Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofits. And today I thought about doing
Speaker 1: something different and have a split up in the two
Speaker 1: teams and have a little wrestling, but instead, since we
Speaker 1: couldn't get insurance in the time, Scott, I understand, we
Speaker 1: do have a wrestling angle on this story. What do
Speaker 1: you got for us?
Speaker 2: We do have a wrestling angle on the story. This
Speaker 2: is about Linda McMahon, former head of the Small Business
Speaker 2: Administration for the White House prior to Biden, and ex
Speaker 2: CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment WWE. She's been nominated to
Speaker 2: lead the Department of Education, a role for which her
Speaker 2: qualifications are notably thin. McMahon's experience in education is limited
Speaker 2: to a single year in Connecticut State Board of Education,
Speaker 2: where her appointment not election appointment, was met with criticism
Speaker 2: for her lack of expertise. Beyond that, her involvement includes
Speaker 2: serving as a trustee for Sacred Heart University and lending
Speaker 2: her name to educational campaigns by WWE. Despite this sparse
Speaker 2: educational background, McMahon will oversee critical issues like Title nine
Speaker 2: reforms and student debt policy if confers. Her nomination raises
Speaker 2: questions about whether the administration's ultimate goal is to dismantle
Speaker 2: the Department of Education, a promise that has been floated
Speaker 2: for years, adding to the controversy. As if that wasn't enough.
Speaker 2: Adding to the controversy our allegations from a lawsuit linking
Speaker 2: her and WWE to the mishandling of sexual abuse by
Speaker 2: a company employee, further casting doubt on her suitability for
Speaker 2: such an important role. This story is from the Hill
Speaker 2: by Alexi Lonis Cochrane on November nineteenth, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Thanks Gott, and I have to say that I definitely
Speaker 1: looked at the situation when it's easy to say, surely
Speaker 1: stop call it, we're going to tap out because I
Speaker 1: can't listen to any more of this. But the reality
Speaker 1: is is this is a very serious situation. It's going
Speaker 1: to have a very significant impact on the educational future
Speaker 1: of all the children in the United States, not just
Speaker 1: public but even in private school. One thing I wanted
Speaker 1: to talk to you about, though, Scott, is what do
Speaker 1: you think the applications of McMahon's view on charter schools
Speaker 1: and school vouchers. Where does she stand in those kinds
Speaker 1: of issues, because I know that's a big one.
Speaker 2: Well sure, I mean in her opinion on a lot
Speaker 2: of these things is really going to shape the next
Speaker 2: few years of our educational system. I found an article
Speaker 2: on MSN dot com about her and it said quote.
Speaker 2: On her twenty ten campaign website, she signaled support for quote,
Speaker 2: competition and choice through charter schools and secondary school reform,
Speaker 2: a position that has reflected interviews today. She recently said
Speaker 2: I believe in local control. I'm an advocate for choice
Speaker 2: through charter schools. That was on her campaign website as well.
Speaker 2: She clearly supports school vouchers, which you know, I've spoken
Speaker 2: about school vouchers before. They're ultimately damaging to the educational system.
Speaker 2: And they don't provide what they claim to provide, and
Speaker 2: they do provide things that they claim that they don't provide.
Speaker 2: And what's happening here is and I'll give you some
Speaker 2: information about school vouchers. This is from the NEA dot com,
Speaker 2: the NEA website. This is just a couple of high
Speaker 2: points here. Number one, Since the enactment of universal school
Speaker 2: voucher programs, states are struggling with the program's cost, lack
Speaker 2: of transparency and accountability. That's one of the main things there.
Speaker 2: No transparency, no accountability. Number two overwhelmingly, school vouchers are
Speaker 2: being used by families with children already in private schools
Speaker 2: to subsidize their tuition. So it's not granting that big
Speaker 2: mobility that it's offering. It's dangling this caret of You know,
Speaker 2: your student can go to a private school too, your
Speaker 2: student can get the best education in the state too.
Speaker 2: That's not what's happening. The money is going to families
Speaker 2: that are already in private schools. Three voucher programs, skyrocking
Speaker 2: and costable divert funding not only from public schools, but
Speaker 2: also from other public services, critical public services, and so
Speaker 2: what's happening is that school money gets funneled around and
Speaker 2: the real losers are going to be the students that
Speaker 2: rely on the extra features of school. Maybe they have
Speaker 2: economic issues at home and they need supplements at school.
