IN THE JUDGMENT SEAT - JUDGING A LOCAL JUDGE, REVIEWING BIDEN'S AFRICAN DIPLOMACY AND EVALUATING WHETHER UNIVERSITIES SHOULD TAKE OFFICIAL POSITIONS ON SOCIAL ISSUES.

STAY TUNED.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M BARBARA FOUGHT, FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE NEWS OF THE WEEK ARE -- TARA ROSS, FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ANIRBAN ACHARYA, FROM LE MOYNE COLLEGE SARAH PRALLE, FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, AND LUKE PERRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY A SYRACUSE CITY COURT JUDGE, FELICIA PITTS DAVIS, IS THE SUBJECT OF BOTH A COMPLAINT TO THE STATE JUDICIAL COMMISSION-- AFTER SHE REPORTEDLY LEFT HER COURTROOM --WITHOUT EXPLANATION --- AND DECLINED TO OFFICIATE AT A WEDDING OF A GAY COUPLE LAST MONTH.

APPARENTLY SUCH MARRIAGES VIOLATE HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

IN ADDITION -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY BILL FITZPATRICK SAYS SHE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HANDLE ANY OF HIS OFFICE'S CASES AS SHE MAY BE BIASED.

AND HE'S ASKED A GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE HER.

TARA HOW DO YOU BALANCE HER ROLE AS A JUDGE AND HER ROLE AS A PERSON OF FAITH?

>> I THINK FIRST AND FOREMOST, SHE SHOULD HAVE MADE THE DECISION AHEAD OF TIME, THAT IF SHE COULD NOT MARRY GAY COUPLES, SHE SIMPLY WOULD NOT DO MARRIAGES.

>> JUDGES ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

EITHER ALL OR NOTHING.

>> EXACTLY.

>> AND WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS SITUATION IF SHE HAD MADE THAT DECISION BECAUSE IN THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN, IT WAS VERY LIKELY THAT AT SOME POINT, SHE WAS GOING TO BE ASKED TO MARRY A GAY COUPLE.

BUT WHERE I THINK YOU HAVE A BALANCE HERE, AND IN A SENSE SHE WAS TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE, IS THAT ONCE SHE MADE THE DECISION TO REFUSE, SHE DIDN'T JUST SIMPLY GET UP AND SAY OKAY, I'M JUST REFUSING.

SHE WENT AND FOUND ANOTHER JUDGE AND MADE SURE THAT THEY DID GET MARRIED.

SO HERE, THIS IS WHERE, TO ME, IT BECOMES VERY MURKY.

SHE WAS TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE.

DID SHE REALLY DO SO?

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE QUESTION.

SOME PEOPLE WOULD SEE THIS AS DISCRIMINATION, SORRIES BO SAY SHE SIMPLY RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE CASE, WHICH JUDGES ARE ALLOWED TO DO.

TO MY WAY OF THINKING, SHE FOUND A BALANCE.

>> LUBLG, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> IT WAS HAMMED GAY COUPLES HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY.

EVEN IF CERTAIN STATES HAVE DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT ACCOMMODATE JUDGES TO DO THINGS IN CERTAIN WAYS, I FUNDAMENTALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEONE WOULD RUN FOR JUDGE AND GO INTO THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND PLEDGE TO SERVE ALL PEOPLE AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO OFFICIATING MARRIAGES, ONLY DO SOME COUPLES AND NOT OTHER COUPLES.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WORKS.

THAT'S NOT HOW EQUAL PROTECTION WORKS AND WHILE I RESPECT PEOPLE'S DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, I THINK THEY SHOULD FIND A DIFFERENT LINE OF WORK OR DIFFERENT VENUE OF WORK IF THEY HAVE MATTERS OF INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE.

