Speaker 1: In the battle over funding between multiple college campuses and
Speaker 1: universities across the country and the Trump administration. Harvard University
Speaker 1: seems to be the latest defendant, and our very own
Speaker 1: Rob with two b's is going to take it away.
Speaker 2: Rob. Thanks, it's two bees for now. On Friday, the
Speaker 2: eleventh of April, the Trump administration sent a letter to
Speaker 2: Harvard outlining changes that they demand Harvard make to their
Speaker 2: policies and procedures. Because Harvard failed to comply and indeed
Speaker 2: openly condemned the letter and the demands, Trump then froze
Speaker 2: who two point two billion dollars of grants on Monday
Speaker 2: the fourteenth. The University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Princeton, Cornell, and
Speaker 2: Northwestern have all been targeted by the Trump administration, and
Speaker 2: they have all similarly acquiesced to their demands. Harvard, however,
Speaker 2: has sued the Trump administration for failing to follow the
Speaker 2: outlying steps on changes to funds. Except Trump has already
Speaker 2: openly defied court orders, so I suspect that this will
Speaker 2: go similarly. This story is from AP News by Michael
Speaker 2: Casey on April fourteen, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Thanks Rob. You know in the article there is a
Speaker 1: very detailed. Actually the actual memo that was sent by
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, and it was it was I believe
Speaker 1: the I have it right here, and I want to
Speaker 1: pull it up. It was sent to Harvard University by
Speaker 1: the Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Services, the Acting General
Speaker 1: Council for the US Department of Education, and the Acting
Speaker 1: General Council by the US Department of Health and Human Services,
Speaker 1: and it outlines everything that the administration expects Harvard to
Speaker 1: do in order to maintain its funding. And while it
Speaker 1: started off as two point two billion in being funded,
Speaker 1: it is going to be potentially three point two billion
Speaker 1: the total nine billion that Harvard could or Harvard receives
Speaker 1: from the government. So with that, Rob, what can you
Speaker 1: say about what the demand letter actually requires?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the demand letter is seven pages long, and
Speaker 2: I was I didn't go through the whole thing with
Speaker 2: a fine, fine tooth comb, but I was definitely checking
Speaker 2: out some of the more specific demands, and just a
Speaker 2: couple of that stuck out to me. It's it's one
Speaker 2: of those things where someone will name something that should
Speaker 2: be good, but it's the exact opposite, Like, for example,
Speaker 2: the Ministry of Truth in a lot of like fiction
Speaker 2: tends to end up being about lies. So in this case,
Speaker 2: the letter, the demand letter says things like it requires
Speaker 2: merit based hiring. Who would disagree with that, But it
Speaker 2: has some writers, it has some things attached to it.
Speaker 2: One of the things that's attached to this and the
Speaker 2: other one that I noticed because there's merit based hires
Speaker 2: and merit based admissions, and in both cases hiring or admissions.
Speaker 2: Let's see here it says, quote, all hiring and related
Speaker 2: to data shall be shared with the federal government and
Speaker 2: subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during
Speaker 2: the period in which the reforms are being implemented, which
Speaker 2: shall be at least until the end of twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 2: which is conveniently you know his term length. So if
Speaker 2: you're hiring, they want all your data. And then if
Speaker 2: you are applying to get in, and if they're trying
Speaker 2: to admit you to Harvard, they want all your information
Speaker 2: there as well, including your oh did I copy it?
Speaker 2: Sex race, academic achievements in the past. They want all
Speaker 2: your data. And I'm not saying this is the case,
Speaker 2: but it definitely made me think of McCarthyism because we
Speaker 2: got to fill out them dossiers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I have so many questions about this, and Tracy,
Speaker 1: I want to kick it over to you. There are
Speaker 1: you know, Rob brings up merit based hiring, merit based admissions.
Speaker 1: You talk a little bit about your issue with viewpoint diversity.
Speaker 1: I'd like to ask you about that, but if you
Speaker 1: can comment ahead, go ahead, Rob.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, keep it going, because that was the other
Speaker 2: thing in the letter was viewpoint diversity. It's like, what
Speaker 2: does that even mean? Go for it?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: And I could steel that sigh from here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think Tracy makes a you know, he
Speaker 1: makes a good point about bringing that up. What the
Speaker 1: hell is even viewpoint diversity. I've got much more than
Speaker 1: I want to ask you, but I need to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of this, so Tracy, please.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't really understand what they mean by viewpoint diversity.