Speaker 2: When I was a teacher at a high school in Minneapolis,
Speaker 2: we had a clinic right there in the school, and
Speaker 2: there was a good portion of our student body who
Speaker 2: used that clinic as their primary health care. Those kind
Speaker 2: of things are not going to be available anymore. We
Speaker 2: had students that we've already seen districts all over the place, states,
Speaker 2: all over the place, curtailing food supplements, food subsidies, and
Speaker 2: there's just all of these programs are going to be
Speaker 2: hurt if this money is diverted. So I'm really concerned
Speaker 2: about what she has said about her desires for an
Speaker 2: educational system, because if she implements them, then I think
Speaker 2: we're in big trouble.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it sounds like stripping down the educational system to
Speaker 1: the generic version to help people who are already going
Speaker 1: to private schools get subsidized when they're already paying in
Speaker 1: any way. So what you're doing is you're asking the
Speaker 1: public education system to essentially teach almost the same amount
Speaker 1: of students with less money.
Speaker 2: And you're literally taking from the poor and giving to
Speaker 2: the rich.
Speaker 3: That's what's happening here.
Speaker 1: Yes, and we see that time again. So Stephen, what
Speaker 1: do you think this says about the state of American
Speaker 1: politics when our pit for the educational secretary is a
Speaker 1: former WWE executive with no direct experience in education.
Speaker 3: Bred and circuses, y'all, Bred and circus is what does
Speaker 3: it matter? It's all about just entertainment. What entertained me,
Speaker 3: what distracts me from the current situation that I am in.
Speaker 3: Do I have a food in my stomach. That's all
Speaker 3: that matters. We don't need to be betterment. We don't
Speaker 3: need betterment as a society. We don't need to evolve.
Speaker 3: We just need to be entertained and distracted. It's like
Speaker 3: when I heard that Schwarzenegger first was elected to office,
Speaker 3: I was just like, Okay, well, maybe, like whatever, you
Speaker 3: can be more than just an actor, you can be
Speaker 3: more than just a terminator. Cool. And I heard about
Speaker 3: Ventura getting elected. I was just like, oh, well, maybe
Speaker 3: lightning strikes twice, but yeah. Now now it's just a
Speaker 3: really neat trend of the Like the president elect was
Speaker 3: the wrestling guy, and now he is a point thing
Speaker 3: his wrestling guy's wife, Like, what is this bullshit? Why? Why? What? Why?
Speaker 3: I don't understand. I feel like the person who is
Speaker 3: in charge of sharing facts should not be so deeply
Speaker 3: involved in a fake sport. Maybe I'm weird, maybe I'm
Speaker 3: the minority. Clearly I'm the minority, but it seems like
Speaker 3: if you're if you're so deeply tied to something that's
Speaker 3: pretending to be real, maybe you shouldn't be in charge
Speaker 3: of teaching kids.
Speaker 4: Coming on, it's a reality TV star for president, a
Speaker 4: social media module to manage our government spending, Fox News
Speaker 4: reportant for the French Secretary, a TV show doctor do
Speaker 4: to oversee the Department of Centers for Medica Medicaid services,
Speaker 4: and now the co founder of the WWE you know
Speaker 4: who's also a former professional worst seller to run the
Speaker 4: Department of Education. Spoiler on Earth is not the movie Idiocracy.
Speaker 1: It's funny you say that because I was just sitting
Speaker 1: here thinking, am I listening to a review for Radiocracy?
Speaker 1: Did I around the wrong segment? Because really that is
Speaker 1: what it feels like, only this time we don't get
Speaker 1: to hit and go Wow, that was a damn good movie,
Speaker 1: Mike Judge. Is funny.
Speaker 2: They at least had the person in the world you
Speaker 2: know to help them, right, They at least he had
Speaker 2: not Sure to help them.
Speaker 1: At least President not Sure took care of things. Now, AJ,
Speaker 1: how do you think Linda McMahon's role in the America
Speaker 1: First Policy Institute aligns with what was proposed on Project
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five And how far do you think they're
Speaker 1: really going to get with this in the educational system.
