Month: March 2024

At times when our government is stuck or moving in the wrong direction, I thoroughly believe it is our civic duty to petition our government on issues of public policy. Thankfully, it remains one of our constitutional rights. So, my third public policy letter to speaker Johnson addressed the need to reform our inadequate immigration laws to address the crisis at our southern border. I share this letter with you in hopes that you will write your own letter.

Dear Speaker Johnson,

As promised, I am sending you another letter to address an important topic regarding good public policy.  I understand that you have publicly stated that you intend to pass legislation using the Bible as your guide.  As a Christian myself, I conduct my personal life in accordance with my understanding of the teachings of Christ.  However, our Constitution has a different standard when it comes to our laws, freedoms, and basic rights.  Good public policy should uphold the purpose of our laws as established in the Constitution:  providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our descendants.  You serve the people so you can pass laws that benefit the people, not a particular political party or a particular presidential candidate.  You take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Recently, I saw you walk away from bi-partisan legislation that would finally address border security and the migrant issues at our southern border at the behest of Donald Trump who wants to campaign using chaos at the border.  Not only is this shameful, but it is harmful to America, and I believe you are in violation of your duty to defend this nation and promote the general welfare. 

Since you call yourself a Christian and proclaim to want to legislate in accordance with your Christian beliefs, I must point out that your Party is at odds with many Biblical verses that address how to treat migrants or immigrants.  You should read Leviticus 19:34, “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” God never changed His stance on immigrants from Old Testament to New.  Matthew 25:40 reads, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” 

Since the beginning of time, human beings have migrated out of necessity, whether fleeing starvation, violence, oppression, persecution, or a lack of opportunity. Jesus Himself was a migrant fleeing to Egypt when King Harold sought to kill Him. Our nation was founded by and built by people fleeing horrible circumstances and seeking a better life.  Today is no different for many of the migrants showing up at our border and your Christian faith demands compassion from you, not distain and public demonization of them.   

That said, it is good public policy to enact immigration laws that offer a faster path to legal entry for family members of citizens, needed workers, and for human beings fleeing eminent violence, oppression, and persecution.  Modern technology allows us to prevent starvation abroad and therefore eliminates the need for migration based on hunger.  I actually agree that it is good public policy to know who is coming into our country to ensure their good intentions as well as their physical and mental health.  We should provide those we admit with work permits upon entry.

To accomplish this, we must increase the number of judges or adjudicators to quickly process claims.  We must increase the number of border security officers.  And we must update our immigration laws to allow for many more guest workers, faster processing of asylum claims, family unification requests, and immediate issuance of work permits to those we admit. We must employ technology and more highly trained border officers to detect drug and human traffickers. Because Mexico is dangerous, I think the “remain in Mexico” policy is inhumane.  It is also inhumane to continuously announce that the “border is open” to encourage continued migration and chaos.

I am for legal immigration.  Immigration provides our country with an innovative and economic edge. We need more workers to support our aging population and forcing women to give birth isn’t the best public policy answer.  It is counterproductive for Republicans to demonize migrants as rapists, terrorists, murderers, and poisoners of the blood of our nation.  Your Party has too many Americans scared out of their minds that migrants are hell bent on killing them when they are far less likely to commit crimes than Americans. Others are convinced that Democrats are bringing them here to vote illegally.  That too, is nonsense. They aren’t voting because they have no pathway to register to vote, yet your Party forces the false narrative that thousands of them go to the polls and vote for Democrats.  How absurd.   

The fear-mongering has to stop as it stokes violence against people who do not deserve it.  Muslim bans and banning of people of color from “shit hole” countries does not reflect the kind of America I want to live in.  Our diversity is our beauty and our strength. Immigrants add new flavors to our taste pallets, stimulate innovation and invention, increase our connection to the world, and grow our economy.  Learning multiple languages and about other cultures is an addition, not a subtraction, that contributes to brain health and international cooperation.

With that, I urge you to improve upon and then pass the bi-partisan border security bill now and demonstrate your loyalty to the American people, the Constitution, and your Savior Jesus Christ, as opposed to loyalty to Donald Trump whom I view as a true enemy of the people and our Constitution.