>> I'M HAPPY YOU BROUGHT IN THE CASE, AND THAT CASE IS ABOUT WHETHER YOU KNOW, MARRIAGE LICENSES CANNOT BE REVOKED OR YOU HAVE TO GIVE MY MARRIAGE LICENSE TO A GAY COUPLE AND THEY WERE GIVEN A LICENSE AND THE IDEA WAS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE MARRIED OR NOT.

MY QUESTION IS WHAT LAW PRECISELY DID THIS JUDGE BREAK?

I'M NOT SURE THE EXACT LAW THE JUDGE BROKE.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, A JUDGE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PICK AND CHOOSE.

AND IF YOU DO THAT, THEN THERE ARE MANY OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO, YOU KNOW, CAN MAKE THESE KINDS OF EXCEPTIONS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND THAT WOULD NOT BE A TICKLE IN MANY STANDS.

BUT THEY WERE GIVEN THE MARRIAGE LICENSE.

OGLEFELD WAS NOT VIOLATED AND WHAT IS THE LAW AROUND MARRYING SOMEONE OR NOT.

I'M NOT SURE.

>> FROM WHAT I READ, IT DOES SOUND LIKE YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO NOT DISCRIMINATE WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN AN OFFICIAL MANNER AS SOMEONE WHO MARRIES PEOPLE.

SO I THINK THESE-- I FEEL FOR THE COUPLE WHO WERE TREATED AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS, RIGHT?

AND IT'S A VIOLATION OF THEIR EQUAL DIGNITY AND SO I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT THIS.

AND I THINK IF YOU SORT OF ZOOM BACK TO SORT OF THE BIGGER PICTURE, THESE QUESTIONS OF THE EXTENT OF PEOPLE'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, HOWEVER WE HOW FAR WE SHOULD GO IN PROTECTING THAT IS A NATIONAL ISSUE.

I KNOW IN 2003, THE SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW, TOOK UP A CASE IN COLORADO OF A WOMAN WHO DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE WEBSITES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES AND THAT WAS FRAMED AS A CLASH BETWEEN GAY RIGHTS AND FREE SPEECH BUT IT ALSO HAS IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF EXPANDING RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS, PARTICULARLY FOR CHRISTIANS AND CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS.

>> EXACTLY.

AND I WROTE A BOOK ON RELIGIOUS RESPONSES TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY AFTER THE CASE AND ONE OF THE MAIN TAKE AWAYS THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, INTERVIEWING OPPONENTS TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY WAS THAT THEY ACCEPTED THE DECISION AND ESSENTIALLY THAT THEY LOST A 30-YEAR FIGHT TO MAINTAIN MA DIGSAL MARRIAGE AND THEY WERE VIEWING THEMSELVES AS COUNTERCULTURE AND HERE WE ARE, JUST NEARLY A DECADE LATER, AND AS SARAH POINTED OUT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SHIFTED AND SHOWN A GREATER WILLINGNESS TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN WAYS THAT IS GOING TO SET US BACK 10, 20 YEARS WHEN WE THINK ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS AND GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE.

THAT'S SURPRISING TO ME AND CONCERNING FROM A CIVIL RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE.

>> THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION HAS A COUPLE OF OPTIONS, IF THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO SANCTION HER.

ONE IS ADMONISH HER, A PUBLIC DECISION EXPLAINING ALL THE FACTS.

ANOTHER IS CENSURE, SIMILAR TO ADMONISHMENT BUT SIMILAR TO OTHER THINGS THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONER TOLD ME OR THE COMMISSION COULD REMOVE HER FROM THE BENCH.

TARA, IF YOU WERE ON THE COMMISSION, WHERE WOULD YOU BE ON THIS?

ADD MON ADMONISH, CENSURE OR REMOVE FROM THE BENCH?

>> I THINK I WOULD GO WITH CENSURE.

REMOVE FROM THE BENCH IS MURKY BECAUSE IT IS UNCLEAR, DID SHE VIOLATE THE LAW OR DID SHE VIOLATE A NORM OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE?