Speaker 3: They don't really elaborate. It just seems to be we
Speaker 3: think you have too many liberals and we want more conservatives.
Speaker 3: And I'm just sitting here like, okay, well, what are
Speaker 3: the actual parameters of viewpoint diversity? Is the African American
Speaker 3: Studies Board supposed to have a klansman on the sitting there,
Speaker 3: like what do we want? What do you actually want?
Speaker 3: Is the like is the art department? Do we have
Speaker 3: to admit the mustache man to the art department to
Speaker 3: make sure that he doesn't go off and do terrible things?
Speaker 3: I don't know what sort of questions would even be
Speaker 3: an ideological litmus test. That's a direct quote from that letter.
Speaker 3: An ideological litmus test is that asking how old the
Speaker 3: earth is? And so if they say it's six thousand
Speaker 3: years old, maybe they shouldn't be in the geology department. Like,
Speaker 3: I don't know what they want. And with the merit
Speaker 3: based hiring, I agree Rob. Everybody thinks merit based hiring
Speaker 3: is a good idea. The best person should have the job.
Speaker 3: But you have to think about this in the macro scale.
Speaker 3: If we only ever give the most qualified person each
Speaker 3: job in every situation, then that is going to compound
Speaker 3: on itself for those families that are in higher socioeconomic levels,
Speaker 3: such that the rich keep getting richer and the poor
Speaker 3: stay poor forever. It's gonna shrink, our middle class, grow
Speaker 3: our lower class, and the upper class is gonna stay
Speaker 3: the same size. And that's just not feasible because eventually
Speaker 3: people in the lower class are gonna get mad and
Speaker 3: they're gonna take what they want. So instead of getting
Speaker 3: that way, let's try and build up our middle class
Speaker 3: and upper class rather than keep people in the lower class,
Speaker 3: which is what you would wind up with if we
Speaker 3: just always pick the absolute best in each category for
Speaker 3: these things.
Speaker 2: Well, sometime, well, I.
Speaker 1: Think what you're referencing, and rightfully so, is the idea
Speaker 1: that there is some systemic oppression built.
Speaker 3: Into This's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, systemic racism, systemic oppression against women in LGBTQ people.
Speaker 1: I think that that can be supported by data. I
Speaker 1: certainly understand. For example, I know that countries with I
Speaker 1: talk about this a lot because it was kind of
Speaker 1: an area of study for me when I was doing
Speaker 1: my masters. But countries with low women or female participation
Speaker 1: in the workforce because they're orthodox countries and women are
Speaker 1: relegated to the household actually have poorer economies than than
Speaker 1: countries with UH with a large percentage of women actually
Speaker 1: in the workforce.
Speaker 3: What's because I have less workers in general, I mean,
Speaker 3: like more people work, letting women in the workforce, you know,
Speaker 3: diversity is a strength every metric you check across diversity.
Speaker 3: That's why America cleans up at the Olympics because we
Speaker 3: have such a diverse culture and ethnic and everything.
Speaker 2: You need to understand that the Trump administration is trying
Speaker 2: to support a sufficiently diverse viewpoint.
Speaker 1: Basis it is and there it is, and you know
Speaker 1: what on that point, on Tracy's point, as far as
Speaker 1: the litmus test is concerned, and you give the example, Tracy,
Speaker 1: I have to say you said, well, if somebody thinks
Speaker 1: the Earth is six thousand years old, maybe they shouldn't
Speaker 1: be in the geology department. I'm surprised you said that.
Speaker 1: I agree with you, but I'm surprised you said that
Speaker 1: because if you consider the alignment with Evangelical Christians and
Speaker 1: the Republican Party nowadays, I would consider it the opposite.
Speaker 1: I feel like the board would be like, they think
Speaker 1: that the Earth is six thousand years old, put them
Speaker 1: in charge of geology. So I could I could see
Speaker 1: that going that way. But Eja, without further ado, I
Speaker 1: would like to get to you, and I want to
Speaker 1: ask you, so is this legitimate claim that the administration
Speaker 1: has if they're going to be delving out high amounts
Speaker 1: of funding. Do they have a right to know where
Speaker 1: their funding is going? Or do you think this is
Speaker 1: something else? Could this perhaps be an attempt at overreach?