Sincerely,

Dr. Juanita Hall

As women and LGBTQ folks become more visible in public life and excel educationally, economically, and socially, it seems that some young men, including black men, are viewing women and LGBTQ folks as a threat to their longstanding power. These insecure young men are embracing the misogynist political views of the right, embodied in Trump. They aren’t turned off by his sexual assault nor by the right’s attack on transgender rights. In fact, they are happy to roll back women’s rights and would prefer to push LGBTQ folks back in the closet. Under Biden, the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, the Respect for Marriage Act and the Equality Act were signed into law. These are anti-discrimination laws designed to provide protection, equal justice, and opportunity under the law. Speaker Johnson voted against all three. This week, I wrote a third letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, arguing against his use of the Bible to deny women and LGBTQ rights and in favor of honoring our Constitution. I hope you will join me in voting blue this November and exercising your right to petition our government.

Dear Speaker Johnson,

This is my third letter addressing public policy and your insistence on using the Bible as your guide to passing the laws that govern our nation.  I, too, am a Christian.  However, I believe the Bible is intended as a guide for my personal life, not the lives of others. The Ten Commandments were for the Old Testament Jewish nation and Jesus never preached a government takeover of the laws using the Bible, but He instead preached the conversion of our individual hearts to loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves.  He charged His followers with preaching the gospel, not making laws. He made it clear that His Kingdom is not of this earth and not made with human hands, so I really don’t understand how what you are trying to accomplish is any different than the Taliban.  The supreme law of this land is our Constitution, and it guarantees each of the freedom of religion.

I am thankful to be free to follow Christ and to live according to what I believe is right.  Our Constitution says that this is true for all citizens, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof. The job of the legislature is to pass laws that “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”   However, I view your insistence on using the Bible as a guide to legislate in opposition to upholding the Constitution and the freedoms it provides to all citizens, especially women and members of the LGBTQ community.

No one is pushing anyone to be gay.  No one is challenging heterosexual marriage. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.  No one is asking you, your wife, or your children to change their gender.  As a Christian, I believe it is my responsibility to treat people the way I want to be treated and as an American, I believe it is my duty to insist that civil liberties and equal access to every benefit and opportunity that the country has to offer is enjoyed by all citizens.  How individuals love or live their lives is between them, their conscience, their family, their doctor, and their God. These personal matters need to be kept personal and without state intervention so long as other living and breathing people are not injured.  And let me be clear, information about alternative lifestyles is not injurious, but helpful.  As a mother, a grandmother, and a retired educator, I have seen that learning about alternative lifestyles actually encourages tolerance, understanding, and results in less bullying and violence.  This helps to ensure domestic tranquility and promotes the general welfare.  Have you forgotten that Jesus commanded us not to judge others, but to love?  Have you forgotten how He treated the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery? Compassion changes hearts, not compulsion.   Let God be the judge.  

As a black American female who cares about the Constitution, I am committed to petitioning my government to ensure justice and liberty for all.  I do not believe that women and LGBTQ folks are less deserving of justice and the freedom to pursue their best lives. But for too long, this nation has denied women and LGBTQ folks opportunity, justice, and liberty.

My mother was subjected to physical abuse at the hands of my father for many years. I’ve stood between my mother and major injury a few times, once in front of a loaded gun.  I regularly called the police, but they did nothing.  We left our comfortable home and went into hiding to escape the violence, living in seedy motels until my grandparents stepped in to find us a permanent home in a safe neighborhood.

I, myself, have been sexually assaulted on three separate occasions and each had a negative impact on me, and I’ve never had justice.  The first time, I was ten and my white adult neighbor cornered me in his living room while my brothers were playing in his backyard. I never told my parents because my violent father would have killed him and gone to prison, thrusting us into certain poverty. The second time, I was 16 and my high school chemistry teacher cornered me in the storage room.  I stayed silent because I knew that no one would take the word of a black girl over a white chemistry teacher.  And the third time was by my boss, a white man who called me into his office, closed the door and tried to sexually assault me.  I escaped his horrific assault and left the building, quitting that well-paying job, and facing financial distress.  I, like so many women, lived without justice and with thwarted opportunities, and it is not right.   