AND SO BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT SEEMS TO BE UNCLEAR.

UNLESS YOU CAN CLEARLY SAY SHE VIOLATED THE LAW, SHE DIDN'T PREVENT THIS COUPLE FROM GETTING MARRIED.

SHE MADE SURE THAT SOMEONE DID MARRY THEM.

SO BASICALLY IT WAS A DELAY IN TIME, YES, IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THEIR DIGNITY BUT THAT GETS INTO MORE CIVIL THAN CRIMINAL.

SO I THINK CENSURE WOULD BE BEST.

BUT CENSURE WITH SOME VERY CLEAR GUIDELINES FOR ALL OTHER JUDGES.

THIS IS WHAT YOU AGREED TO DO.

EITHER YOU DO IT OR YOU DON'T.

>> SARAH, YOUR THOUGHT ON THIS?

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S REALLY UP TO THE STATE JUDICIAL COMMISSION.

I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF THING, WHY WE HAVE A COMMISSION LIKE THAT, THAT THEY SHOULD DECIDE AFTER DELIBERATION.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ALL THE FACTS IT SEEMS LIKE AND I THINK IT IS PREMATURE FOR PEOPLE TO BE CALLING FOR HER RESIGNATION AND TO TAKE HER OFF ALL CASES.

YOU KNOW, SHE HAS A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS WELL.

>> AND WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS.

LET ME JUST NOTE THAT THIS STORY CAME TO LIGHT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF REPORTERS AT THE POST STANDARD.

THE JUDGE AND COURT OFFICIALS WERE NOT WILLING TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING.

MOVING ON.

JOE BIDEN TRAVELED TO AFRICA LAST WEEK --- A STORY THAT DIDN'T GET A LOT OF ATTENTION.

IN ANGOLA HE VISITED THE NATIONAL SLAVERY MUSEUM AND TOURED A RAIL LINE THAT WILL BRING MINERALS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND FROM ZAMBIA TO THE ANGOLAN PORT OF LOBITO.

IT'S PART OF A $4 BILLION-DOLLAR INVESTMENT FROM THE U.S.

WHICH HOPEFULLY SPURS MORE PRIVATE MONEY.

ANIRBAN, WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS TRIP?

>> I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT SIGNIFICANT TRIP, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE AFRICAN SUMMIT HE HELD IN 2022.

UNITED STATES HAS IMPORTANT STAKES IN THE MINERALS AND MATERIALS AND ANGOLA IS ONE OF THE OIL RICH COUNTRIES IN THE AFRICAN CONTINENT.

I MUST BACK UP AND SAY THE ANGELO AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY HAS PROFOUND RACISM AND CRINGE WORTHY CONDIZATION.

WE HAVE A SONG, THAT ALWAYS GETS ME DO, THEY KNOW IT'S CHRISTMAS.

AND THERE WON'T BE SNOW IN AFRICA THIS CHRISTMASTIME.

THEY'RE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, OKAY.

THE GREATEST GIFT THEY WILL GET THIS YEAR IS LIFE.

WHERE NOTHING EVER GROWS, NOR RAIN NOR RIVER FLOW, DO THEY KNOW IT'S CHRISTMASTIME AT ALL?

AND THIS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ETHIOPIA WHICH IS ONE OF THE OLDEST CHRISTIAN POPULATIONS IN THE WORLD BEFORE EVEN EUROPE HAD IT.

SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE KIND OF RACISM, IGNORANCE THAT WE FOMENT IN AMERICAN SOCIETY.

WE NEVER TALK ABOUT AFRICA.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THERE ARE 50 COUNTRIES THERE AND THE OTHER PART IS TO COUNTERACT CHINA.

U.N. AND CHINA HAD REPRESSIVE POLICIES DURING THE COLD WAR, WE SEPTEMBER ON SUPPORTING SOUTH AFRICA FOR THE LONGEST TIME.

