACTUALLY BRING IN NATIONS IN THE WORLD INTERNATIONAL.

HALF OF THE WORLD IS NOT ACTUALLY WITH THE UNITED STATES.

NOW, TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCURATE ABOUT THIS, CRIME AGAINST AGGRESSION, WAR CRIMES, ABSOLUTELY, PUTIN SHOULD BE TRIED WITH IT.

BUT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A SIGNATORY OF I.C.C.

IF WE NEED TO BRING CRIME OF AGGRESSION, YOU KNOW, CHARGES AGAINST PUTIN, ONE CAN SAY SUCH CRIME OF AGGRESSION CHARGES SHOULD BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE U.S.

IN THE CASE OF IRAQ, RIGHT?

>> I'M SHOCKED THAT YOU SAID THAT?

>> AND THERE IS A GOOD CASE.

I.C.C.

WAS PROCEEDING WITH THAT.

I THINK THE U.S. IS PLAYING BLUNTLY SPEAKING, AN EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL GAME.

THEY DON'T KNOW HOW IT IS GOING TO END.

THEY'RE PLAYING WITH FIRE.

WE NEED A PEACE TREATY.

>> WE NEED A PEACE TREATY.

SO MICHAEL, TOUCHING ON SOME OF ANIRBAN'S POINTS, I WANT TO ASK, WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?

ANIRBAN IS SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE DOING IT TO WEAKEN RUSSIA.

OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT THIS IS POTENTIALLY ABOUT POLAND.

POLAND IS WORRIED.

IT'S ALSO A SORT OF SIGNAL TO, SOME HAVE SAID, CHINA REGARDING TAIWAN.

DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?

>> SHAME ON CHINA.

SHAME ON AFRICA.

SHAME ON INDIA FOR BEING MEALY MOUTHED ABOUT THE WHOLE SITUATION.

SHAME ON THOSE COUNTRIES.

SO, FOR ME, THERE IS THE OPTICS OF REALITY VERSUS BIDEN'S ASSESSMENT OF THE WAR.

THERE IS TWO LANES FEAR.

FOR-- THERE ARE TWO LANES HERE.

FOR THE LAST 12 MONTHS, WE HAVE SEEN ATROCITIES OF THE WAR UP CLOSE AND AMERICANS ARE WONDERING HOW DOES SAVING UKRAINE AFFECTLY BOTTOM LINE AND HAS IT DRAGGED ON TOO LONG HAD SOME PEOPLE SOME MISSISSIPPI DELTA, APRIL LAICHIA AND THE SWAMP LANDS OF LOUISIANA AND COAL MINES, WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR DAY-TO-DAY EXISTENCE VERSUS SAVING UKRAINE IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN TO NEGOTIATE ON SEVERAL LEVELS.

WE WILL SEE HOW IT GOES POLITICALLY DOWN THE ROAD.

>> BEN, THE LAST WORD TO YOU.

>> QUICK.

WE ARE FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY.

AND WE ARE ALSO FIGHTING FOR THE PRECEDENT OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE JUST STOP.

YOU KNOW, FROM AN IVORY TOWER STANDPOINT UP HERE IN THE IVORY TOWER, WE CAN SIT BACK AND CRITICIZE ALL DAY LONG.

BUT THIS IS A MESSY SITUATION AND IT HAS TO BE A GLOBAL RESPONSE, AGREED.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE HARD FOR A WHILE.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE HARD AND WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO LAND IN THIS.

NOW IT'S TIME FOR Fs AND A STARTING ANIRBAN WITH YOUR F. >> IN THE SPIRIT OF SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY AND ACADEMIC PERSISTENCE, I GIVE MYSELF AN F FOR BLANKING ON THE NAME OF THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA ON LAST WEEK'S SHOW.

HER.

SHE IS THE SECOND WOMAN PRESIDENT OF INDIA, THE FIRST FROM A TRIBAL COMMUNITY AND THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO BE BORN IN DECOLONIZED INDIA.

>> MICHAEL.