Speaker 1: And I'd like to get your perspective there.
Speaker 4: I think it is. Trump's famous for saying things like
Speaker 4: I love uneducated people. And I'm sure we've all heard
Speaker 4: the action the acronym kiss, keep it simple, stupid for
Speaker 4: explaining thing. I think Trump's trying to do that with
Speaker 4: the population. He seems to do a lot generally, He oversimplifies,
Speaker 4: He uses a lot of catchy catchphrases that tend to
Speaker 4: catch on in the public eye, that are that are
Speaker 4: good for sound bites, and he never really says anything substantial.
Speaker 4: You could listen A lot of politicians don't, but you
Speaker 4: could listen to the top for a while and he
Speaker 4: wouldn't really say anything. And I think that's in part
Speaker 4: uh that that same philosophy, I guess is in part
Speaker 4: with the administration trying to be here. It's especially a
Speaker 4: great institution like Harvard, which is world renowned for the
Speaker 4: people it produces in the research it does. Freezing the
Speaker 4: funding helps no one if you want to actually make
Speaker 4: changes to so called uh what was the phrase viewpoint diversity,
Speaker 4: your point diversity. Yeah, if you do want to do that,
Speaker 4: don't freeze the funding. Try to work. Try to work
Speaker 4: that and somehow to the research. I mean, I don't
Speaker 4: know how you would, since they wouldn't define it, but
Speaker 4: point as their said goal and what they're doing to
Speaker 4: reach it doesn't lie up. It seems there as an
Speaker 4: ulterior motivate play what it is, we could only speculate.
Speaker 1: Okay, Rob, I'm going to go to you just by
Speaker 1: the hand gesture alone. I know that you're I know
Speaker 1: that you're ready.
Speaker 2: I knew the hand you got to So I remember
Speaker 2: in the nineties, I feel like this is just dawn
Speaker 2: on me and everybody already knew this. I remember in
Speaker 2: the nineties my dad was talking about how they're trying
Speaker 2: to put intelligent design into schools and teach that alongside evolution.
Speaker 2: And then my dad got really upset and he was like,
Speaker 2: this is just creationism. They're just calling it a different thing.
Speaker 2: And like, in my heart as a little kid, I
Speaker 2: didn't really fully understand that it's a same thing by
Speaker 2: a different name. But it's the thing they're always preaching, right.
Speaker 2: It was just like, oh, so you're going to say
Speaker 2: in this castle's say evolutions, Like, so you're going to
Speaker 2: say that we came about via evolution. Well, really, we
Speaker 2: should have diverse viewpoints. Who are we to say that?
Speaker 2: You're right? So I get it now, I fully understand it.
Speaker 2: They want to have a the ability to, via the administration,
Speaker 2: insert people for their more core belief systems, because they
Speaker 2: do not respect that colleges, universities, and places of higher
Speaker 2: academia try to teach either truth or the best understanding
Speaker 2: of truth as we have it. Now they want to
Speaker 2: They want to have their thing too.
Speaker 1: Sure, Yeah, and how how are they trying to do it? Well,
Speaker 1: it looks like they may be using government funding to
Speaker 1: try and align the school with the administration's political agenda.
Speaker 1: At least that is the claim that the president of Harvard.
Speaker 1: Harvard is making. Excuse me and the White House accusation
Speaker 1: actually is that the government has expressly invoked the protections
Speaker 1: against discrimination contained in Title six of the Civil Rights
Speaker 1: Act of nineteen sixty four as a basis for its action.
Speaker 1: So the White House that the Trump administration has routinely
Speaker 1: warned schools that if they do not do something to
Speaker 1: quell anti Semitism on their campuses, they will pull funding,
Speaker 1: and that is where Harvard finds itself today. The President
Speaker 1: claims that this is an attempt to align the university
Speaker 1: with the administration's political agenda, and says in his countersuit,
Speaker 1: so update there that Harvard is now suing the administration
Speaker 1: that no administration has the right to dictate what private
Speaker 1: universities can teach. And I thought that that was interesting
Speaker 1: because at first I didn't see the administration saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you must teach this, But with the vague viewpoint diversity claim,
Speaker 1: I can see how that can filter in, and with
Speaker 1: the fact that the White House has named eleven different
Speaker 1: schools and programs in this in Harvard that have to
Speaker 1: quote unquote and I don't see it right here, Oh,
Speaker 1: reforms make reforms with egregious records of anti semitism. Well
Speaker 1: what kind of reforms? What are they talking about? What
Speaker 1: are the specific things that have to be outlined that
Speaker 1: these schools and programs need to do And it's really
Speaker 1: not defined. And all we know is that they have
Speaker 1: to just turn over this data to the government. And
Speaker 1: I think that's the concerning thing.