AND NOW THAT CHINA IS THE BOOGIE MAN, SO AS SEVERAL CHINESE OBSERVERS HAVE SAID THAT IN BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REALLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING IN AFTERSHOCK AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS CA THAT'S PRODUCTIVE, THEY SHOULD LOOK AT CHINA AND SEE HOW CHINESE INVESTMENTS HAVE WORKED AND HELPED IN AFRICAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHY.

AND WHY INDEED THAT MOST AFRICANS SUPPORT CHINESE INVESTMENTS, HUGE POPULAR OPINION IN FAVOR OF CHINA IN AFRICA AND NOT IN FAVOR OF U.S. OR EUROPEANS, RIGHT?

SO IT'S A LASTED DITCH ATTEMPT TO COUCH SOMETHING GOOD FROM AFRICA BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE IMPERIAL MOTIVE OF MAINTAINING THE ARMY BASE IN NYNYNIGERE, THE NEW SCRAMBLE HAS STARTED.

>> IS THIS A LOT ABOUT CHINA BECAUSE IT'S I BELIEVE AFRICA'S LARGEST TRADING PARTNER NOW, NOT THE U.S. >> ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THE U.S. FACES IS HAVING TO BUILD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR FOREIGN AID TO OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.

IT'S LESS THAN 1% OF OUR BUDGET BUT IF YOU POLL AMERICANS, THAT'S THE PART OF THE BUDGET THEY MOST WANT TO ELIMINATE AND THINK THAT'S GOING TO SOLVE THEIR MONEY PROBLEMS.

AND SO CHINA DOESN'T HAVE THOSE ISSUES AS A REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT.

IF THEY WANT TO RAISE X BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND PUT IT TOWARDS A CERTAIN CAUSE IN AFRICA, THEY CAN DO THAT AND THEY HAVE.

I THINK IT'S IN AMERICA'S INTEREST NOT ONLY ECONOMICALLY BUT POLITICALLY TO STRENGTHEN OUR ALLIANCES IN AFRICA AND HELP TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, SUPPORT DEMOCRACY AND REDUCE CORRUPTION AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS GOOD FOR US AND I WOULD ARGUE, TO SOME DEGREE, CERTAINLY GOOD FOR THE AFRICAN PEOPLE AS WELL.

>> TARA.

>> WELL, I THINK THIS IS VERY GOOD FOR ANG GO LA AND THE OTHER AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

THEY ARE TAKE CAN THE ATTITUDE THAT WE WILL ACCEPT APPROPRIATE HELP FROM ANYONE AND NOT TRYING TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH CHINA OR THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PARTICULAR COUNTRY THIS IN THAT SENSE.

AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THEM BECAUSE ANGOLA, THE OTHER AFRICAN COUNTRIES, THEY NEED INVESTMENTS IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO COUNTERBALANCE CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ONE ANOTHER TO THEIR BENEFIT.

AND THEY'RE ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT YES, THIS IS THE UNITED STATES, YES THIS IS CHINA TRYING TOE CONTROL NATURAL RESOURCES, TRYING TO EXTRACT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN FROM US.

BUT WE ALSO WANT TO LEVERAGE THIS TO THE GREATEST BENEFIT FOR OURSELVES.

AND THAT IS A MORE FORWARD LOOKING POLICY.

>> SARAH, I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW BIDEN'S POLICIES AND THE PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP'S MIGHT DIFFER.

HOW DO YOU SEE THE FUTURE FOR AFRICA?

>> WELL, I MEAN ONE OF THE REASONS BIDEN WENT THERE WAS TO PROMOTE THE LOBITO RAILWAY PROJECT THAT WANTS TO CONNECT THE CENTRAL AFRICAN COUNTRIES, INCLUDING DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND ZAMBIA WITH ANGOLA AND TO CREATE TRADE SUPPLY OF COBALT AND COPPER, WHICH ARE REALLY IMPORTANT MINERALS FOR THE CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY, RIGHT?