Speaker 4: So Linda McMahon doesn't personally have anything to do with
Speaker 4: Project twenty twenty five as far as I know, but
Speaker 4: I think it's very important to point out that she
Speaker 4: is the chair of the American First Policy Institute, which
Speaker 4: is pretty much the same as the Heritage Foundation, which
Speaker 4: is the creator of Project twenty twenty five. And the
Speaker 4: American First Policy Institute has a policy handbook that is,
Speaker 4: I would say, exactly like Project twenty twenty five, okay,
Speaker 4: with very very few differences. Everything that is proposed as
Speaker 4: far as legislations and rules is on par with Project
Speaker 4: twenty twenty five. I've absolutely shocked that this hasn't gotten
Speaker 4: more attention because the similarities are really really scary. They
Speaker 4: have policies like eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion offices. They
Speaker 4: have very similar views recording LGBTQ rights, especially biased against
Speaker 4: transgender people, women's reproductive care, access to abortion, and of
Speaker 4: course education. I wasn't even aware that this manual existed
Speaker 4: until I started looking into Linda McMahon and found that
Speaker 4: she was the chair for it. And I guess because
Speaker 4: people have been so focused on Project twenty twenty five,
Speaker 4: this means that we all need to become more aware
Speaker 4: to protect the freedom of all individuals and not just
Speaker 4: Christian nationalists.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I have to say that one of the things that
Speaker 1: concerns me Scott, you had mentioned the clinic for the
Speaker 1: students when you were at the high school and talked
Speaker 1: about food programs and things like that. I think that
Speaker 1: we often forget that there's a lot of things far
Speaker 1: beyond just facts and figures and numbers and things like
Speaker 1: that to go on educating students that we're going to
Speaker 1: see impacted. I mean, food insecurity is a very real
Speaker 1: issue in this country, and just thinking of that alone,
Speaker 1: it just really concerns me when I see McMahon in
Speaker 1: this role, and I was just wondering, how do you
Speaker 1: think that her past experience of the Small Business Administration
Speaker 1: and her comments in general, how do you think that
Speaker 1: track record plays into protecting children as a Secretary of Education.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think that it has anything to do
Speaker 2: with protecting children at all. Again, I think we're talking
Speaker 2: about promoting an ideology above the welfare of the students
Speaker 2: that are involved. It's been suggested that they're going to
Speaker 2: dismantle the Department of Education, and so Title nine funds
Speaker 2: are either going to be discontinued or they're going to
Speaker 2: be passed off tucked away in some other department, and
Speaker 2: so you know, I think, regardless of what happens with that,
Speaker 2: it's going to see a loss of support for students.
Speaker 2: And I think there are many students. We mentioned already healthcare,
Speaker 2: we mentioned already, food. We didn't mention things like mental
Speaker 2: health issues. We didn't mention things like disability issues. We
Speaker 2: didn't mention things like students that don't speak English as
Speaker 2: their first language. There's all the kinds of different of
Speaker 2: these little pocket communities, and well I say pocket, but
Speaker 2: some of them are rather large communities. But there's all
Speaker 2: these different types of students that are being supported by
Speaker 2: the United States government and by state governments and by
Speaker 2: local governments, by school boards. And so it seems like
Speaker 2: it's going to be gutting something from the core. It's
Speaker 2: going to be tearing out the spinal cord of this
Speaker 2: animal that's helping run our educational system. And it's hard
Speaker 2: to imagine that things won't be bad. Idea or the
Speaker 2: suggestion is that dismantling the Department of Education isn't necessarily
Speaker 2: going to harm these programs. But I think what it's
Speaker 2: going to do is it's going to make those programs
Speaker 2: vulnerable because right now they're protected under the Department of Education,
Speaker 2: but if they're if Title nine, for example, is shuffled
Speaker 2: off to some other department, then that becomes a vulnerable
Speaker 2: program there and at risk of being at the very
Speaker 2: least being diminished, if not discontinued outright. And so it's
Speaker 2: it's really it's not only going to have an immediate
Speaker 2: effect of losing of the loss of some programs, but
Speaker 2: it's going to make many other programs vulnerable, which not
Speaker 2: only is it going to affect the students directly, but
Speaker 2: there's also going to be the threat and the fear
Speaker 2: that these things are going to that students might lose
Speaker 2: their food, they might lose their health care, they might
Speaker 2: lose their support of their disability at school, they might
Speaker 2: you know, there's I don't know, it's it's it's hard
Speaker 2: to be optimistic.
Speaker 3: I think it's more.
Speaker 4: Than likely also going to affect the teachers ability to
Speaker 4: teach these kids the correct the proper information likes out,
Speaker 4: you know, the type of curriculums that are being made
Speaker 4: to teach these kids. And I think the ultimate goal
Speaker 4: here for them is to have a less educated society,
Speaker 4: to have less educated students coming out of out of
Speaker 4: high school, because theyre easier to manipulate, they are easier
Speaker 4: to inductionate.
Speaker 2: It's hard not to imagine that that's the goal. It
Speaker 2: you know, you don't, you don't you want to think that, well,
Speaker 2: that might happen, but that's not what they're trying to do.
Speaker 2: But as we continue on, it's hard to view that
Speaker 2: as not being the goal, the ultimate goal. And that's
Speaker 2: not only frustrating, but it's sad and it's depressing.
Speaker 1: It feeds into the worst of everything because first we
Speaker 1: have people actually suffering, and yes, this is going to
Speaker 1: be beyond just food, and this is going to be
Speaker 1: bound just food at school because we're talking about basic
Speaker 1: support structures and other departments that are going to be
Speaker 1: happening at the same time, and those are going to
Speaker 1: be at risk too. And I couldn't help but think Scott,
Speaker 1: when you mentioned the mental health issue, and aj you
Speaker 1: mentioned the LGBT community and trans community. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: almost like a double whammy because you're taking mental health
Speaker 1: away and you're obstracizing a group of people. It's like
Speaker 1: you're holding up, let's minimize these human beings.