Speaker 2: That's the thing is because like, who the hell's gonna say. Okay,
Speaker 2: so they come in and say, hey, calm down the
Speaker 2: anti semitism, otherwise we're going to cancel some money, and
Speaker 2: everybody's gonna be like, that's a good idea, we shouldn't
Speaker 2: have anti semitism. Sure, yeah, no problem, awesome. What does
Speaker 2: merit based hiring have anything to do with anti semitism?
Speaker 2: That could have just been its own thing. And then
Speaker 2: why does anything but merit based hiring have anything to
Speaker 2: do with also giving all of the information to the government.
Speaker 2: So it's like they're using exactly one thing to be like,
Speaker 2: we're doing it for anti Semitism, which is good, we
Speaker 2: should stop that. But it doesn't stop there. There's more.
Speaker 2: It just keeps going on. The frankly scary amount of
Speaker 2: information that they want to control and take.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and with that, you know, I want to mention
Speaker 1: too that the president of Harvard, Garber, says, hey, look,
Speaker 1: we've taken steps to quell anti semitism, and he's Jewish
Speaker 1: by the way, and said, we've also taken steps to
Speaker 1: quell anti Muslim behavior on campus. And I don't hear
Speaker 1: any of that coming out in the demands from the
Speaker 1: White House. And so I'm a little confused as as
Speaker 1: to why the Civil Rights Act is being suited, so
Speaker 1: we EJ. I want to come back to you on this.
Speaker 1: Is this an attempt to quell anti Semitism? What else
Speaker 1: might it be? And are some of the how do
Speaker 1: some of these arguments that we're stating regularly resonate with you?
Speaker 4: Well, I think lake Role was mentioning the whole oh well,
Speaker 4: we need to stop anti semitism is a very very
Speaker 4: good goal. The issue is, like Rob was mentioning, there's
Speaker 4: not well, at least apparently in the course is mentioned
Speaker 4: there isn't a lot of obvious anti semitism, And it
Speaker 4: brings me back to what I was thinking, there might
Speaker 4: be an ulterior motive, and it is what it seems
Speaker 4: to be, at least for me. It may possibly be
Speaker 4: in reference to a current conflict, as there is a
Speaker 4: lot of claims of anti semitism around the current world conflict,
Speaker 4: which the administration is currently very vocal in supporting one side,
Speaker 4: and I know at least Harvard has had a few
Speaker 4: student protests supporting the side that the administration does not support,
Speaker 4: so it may possibly be referring to that. However, aside
Speaker 4: from that I wouldn't know. I don't know enough about
Speaker 4: the administrations in our thoughts and I only have speculation.
Speaker 1: Well in that case, you know, I just want to
Speaker 1: say that the nonprofits and the ACA are a five
Speaker 1: oh one C three and we are not disparaging or
Speaker 1: supporting any political party or member of the government. We
Speaker 1: are just simply stating facts. And so I want to
Speaker 1: reiterate that and with that. With that, Tracy, I know
Speaker 1: that I owe you some airtime and I've been saving
Speaker 1: a question for you, but I can see you swirming
Speaker 1: in your seat to speak about other things. So why
Speaker 1: don't you go ahead and say what you want to
Speaker 1: say and then I can I can pitch to you
Speaker 1: my question. Bob, I see, I see your very I
Speaker 1: want to hear Tracy smile too. I will get back
Speaker 1: to you.
Speaker 3: Jimmy. I frankly, I love the Jews. I think they're
Speaker 3: fantastic people. And what I have heard from my Jewish
Speaker 3: contacts is that what's been happening a lot in the
Speaker 3: media and among people nowadays is that they're conflating anti
Speaker 3: Zionism with anti Semitism. Those are not the same thing.