THEY WANT AN EASIER WAY, TRADE ROUTE FOR THE UNITED STATES.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT TIES INTO U.S.' LARGER PROJECT THAT TRUMP DOESN'T SUPPORT, WHICH IS TO TRY TO TRANSITION TO A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY.

THESE MIP RALES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR EV VEHICLES, FOR EXAMPLE.

NOW THEY'RE ALSO EXTREMELY DIRTY INDUSTRIES AND EXPLOITIVE OF THE WORKERS IN THESE PLACES SO IT'S A REAL MIXED BAG, I THINK.

ON THE OTHER HAND, AFRICA IS EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

OUT OF THE TOP 10 COUNTRIES THAT ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORDING TO MANY EXPERTS, SEVEN OF THEM ARE IN AFRICA, INCLUDING THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, WHICH HAS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST DEPOSITS OF COBALT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TRUMP WILL DO.

I THINK THIS TRADE, HE SEEMS TO SUPPORT.

SO MAYBE THIS PROJECT WILL CONTINUE.

>> AND YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH BIDEN I'M-- THERE IS A BOOK I WANT MY VIEWERS TO LOOK AT, "COBALT RED" AND TALKS ABOUT ABSOLUTE DESPICABLE CHILD SLAVERY IN HARVESTING THE COBALT.

BIDEN DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

THERE IS NOTHING HE COULD SAY IN ANY OF THESE VISITS.

AND WE KNOW, CASE STUDY AFTER STUDY, COBALT MINING IS EXTREMELY HARSH FOR, YOU KNOW, CHILDREN AND CHILD SLAVES ARE USED.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

IT DOESN'T SEEM-- AFRICANS THINK AMERICA HAS THEIR BEST INTEREST IN THEIR HEART.

AND THEY DON'T BELIEVE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE ANYMORE.

THEY BELIEVE CHINA, WAY, WAY MORE.

THERE IS VERY GOOD REASON FOR THAT.

>> LET ME MOVE US ON.

YOU REMEMBER THE STUDENT PROTESTS OVER THE ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR AND COLLEGE PRESIDENTS BEING GRILLED BY CONGRESS --- WELL, SINCE THEN SOME HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN ADOPTING POLICIES OF NEUTRALITY.

THIS MEANS THEY WON'T COMMENT ON CURRENT AFFAIRS, UNLESS THE POLICIES DIRECTLY AFFECT THE COLLEGES' INTERESTS.

HARVARD, MICHIGAN, STANFORD ARE.

LOCALLY SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY AND COLGATE HAVE SUCH POLICIES.

COLGATE HAS A NEW POLICY ON THIS NEUTRALITY.

AND SARAH, I'M WONDERING, IS IT A GOOD IDEA FOR UNIVERSITIES TO TAKE A POSITION ON CURRENT ISSUES?

>> YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD ASKED ME FIVE YEARS AGO, I MIGHT HAVE SAID YES, THEY SHOULD.

BUT I'M REALLY CONVINCED NOW THAT THEY SHOULDN'T, AND THAT THIS IDEA OF INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY IS A GOOD PRAGMATIC AND PRINCIPLED AS WELL STANCE TO TAKE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK, YES, THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD SPEAK OUT, ESPECIALLY AROUND ISSUES THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO ITH MISSION-- TO ITS MISSION.

BUT THE HAVING TO TAKE SIDES ON THE HOT BUTTON ISSUES OF THE DAY, I THINK IT HAS MORE DOWNSIDES THAN UPSIDES FRANKLY.

I THINK UNIVERSITIES, LIKE THE CALVIN REPORT SAYS, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO'S STATEMENT ON THIS FROM THE 1960S IS CORRECT THAT, YOU KNOW, UNIVERSITIES SHOULD BE THE PLACE WHICH FOSTERS CRITICISM, RIGHT?