>> MY F GOES TO THE CONGRESS PERSON FROM GEORGIA FROM DOUBLING DOWN ON HER PROPOSAL ABOUT NATIONAL DIVORCE.

THIS IS OVER THE TOP INNAMMER TO LANGUAGE WITH NO PLACE IN CIVIL SOCIETY OF AMERICA.

>> MY F GOES TO VANDERBILT ACADEMICS WHO USED CHAT G.B.T.

TO WRITE A LETTER TO STUDENTS AND FAMILIES ABOUT A MICHIGAN SHOOTING.

WHERE IS THE HEART?

TAKING THE HEART OUT TO WRITE A LETTER LIKE THAT IS INES CUSEABLE-- INEXCUSABLE.

>> IT TOTALLY IS INEXCUSABLE.

I SAW THAT AND I HAD A KNOT IN MY STOMACH.

TO GET THAT KNOT OUT OF MY STOM CAN AND OTHERS, WE ARE GOING TO TURN TO GOOD NEWS STARTING WITH YOUR A.

>> SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL FOR EXPLICITLY BANNING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CASTE MAKING IT THE FIRST CITY IN THE U.S. TO TAKE SUCH A STEP.

THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE TO TUESDAY WHERE THEY CHANGED THE MUNICIPAL CORD TO INCLUDE CAST AS ONE OF THE PROTECTED CATEGORIES LIKE RACE, RELIGION AND GENDER IDENTITY.

>> A MOVEMENT FOR, MICHAEL.

>> TO THE HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE STUDENTS IN FLORIDA FOR TAKING PART IN DEMOCRACY BY STAGING WALKOUTS ACROSS FLORIDA TO PROTEST THE GOVERNOR'S DECISION THAT TARGET EDUCATION.

THESE STUDENTS KNOW THAT THESE POLICIES ARE DETRIMENTAL TO A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY.

>> STUDENTS BEING ACTIVE.

THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING.

BEN, YOUR A.

>> MY A IS GOING TO MICHAEL JORDAN.

HE WAS CELEBRATING HIS 60th BIRTHDAY LAST WEEK AND HE DONATED $10 MILLION TO MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME.

IN 2021 HE DONATED $10 MILLION TO TO NOVENT HEALTHCARE TO HELP OPEN TWO NEW CHILDREN HOSPITALS IN NORTH CAROLINA, WHICH, FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, HE HAD GIVEN $7 MILLION TO.

>> WOW.

THAT'S AMAZING.

SO IF I COULD JUST GO BACK, MOO I CAL, TO YOUR A.

YOU KNOW, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT GEN-Z AND HOW DISCONNECTED THEY ARE.

BUT IF I WAS A PANELIST ON TODAY, I WAS GOING TO COMMENT ON THE ASHBURY REVIVAL, NOT BECAUSE HAVE YOU TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUNG FOLKS WHO ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY ENGAGED IN VERY REAL WAYS ON THE GROUND.

YEAH?

DID ANYBODY ELSE HEAR ABOUT IT?

>> I DIDN'T.

>> IT'S A RELIGIOUS GATHERING THAT HAS BEEN GOING AROUND THE CLOCK LITERALLY AROUND THE CLOCK FOR WEEKS AND IT HAS SPREAD TO OTHER COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING, IF YOU TALK TO YOUNG PEOPLE, COLLEGE STUDENTS, SPEND TIME WITH THEM LIKE WE DO, RIGHT?

THESE PEOPLE ARE ENGAGED.

THEY CARE ABOUT JOBS, INCOME, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE.

LIFE EXPECTANCY, HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE.

THEY'RE NOT SITTING IN THEIR BASEMENT VAPING ALL THE TIME.

>> DESPITE WHAT WE SAY.

THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR TONIGHT.

IN THE STUDIO ANYWAY.

BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION AS WE WERE TRYING TO DO HERE WITH YOU.

WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN OR SHARE IT WITH OTHERS, GO TO WCNY.ORG.

I'M NINA MOORE, AND FOR ALL OF US HERE AT IVORY TOWER, GOOD NIGHT.