I understand that you voted against the Violence Against Women Re-Authorization Act, the Equality Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act.  This is disappointing and shows a lack of understanding, care, and respect for the challenges some citizens face as they, too, pursue life, liberty and justice and happiness. 

Bigotry is not Christlike behavior and condoning legal discrimination against citizens is bad public policy that works against our Constitutional principles, makes life unbearable for women and LGBTQ people and harms our economy, mocks justice, and undermines our unity and domestic tranquility as a nation. Do better as a Christian and especially as a legislator.  Our Constitution is a great guide for good public policy while the Bible is good guidance for your personal life.

Sincerely,

Dr. Juanita Hall  

Voting citizen of the United States

This week I wrote a letter to Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who has publicly stated that he will seek legislation that is in alignment with the Bible. This is a clear violation of our freedom of religion if we allow representatives to pass laws that violate the liberties and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. As citizens, it is up to us to insist upon our rights and not to assume that others will not infringe upon them. Join me in exercising our Constitutional right to petition our government while this right remains in place.

March 9, 2024

Dear Speaker Mike Johnson,

This is the first of several letters I plan to write to you regarding good public policy that fully honors the establishment clause of our Constitution and does not strip away the rights of citizens who live religious lives or secular lives, devoid of religion.

As a citizen of this country, I must exercise my civic duty to express my thoughts and ideas about how our nation is governed.  I’m thankful that we have a Constitution that helps guide our public policy and laws in service all the people.  As a Christian, I’m thankful for the establishment clause that clearly prohibits the establishment of a state religion and protects the free exercise of religion.

This means that I am free to practice my Christianity and to make personal decisions based on my religious beliefs and that no other religion has the right to impose their religious decisions on me. It also means that Christians do not have the right to impose our religion on others just because we take over state houses.  My greatest fear is that you and Christian nationalists are trying to do just that. 

With you as one of the leaders, I see Christians in our state and federal government trying to enact laws and public policy in accordance with their interpretation of the Bible as opposed to the actual Constitution that leads us toward equal rights and equal justice.  The topic for this letter is abortion.

Although I have never had an abortion; I would not deny any woman the right to obtain one.

Religion should not have a say in this public policy or legal issue because people and religions disagree on when a human life begins.  I happen to be a Christian mother and grandmother that believes that the Bible teaches that life begins at breath, not conception. I believe that a fetus capable of breath outside the womb is a life worth saving whenever possible.  We can argue the Bible but ultimately you should be allowed to follow your belief as to whether or not your wife or your underage daughter can have an abortion, but not everyone else’s.  No law should prohibit abortion for those who have different beliefs on the issue because of the establishment clause.

The reality is that 40-60% of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted through miscarriage.   Some Christians must think heaven is full of non-viable fertilized eggs, unborn embryos, and fetuses. I don’t.  I had a friend who gave birth to a baby with a beating heart and no brain. It never took a breath.  Not every fertilized egg will result in a live birth because they are not all viable and some have the misfortune to implant in the Fallopian tube where they are destined to perish and will kill the mother if she doesn’t get medical care.

The issue is women’s healthcare as good public policy.  It is good public policy to ensure that women have access to medical care that ensures safe and appropriate reproductive care.  It is good public policy to ensure that women who give birth are emotionally ready to, are physically able to, and have the mental and financial ability to provide adequate care for those babies once they are born.  It is good public policy to encourage adoption for women strong enough to give birth, but unable to care for the child.  Being able to make the personal decision regarding abortion based on our own religious beliefs is good public policy and is in keeping with the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Despite feelings of anxiety, I secured a pencil and paper to take notes and then tuned in to C-Span (which is free of commentary) to watch the State of the Union. I observed with interest the upbeat demeaner of the people milling about the chamber chatting. I watched the formal entry of the Supreme Court, absent three conservative members. I watched the Cabinet members making their way down the aisle, greeting representatives from both sides of the aisle. And then, I nervously watched the President’s entry and slow progress toward the podium as he stopped to greet multiple representatives. And not surprisingly, I was disgusted by the red MAGA hat-wearing Margorie Taylor’s Greene’s rule-breaking and her tasteless taunting of the President.