PROVIDES A WAY TO DO THAT IN A PLATFORM.

BUT ITSELF DOESN'T NEED TO BE THE CRITIC.

AND I REALLY THINK THAT UNIVERSITIES SHOULD FOCUS ON CREATING AN ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY CAN SPEAK ABOUT THESE ISSUES, WHERE THEY CAN PROTEST, WHERE THEY CAN ASSEMBLE, WHERE INDIVIDUAL PROFESSORS, STUDENTS, STAFF CAN SPEAK OUT ON THESE ISSUES, OR EVEN ORGANIZE COLLECTIVELY, YOU KNOW, IN A NON-INSTITUTIONAL WAY.

BUT I DON'T SEE A LOT OF VALUE TO HAVING A PRESIDENT SAY TAKE A STAND OR ESPECIALLY TAKE A SIDE ON A VERY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.

I THINK IT HAS A CHILLING EFFECT ON SPEECH.

AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM.

ARE THEY GETTING IT BECAUSE-- ARE THEY MAKING THE STATEMENT BECAUSE SOME BIG DONOR WANTS THEM TO OR A POWERFUL TRUSTEE?

I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY ARRIVE AT THESE DECISIONS.

>> LUKE, HOW DO YOU SEE THE PRO-s AND CONS OF THIS NEUTRALITY?

>> I THINK THAT'S VERY ARTICULATE VIEW POINT, I AGREE WITH SOME OF IT AND PART OF ME THINK THIS IS JUST A POLITICAL DANCE; THAT ADMINISTRATORS AT PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITIES DON'T WANT TO GET CALLED BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND TAKEN TO TASK ON THINGS ARE RUN ON THEIR CAMPUS, POTENTIALLY LOSE THEIR JOB AND DEAL WITH UPSET DONORS.

AS ASPIRINNED A POSITION IT WAS, I ALSO THINK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ESPECIALLY PRIVATE ONES ARE NON-PROFITS THAT HAVE VALUES AND ARE POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY INTERSTWIENED WITH ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS.

YOU CAN SAY YOU ARE GOING TO BE NEUTRAL BUT HOW YOU MAKE YOUR MONEY IN TERMS OF YOUR INVESTMENTS AND THE FACT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE POLITICAL STANCES, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE COMPLETELY NEUTRAL MEANS THAT YOU ARE STILL DOING WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO, WHICH DOESN'T ADD UP TO ME TOTALLY.

>> I MEAN THE SCHOOLS, THEY CLAIM TO BE CRUCIBLES OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP, JUSTICE, SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THEIR MISSIONS, RIGHT?

AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION BY VIRTUE OF WHAT IT IS CANNOT BE NEUTRAL.

IT HAS TO BE BIASED TOWARDS JUSTICE AND TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE.

THERE IS NO-- YOU CANNOT EQUIVOCATE UPON THAT.

I GET THE PRAGMATIC IDEA.

YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE, WHEN YOUR EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, YOU DON'T WANT TO REALLY MAKE THEM UPSET.

SO I AGREE THAT MAYBE THE UNIVERSITIES SHOULD NOT MAKE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN ANY CASE, JUST REMAIN SILENT.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS ON THE GROUND, AND WE HAVE SEEN, IS THAT SOME GENOCIDES ARE MADE GOOD AND SOME GENOCIDES ARE MADE GOOD.

SOME PROTESTORS ARE ATTACKED BY UNIVERSITY AND THE POLICE.

SOME PROTESTORS ARE ALLOWED TO PROTEST WHETHER IT COMES TO UKRAINE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THIS KIND OF DEEP ROOTED HYPOCRISY IS COMPLETELY SHAMEFUL FOR THESE BIG UNIVERSITIES, AS TO WHAT THEY DID, RIGHT?