Speaker 3: You can have ab absolutely nothing wrong with Jews think
Speaker 3: they're fantastic people appreciate their culture, and still not think
Speaker 3: that it's okay to bomb children. It's that it's that simple.
Speaker 3: But in the current media, people think that if you
Speaker 3: are against Israel, that you are against the Jewish people,
Speaker 3: and that is simply not the case. Go ahead, Rob,
Speaker 3: I heard your intake of breast.
Speaker 2: No, I agree, But like that speaks to a much
Speaker 2: deeper problem that I think a lot of religious people
Speaker 2: are going to have. Because one of my best friends
Speaker 2: is Jewish and he's an atheist, but and his dad
Speaker 2: is a secular rabbi, So what ends? And I didn't
Speaker 2: know you could do that.
Speaker 3: So for like seventy percent of Israel is actually secular.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is fascinating. So, like I think, to the
Speaker 2: Christian mind, it is literally impossible to be the name
Speaker 2: of your religion and not also be practicing that relig
Speaker 2: because you could be Jewish without being Jewish.
Speaker 3: That no religious group is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So you actually people take their religion and they
Speaker 2: make it their whole entire identity. So then when you
Speaker 2: have a completely separate culture of people who can't even
Speaker 2: separate those two things, you're going to muddy the water
Speaker 2: in conversation, no matter which way you go, no matter what.
Speaker 1: Well, I do want to expand on what we're exactly
Speaker 1: talking about. And I don't think any of our viewers
Speaker 1: are stupid or uninformed. I think that I think that
Speaker 1: it's worth noting that, of course there is a there
Speaker 1: is a conflict between Israel and Gaza. Some might not
Speaker 1: call it a conflict. They might use much harsher words
Speaker 1: judging the the Israeli military and the Israeli government. Others
Speaker 1: might do the same judging Hamas in Gaza. But but
Speaker 1: what's really happening is that is the support for or
Speaker 1: against either side is transpiring on college campuses, just like
Speaker 1: it did in Vietnam, and for anybody who lived through
Speaker 1: that should be able to understand what's happening there. The
Speaker 1: educated classes of people, the ones that are out there
Speaker 1: studying the world, have different opinions, and they're very energetic
Speaker 1: and vocal about it as young people, young scholars often are.
Speaker 1: And that is in conflict with some of the administration's
Speaker 1: official policies. And so here we are now, Tracy, I said,
Speaker 1: I wanted to get back to you about something, and
Speaker 1: I want to pivot back to a point that you made,
Speaker 1: which I thought was a very good one, and expand
Speaker 1: upon what is it that you mean when you say
Speaker 1: economically or socially advantage the advantageous positions, because you talk
Speaker 1: about people of a socially or advantageous position will have
Speaker 1: better access to a better life. And what do you
Speaker 1: mean by that? How does that relate to the merit
Speaker 1: based hiring that we started this segment with.
Speaker 3: So we're going to start off with a few examples
Speaker 3: from the real world. If your father, I'm using the
Speaker 3: Royal you, I'm not talking to you, Jimmy. If your
Speaker 3: father works in a company and has contacts from when
Speaker 3: he was in college, and has contacts in the college
Speaker 3: and in other companies, then he can arrange for you
Speaker 3: to get into a better school as well as he
Speaker 3: has the money to pay for you to go to
Speaker 3: that better school, which then he can contact his buddy
Speaker 3: to get your application actually put forward and make sure
Speaker 3: it's seen. So now not only is your application being seen,
Speaker 3: you went to a good school and you are like
Speaker 3: well connected, so you may have gotten access to an internship,
Speaker 3: which is not a hiring, So it wouldn't be part
Speaker 3: of merit based anything. It would, but it would elevate
Speaker 3: your position on a merit based scale, having an internship
Speaker 3: that you only have access to due to your parents'
Speaker 3: previous networking, and thus ensuring for you a position that
Speaker 3: you would not have otherwise been able to get if
Speaker 3: you did not have access to the resources from your parents.
Speaker 3: And so you have this stacking effect of the richest
Speaker 3: children get rich, and their children get rich, and so
Speaker 3: on and so forth because they can be standing on
Speaker 3: the shoulders of their parents, Whereas if you don't have
Speaker 3: access to those things, it is entirely on you to
Speaker 3: make it into a good school, to pay your way in,
Speaker 3: to secure an internship, and then even get your application
Speaker 3: in front of somebody. All of these things are what
Speaker 3: works to keep a person in a lower socioeconomic tier.