First, and most importantly, I was relieved to observe the undeniable vitality and strong mental acuity of the president. Even with signs of his lifelong speech impediment, his speech was coherent and full of substance. In fact, I counted 32 specific public policy topics that he covered in his speech. Of course, some received a lot of attention. Some he simply mentioned as topics for congress to address, such as artificial intelligence, a ban on assault weapons and reasonable gun regulations, the Voting Rights Act, the banning of books and history, funding for education at all levels, raising the minimum wage, and the Violence Against Women Act.

He spent more time on what he considered the most pressing topics of the day, including the existential attack on our freedom and democracy, not just abroad, but at home. He called out Trump’s acquiescence to Putin and the war in Ukraine as well as Trump’s lack of support for NATO followed by the announcement of Finland and Sweden to the NATO ranks. He then messaged Putin that we will not walk away, nor will we bow down. Without skipping a beat, he called out the lies leading to January 6th and how some seek to bury the truth. His strong statement, “You can’t love your country only when you win” resonated with many, including me.

He moved on to address the necessity of protecting reproductive rights, including IVF and codifying Roe v. Wade. I was surprised when he called out the Supreme Court to acknowledge how women can continue to exercise their political and electoral power to safeguard abortion rights.

He briefly highlighted his accomplishments including the economic comeback from Covid-19, the expansion of health insurance, narrowing of the racial wealth gap, the Pact Act for veterans, the expansion of manufacturing, the 46,000 new infrastructure projects, the Chips Act, getting inflation under control, cutting student loan debt for millions of public service workers, the price cut to $35 for insulin for seniors, and having corporations pay a 15% minimum tax. He called upon congress to do something about “shrinkflation” that affects us all. And he made a point of calling upon congress to make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, again promising that no one making less than $400,000 a year would have to pay more.

There were promises made should he be re-elected and have a democratic congress to work with. He would lower the cost of insulin for all Americans to the current Medicare low of $35 and he would cap all prescription out-of-pocket cost to $2000 per year. He would make healthcare insurance savings permanent for the 100 million Americans on Obamacare. He would restore the Child Tax Credit that lifted 50% of children out of poverty.

There were a few new initiatives he announced such as appointing his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, to oversee a new women’s health research project, providing first time homebuyers with a $400/month tax credit for 2 years and eliminating title insurance, cutting red tape for home builders and helping them renovate 2 million homes to bring rent costs down, the new Climate Corp to employ young people to deal directly with the climate crisis, and reducing the credit card late fees from $35 to $8 and requiring junk fees related to purchasing tickets to be stated up front.

On everyone’s mind, including mine, were border security and the Israel and Hamas War. I was glad that he exposed how Trump squashed the bi-partisan bill that would have dealt with border security. He spelled out everything that was in the bill, including more border patrol, more judges, and the technological equipment to help detect and confiscate fentanyl. And I was glad that he expressed his empathetic condolences to the parents of the young nursing student who was murdered by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela and then turned it around to remind congress to pass the border security bill.

Regarding aid to the Palestinians, he announced the building of a temporary pier to provide more humanitarian aid beyond the air drops and the few trucks Israel permits to enter. While desiring a ceasefire, he continues to support Israel’s effort to eliminate Hamas and the safe return of the hostages. In my opinion, this is a no-win situation between the leadership of two sides who are hell-bent on destroying each other. There is no position the president can take that will satisfy everyone.

There were many other highlights in his speech, but the one that stands out the most is when he addressed the age issue head on. He made the issue about whether the ideas were forward looking or backward looking. He made it about whether we would forge forward in pursuit of our aspiration for equality for all or return to the past.

I’m wholeheartedly voting for Biden, not only because my reservations about his age and fitness were dispelled, but because his values and his aspirations for this country most closely mirror my own. If the same is true for you, I hope you will join me in donating to his campaign. And if you are able to do more, I hope you lend your time and energy to supporting him as well. We absolutely have a vested interest in the direction our country moves in this year.