ESPECIALLY IN THE TERMS OF DENYING GENOCIDE AND NOT ALLOWING PALESTINIANS TO SPEAK OR ATTACKING PALESTINIAN PROFESSORS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S DESPICABLE AND I DOUBT THAT WILL CHANGE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, OFFICIALLY NEUTRAL, SURE BUT THEN DON'T HAVE THIS HYPOCRITICAL STANCE THAT WE HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES, RIGHT?

SO THAT WOULD BE MY-- THAT WOULD BE MY OPINION HERE.

OKAY, THEN ALLOW ALL DEBATES, SURE.

>> I THINK THOSE TWO CAN CO-EXIST.

YOU DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS, RIGHT?

>> I AGREE WITH YOU.

>> AND YOU TRY TO GIVE AS MUCH FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AND PROTEST AS POSSIBLE.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU, YES.

>> I THINK THE PROBLEM COMES IN IS THAT OKAY, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE NOOR NEUTRALITY POLICY AND YOU KNOW THE COLLEGE DOESN'T MAKE A STATEMENT.

BUT IF YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN HAPPEN AT A NUMBER OF UNIVERSITIES HARVARD, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE GOES OUT AND TROLLS ALL OF THE FACT LOOKING AT THEIR BACKGROUNDS AND NOTICE THE COLLEGE MAY NOT HAVE MADE A STATEMENT, BUT BOY, YOU LOOK AT THE WRITINGS OF YOU KNOW, 20% OF YOUR FACULTY OR 50% OF YOUR FACULTY AND IT SEEMS TO BE PRO-PALESTINIAN OR IN PRIVATE STATEMENTS IN A CLASSROOM, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, 20% OF YOUR FACULTY MAKING PRO-PALESTINIAN STATEMENTS.

THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES YES THE COLLEGE HAS A NEUTRALITY POLICY, BUT IS THE COLLEGE REALLY NEUTRAL BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE THEY HIRE, WHAT THEY ALLOW TO BE STATED IN THE CLASSROOM AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE PROBLEM IS IS THAT THESE-- YOU ARE CORRECT, THESE NEUTRALITY STATEMENTS ARE POLITICAL, TRYING TO KEEP THE COLLEGE OUT OF POLITICAL HOT WATER BUT IS THAT REALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE COLLEGE?

>> WELL, IT IS TIME TO OPEN UP THE GRADEBOOK.

WE HAVE TO LEAVE THAT DISCUSSION THERE.

TARA, HOW ABOUT YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS SITUATED IN AND AROUND THE NORTH CAROLINA AREA.

FOR MANY YEARS, THE ECBI AS THEY'RE KNOWN HAS OPPOSED OTHER LOCAL NATIVE GROUPS FROM RECEIVING DESIGNATION AS A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE.

THE ECBI TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO PREVENT THE KATABAH FROM RECEIVING FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

NOW THEY EVER FOCUSED ON PREVENTING PASSAGE OF THE FAIRNESS ACT.

USING PERSONAL ATTACKS, PUBLIC MISINFORMATION AND HIGH POWER LOBBYING, THE ECBI CONTINUES TO OPPOSE THEM RECEIVING FEDERAL RECOGNITION, THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE LUMBI CHOOSE THEIR MEMBER BY DESCENT AND NOT BLOOD QUANTUM.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY F TO THE SHOCKING RISING HARASSMENT DETENTION AND ABUSE OF PALESTINIANS BY ISRAELI ARMY.

NEW REPORT BY THE ISRAELI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP HARROWING ACCOUNTS OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL BEAT, BEATING, WHIPPING, HAVING CIGARETTES PUT OUT ON THEIR BODIES, BUFFALOES TO THEIR GENERAL CALS, INJECTIONS OF UNDEFINED SUBSTANCES, BLINDING THREATS AND MORE.

IT REFLECTS A PARTICULARLY BRUTAL MANIFESTATION OF A SYSTEMATIC LONG STANDING POLICY OF OPPRESSION, AND DISPOSITION THAT LIES AT THE ROUTE OF THE ISRAELI APARTHEID REGIME.