Speaker 3: And then we're going.
Speaker 1: To take away any support they could have too. So yes,
Speaker 1: it is a real concern, and like you, Scott, I
Speaker 1: do believe this is deliberate. I think that they want
Speaker 1: a compliant workforce and when we're worried about our next meal,
Speaker 1: we're less worried about other things. And so just keep
Speaker 1: everything down to a spasic, don't have people think too hard.
Speaker 1: Just have them keep doing what they do and feel
Speaker 1: lucky that they have what they have. And that's really
Speaker 1: what they're counting on for me. Now, one thing, Steve
Speaker 1: and I kind of stepped over this question, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to bring this up to all of you, McMahon's
Speaker 1: past support for toratory figures and access within a WWE
Speaker 1: about we mentioned sexual assault cases, and what do you
Speaker 1: think this ultimately is going to end up as when
Speaker 1: it comes down to her being the leader responsible for kids.
Speaker 3: Like my like, I feel like I want to echo
Speaker 3: what we've already been saying here, but like specifically, like
Speaker 3: my concern, my biggest concern is for the queer kids.
Speaker 3: How are they going to be impacted by this type
Speaker 3: of deregulation that we could see McMahon, you know putting
Speaker 3: forward especially especially given the fact that she has this
Speaker 3: tie to allegations of sexual abuse, allegations being mishandled, not
Speaker 3: that she was directly involved with it, but the fact
Speaker 3: that her organization that she was in charge of mishandled it.
Speaker 3: And she is now in charge of the largest organization
Speaker 3: responsible for the safety of the most miners in the country.
Speaker 3: And if she can't handle you know, keeping you know,
Speaker 3: her little fantasy wrestling games safe for adults, Like what what? What? What?
Speaker 3: What does that mean for the children that she is
Speaker 3: going to be responsible over? We already know and again
Speaker 3: we already know that queer kids are the target for
Speaker 3: for more bullying, more harassment, that schools are less safe
Speaker 3: place for those students already, So and what if they're
Speaker 3: going to be stripping away federal regulations that are in
Speaker 3: place to protect those students, then you know, their safety
Speaker 3: is left up to what like the state level department
Speaker 3: then and we already know that states that there is
Speaker 3: little incentive for especially more conservative states to give two
Speaker 3: ships about the well being of queer kids, of marginalized kids, definitely,
Speaker 3: and so they are the ones that I'm most concerned
Speaker 3: about that I think that there's there's great, there should
Speaker 3: be all kinds of alarms going off.
Speaker 4: You know that we cover in the nonprofits. It seems
Speaker 4: a good covering a story about child abuse by some
Speaker 4: type of institution, usually religious, And I know that the
Speaker 4: WWE is not a religious institution, but it's clear that
Speaker 4: the McMahons are very religious. And the iron here is
Speaker 4: that a woman who knowingly allowed the abuse of young
Speaker 4: boys by one of our employees is being appointed to
Speaker 4: supposedly protect children and their education is absurd.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Stephen, you mentioned the LGBTQ kids, and yeah,
Speaker 2: they're definitely going to be vulnerable because one of the
Speaker 2: things that the Department Education does is it oversees state
Speaker 2: legislation and even down to the local school board level
Speaker 2: of those protections, of mandating those protections, and mandating those
Speaker 2: protections in places where they wouldn't otherwise be there. You
Speaker 2: mentioned things like Southern states or state or Red states
Speaker 2: or whatever, you know how we want to call them.
Speaker 2: There are some states that want to remove those protections,
Speaker 2: they want to allow discrimination to certain groups of students,
Speaker 2: and LGBTQ students are definitely one of those that rely
Speaker 2: on that type of protection. And so when we take
Speaker 2: that protection away. Then you know that's you know, all
Speaker 2: the hell is going to break loose on that. It's
Speaker 2: not going to be pleasant in any way. It's going
Speaker 2: to be very, very troubling.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I have to say that, having a teenager who is
Speaker 1: gender fluid and pan sexual, I can't help but wonder
Speaker 1: what the future does bring for them. And it is
Speaker 1: very concerning because while I know that the people in
Speaker 1: charge don't see this as individuals, the reality of those
Speaker 1: of us who live here are the individuals. And with
Speaker 1: that in mind, I really hope that we can see
Speaker 1: some protections. But right now, as you said more than once, Scott,
Speaker 1: I do think that it's going to be a rough road.
Speaker 1: I don't think this is going to be an easy way,
Speaker 1: but we will get through it.