In part one, I explained the nature of tribal membership and how it emerged as a human survival mechanism in an environment full of threats and challenges. I explained how white evangelical Christian tribes began to feel threatened by an increasingly secular society against which they could no longer compete nor fully retreat. As I mentioned in part one, I left the black Christian church to attend a predominately white evangelical church during my teens in the 1970’s before politics was introduced. As a black person, I felt comfortable in a setting that fully embraced the notion of “colorblindness” and therefore accepted me so long as I complied with the unstated, but crystal clear, normative standards of whiteness while avoiding any public acknowledgment of historic wrongs and ongoing discrimination I faced outside the church.

However, life in a bubble like this can’t possibly last and it didn’t. The outside world creeped in at every turn around issues of pre-marital sex (and abortion), feminism, and LGBTQ rights. These became unavoidable threats to the tribal order as women steadily gained independence and gays slowly emerged from their closets. I recounted how political power was introduced to the white evangelical church, first as a means of self-preservation and then as a vehicle to bend society to its conservative will. Sadly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was gradually replaced by a growing greed for political power and a desire to force society into submission. White evangelical Christians, along with the few people of color in their ranks who subscribe to a white hegemonic standard, joined hands with white nationalists to form a tribe hell bent on elevating white supremacy and “Christianity” through a campaign to “Make America Great Again” lead by Donald Trump. Standing in their way is democracy itself and a humanistic moral conviction that resonates with millions. It is the ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

I began doing diversity work in 1997 through a community organization loosely affiliated with the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization formed to prevent another genocide by building human tolerance for differences. The Anti-Defamation League provided our community group of volunteers with three full days of training in how to facilitate conversations to help build an understanding, tolerance, acceptance, and hopefully an appreciation for diversity in any setting that would have us. Over the years, our initiative grew to encompass inclusion efforts and most recently, a call for equity.

Briefly stated, diversity recognizes that humanity, in all its many ways of being, are all deserving of rights, dignity and respect. Diversity embraces the variety of human languages, skin colors, traditions, religions, sexual orientations, gender identities, and histories that shape tribal membership. Diversity asks us to at least tolerate differences by not killing, shaming, and discriminating against those who are different. At best, it asks us to appreciate the contributions to humanity that come from people of every background. It seeks to replace the idea of one hegemonic standard of “normal” and “good” with multiple perspectives of what is normal and what is good. However, exploitation and harm to others in the name of “culture” or “tradition” was not acceptable.

Inclusion asks for a seat at the decision-making table for individuals and tribal groups that were previously excluded because they were not considered part of the “normal” or “good” ideal which was built into a standard called whiteness. Inclusion seeks to enter spaces and take on roles that the dominate tribe historically excluded them from entering. Inclusion stands at the door of whiteness offering new ideas, creativity, broader perspectives, and energy that could improve the whole of society if embraced.

And finally, equity is basic fairness. It acknowledges that intentional efforts are required to ensure that everyone in the society has the basic tools required to at least survive, if not thrive. Equity seeks to repair the damage of historical wrongs that limited access and opportunities for people and groups outside the previously “normal” and “good”. For most of American history, male whiteness was the access ticket to opportunity, justice, capital investment, and even government welfare. Equity seeks to ensure that future generations have equal access to foundational necessities like health, education, and non-discriminatory practices in the public sector.

I began my work at the university in Multicultural and International Programs, doing diversity workshops for students, faculty, and staff. I was among the first chief diversity officers in the nation in 2008 when I was appointed to that post. Although challenging, I loved having the opportunity to help shape the future by advocating for diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) at both the interpersonal and institutional levels until my retirement in 2021.

Over the years, I encountered many people, particularly young professionals and students from underrepresented backgrounds, who thought the DEI efforts were far too slow and others, particularly older professionals, usually white males, who thought the efforts were moving far too fast. It was always satisfying to observe white folks begin to understand the gross disparity in resources and environmental considerations that flowed to communities based on race and economics. They wanted desperately to believe in a meritocracy that did not exist. They despaired over a color-blindness that was only a myth. It was a tough balancing act trying to engender patience in those who demanded immediate change while building enough empathy in those with the actual power to change things. I always knew that a moral imperative alone would never be adequate motivation for those who benefit from privilege and power to willingly relinquish it.