>> SARAH.

>> MY F GOES TO A GROUP OF BILLIONAIRES IN THE U.S. WHO HAVE FOUND A WAY TO AVOID PAYING THE MEDICARE TAX.

NEARLY EVERYONE PAYS INTO THE SYSTEM.

BUT FOR SOME VERY WEALTH EMERGES, THEY USE AN OBSCURE BIT OF THE TAX CODE TO EXEMPT THEIR INCOME FROM THE MEDICARE TAX.

SOMEONE SHOULD TELL THEM TO WATCH A CHRISTMAS CAROL THIS SEASON.

PERHAPS THEY WOULD RECOGNIZE THEMSELVES AS MODERN DAY SCROOGES, ALTHOUGH I'M SKEPTICAL THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR MISERLY WAYS.

>> LUKE.

>> TO A LATE EDITION TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE BILL THAT PROHIBITS THE VA FROM PROVIDING GENDER AFFIRMING CARE TO MINORS.

THIS IS BAD FOR SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

>> AND SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING WELL TARA.

>> MY A TO THE REPUBLICAN WOMEN IN CONGRESS WHO ARE CORRECT IN THEIR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE LACK OF FEMALE LEADERSHIP AMONG THOSE EXPECTED TO TAKE OVER HOUSE COMMITTEES IN JANUARY.

WHILE THIS SITUATION IS CORRECTABLE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT THIS WILL BE THE FIRST CONGRESS WHERE THERE IS AN ACTUAL DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN IN CONGRESS.

>> ANIRBAN, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO FRANCESCA ALBANESE ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES OCCUPIED SINCE 1967.

FOR NOT ONLY SPEAKING TRUTH TO GENOCIDE DENIERS BUT EXCELLENTLY DETAILED OCTOBER 24 REPORT SAYING CALLED GENOCIDE AS COLONIAL ERASURE WHERE SHE WRITES PATTERNS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PALESTINIANS AS A GROUP, AS A WHOLE WARRANT THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTIONS OF THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE IN ORDER TO CEASE, PREVENT AND PUNISH GENOCIDE IN THE WHOLE OF THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY.

>> IT'S EXPENSIVE TO BE POOR IN THIS COUNTRY.

WHERE YOU ARE SUBJECT TO FEES, FINES AND OTHER EXPENSES THAT BETTER OFF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO PAY OR FOR WHICH IT IS NOT MUCH OF A BURDEN.

SO I WAS PLEASED WHEN I READ THIS WEEK THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS FINALIZED A RULE LIMITING BANK OVERDRAFT FEES WHICH CAN BE AS HIGH AS $35 IN WHICH BIDEN RIGHTLY CALLED AS EXPLOITATIVE.

>> MY A GOES TO A UTICA RESIDENT WHO RECENTLY WON THE NATIONAL SINGING COMPETITION ON THE VOICE.

WE HAVE A WONDERFUL ARTS AND CULTURE TRADITION HERE IN THE UTICA AREA MUCH IT'S GREAT TO SEE ONE OF OUR OWN ACHIEVING NATIONAL PROMINENCE.

CONGRATULATIONS.

>> AND WHAT WAS THE TALENT?

>> SINGING.

>> YEAH, POP MUSIC?

>> YEAH RIGHT HERE?

>> RIGHT HERE IN UTICA.

>> THAT'S TERRIFIC.

WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS ON THE SHOW OR YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR TOPICS.

FEEL FREE TO WRITE US AT ANY OF THE ADDRESSES ON THE SCREEN.

REMEMBER YOU CAN WATCH US ON TV FRIDAY NIGHTS AT 8 AND SATURDAY AFTERNOONS AT 5:30.

OR STREAM US ON WCNY'S YOU TUBE PAGE OR ITS WEBSITE.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

BE WELL AND GOOD NIGHT.