Speaker 3: I guess you could call it it works to keep
Speaker 3: them down, because there isn't really such thing as a
Speaker 3: self made man. Every rich person got a huge like
Speaker 3: investment from a loved one, or is standing on the
Speaker 3: shoulders of somebody else.
Speaker 1: That might be a little bit of a sweeping statement.
Speaker 3: I am, I am being hyperballic. I'll admit to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right, though, So I think the point that
Speaker 1: you're making is a valid one. And that's where we
Speaker 1: come into the systemic the systemic issues that we have,
Speaker 1: uh and where where merit based doesn't always solve the problem.
Speaker 1: You know, there, there's there. There probably does need to
Speaker 1: be some governmental controls, and it seems like those are
Speaker 1: being repealed in rapid fashion. And with that, you know,
Speaker 1: we we are over a little bit of time. But
Speaker 1: I don't want to go anywhere without without hearing from
Speaker 1: EJ and Rob to close us out. So EJ, please,
Speaker 1: the floor is yours.
Speaker 4: Thank you, I think to back off what Tracy was
Speaker 4: saying there, Yeah, merit based hiring does sound absolutely amazing
Speaker 4: the lake Tracy just said. It gives an advantage to
Speaker 4: people who have or at least entirely Merit based hiring
Speaker 4: and placement and skills does give a huge advantage to
Speaker 4: people who already have networks due to their appearance. Because
Speaker 4: as much as we'd rather not NEP it doesn't place
Speaker 4: a huge part in the world. And unless we're willing
Speaker 4: to make changes on some level, whether it be bring
Speaker 4: this cost of schools down or have some sort of
Speaker 4: intervention from the government and the schooling systems for things
Speaker 4: like hiring, then I don't exactly know how we would fix.
Speaker 1: On those two points from you two gentlemen. I can
Speaker 1: tell you that I never got the dance around in
Speaker 1: the White House like Elon musk Son did. So when
Speaker 1: I was a kid. You know, I was playing in
Speaker 1: the street and stuff. I wasn't wiping boggers on the
Speaker 1: President's desk, and that probably is going to bring that
Speaker 1: kid pretty far. But anyway, I digress, Rob. Please, we've
Speaker 1: talked a lot about about the mayors meriage based hiring,
Speaker 1: but more specifically because I use that as the container
Speaker 1: to couch all of the other things that they're doing,
Speaker 1: which is the accumulation of information of private citizens so
Speaker 1: that they can keep track of them. Otherwise, why else
Speaker 1: would they be doing that. They're just using these as
Speaker 1: opportunities to do that. I don't hate merit based hiring.
Speaker 1: I understand Tracy's in EJ's point of view and actually
Speaker 1: very likely correct position on a lot of that. However,
Speaker 1: I would say that having access to people when I
Speaker 1: think of merit okay, the problems that requires a steal
Speaker 1: man and people to actually believe that you have good
Speaker 1: faith in this merit based hiring would be the person
Speaker 1: who can do the job. The merit is the person
Speaker 1: who can do the thing, not necessarily the person.
Speaker 2: Who knows the people. However, the people that they know
Speaker 2: helped them gain the skills to do the thing better.
Speaker 2: This doesn't sound like a problem with merit based hiring.
Speaker 2: This problem sounds like a problem of not being able
Speaker 2: to help other disadvantaged people, because as a social animal,
Speaker 2: we're just going to always gravitate towards people, so we
Speaker 2: should help the lower I.
Speaker 3: Was trying to express that, and you did a great
Speaker 3: job actually putting it in one sentence of thanks.
Speaker 2: Thanks Tracy. You put them in my brain, and then
Speaker 2: I used my tongue to say.
Speaker 3: I was doing a bad job, represented that you did
Speaker 3: a great job.
Speaker 1: Good job in the spirit of the atheist community of
Speaker 1: Austin's mission and us here at the nonprofits, I have
Speaker 1: to say we've covered a lot socially disadvantaged people, bombings
Speaker 1: and protests between religion and where is God in all
Speaker 1: of this? Play and hide and seek? Play and hide
Speaker 1: and seek? And I want to leave everybody with that.
Speaker 1: Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to tune
Speaker 1: in on Friday for our next segment.