But more difficult than the balancing act or delivering a convincing moral imperative was figuring out how to avoid my own prediction of an inevitable backlash. I never did. In conversations with colleagues, I would often remind them that DEI efforts can easily be perceived as a threat to those who have directly or indirectly benefitted from a system that privileges whiteness as normal and good. Who would willingly relinquish a system that gives them the advantages they need to succeed in society, even if it is at the expense of others? The current system, though unfair, is working for them and we are asking them to change it simply because it is the morally right thing to do. As researchers and educators, we tried to present the growing body of empirical evidence to support the benefits of diversity, inclusion, and equity that accrued to students, institutions, businesses, and society as a whole, but it never gained the momentum needed at the personal level to convince white men nor to overcome youthful impatience.

I observed with trepidation the swiftly emerging problem presented by young professionals and students who were tired of asking for change. They started demanding it. I distinctly recall when the term “wokeness” became a way to distinguish between those who were for DEI (“the woke”) and those who dragged their feet (racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and misogynistic). Young professionals and students exacted a price on those who were not perceived as being “woke” enough. They were publicly shamed, boycotted, or “cancelled”.

Some straight Christian white men on campus, young and old, expressed their dislike of the DEI efforts, characterizing them as outright attacks on them. They were considered the bad guy if they didn’t outright acknowledge and renounce their “white privilege”. They expressed feelings of reverse discrimination. They felt like everyone was blaming them for a system they didn’t create. They felt like their hard work was being discounted. And they feared being “replaced” by losing future opportunities to less qualified women or people of color. Their sense of entitlement and their underlying belief that their whiteness automatically made them more worthy and more “qualified” was difficult to explain to them in a way they could hear because emotions ran way too high, and they felt very threatened. So, I wasn’t too surprised when one of the leaders at that Charlottesville march was a student from our university. I also was surprised that white males began disappearing from college campuses.

I tried to explain to colleagues how many white people intellectually embrace the idea of diversity, inclusion, and equity. It makes perfect sense on an intellectual and moral level, however, emotionally they are experiencing a visceral sense of threat and loss. And it was all coming out. The surprise 2016 election of Donald Trump was a result of white people voting on these emotions. They needed to preserve whiteness and Christianity as the cultural norm with its all its advantages, but they could not openly express it prior to the election. As we have seen, that has changed. Anti-wokeness is loud and clear among conservatives and DEI efforts are under attack, even being dismantled and outlawed in some states.

What we are experiencing today is a backlash to female, non-white, and LGBTQ faces taking up spaces in previously all-white male heterosexual domains. Diversity and inclusion efforts empowered people of different religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities to essentially come out of the closet to openly express themselves in ways previously unacceptable to a white Christian normative society. And those white Christians don’t like it. They feel pushed aside by people who are louder than them, more audacious, and possibly more interesting than the vanilla lifestyle previously in place. And the white Christian evangelical church joined by white nationalists with guns in hand are leading the way toward governmental control. We find MAGA members on the Supreme Court and within the Senate and House of Representatives, with Mich Johnson an unapologetic white Christian nationalist assuming the role as House Speaker.

So, here we are. Tribal warfare wherein one side wants to return to white Christian norms as the standard for good and the ticket to access opportunities and full inclusion in society. You can be included if you are like Justice Clarence Thomas or Senator Tim Scott or Congressman Byron Donalds. It is not lost on me that each of these men are dark-skinned and Christian and that they likely enjoy the comfort of color-blindness while fully embracing white cultural hegemony as they ignore history and minimize their own navigation of discrimination without addressing either. At CPAC, the annual conservative convention, the White Christian Nationalists finally admitted that democracy is no longer working and should be replaced. Democracy gives everyone a voice and they no longer desire to hear certain voices.

The rest of us want to preserve democracy while pushing forward with a diversity that is determined to include everyone in society and within the halls of power in a fair or equitable way. It won’t happen without a fight. This coming election will determine our trajectory as a nation. Will we return to legal discrimination, or will we move forward with democracy? It’s not time to be a spectator, but an active participant while we have the chance.