Politics For Happy People
A podcast about politics for happy people!
Politics For Happy People
DEI is dead in NC
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
North Carolina lawmakers take a major step toward eliminating DEI programs in public schools, universities, and state agencies as key veto overrides move forward in the General Assembly. Joseph and Ashley break down what these bills actually do, why the debate over DEI has become so divisive, and what the changes could mean across the state. They also discuss a disturbing lawsuit involving a female high school wrestler who was sexually assaulted by a male opponent competing in the girls' division—a case that underscores why protecting women's sports remains an urgent issue. Plus, they examine the debate over using taxpayer dollars to help bring Major League Baseball to North Carolina.
Welcome to Politics for Happy People. So glad that you're with us, Ashley. Happy summer.
SPEAKER_02Happy summer. How's it going for you?
SPEAKER_00Oh, well, that's a good question. I don't know that I want to get into that, frankly. Is this therapy time? I think we're supposed to do a show. I mean, it's going well. It's going well.
SPEAKER_02It doesn't sound like it.
SPEAKER_00No, it isn't. I mean, there's a lot going on in life, and people did not like tune into this today to listen to all of my personal drama. But there's a lot going on.
SPEAKER_02Life is busy.
SPEAKER_00Life is busy.
SPEAKER_01Life is full. It's it's largely good. I'm grateful for my problems, but you know, there's still things going on. So it's a good thing.
SPEAKER_02I had the best quintessentially summer day yesterday with my kids. You did. We tell us we did nothing.
SPEAKER_01Oh.
SPEAKER_02We did nothing. All day. We sat around the house and we played cards and relaxed. And to me, that's summer. You don't have anything on the calendar. You can go to the pool if you feel like it. Or if you don't, just hang out and be with the people you love.
SPEAKER_01That is those those feel like they're rare summer days. And you know, my kids are a little older than yours now. And I mean, I got home from work yesterday and I never even saw my son because he was just asleep. He'd been at the lake with some friends and they just they just slept. So they didn't do anything either, it seems. But uh I did plenty more working because frankly a lot is happening still in the state legislature. Yeah. And uh for people who don't know, the uh North Carolina General Assembly continues to do their thing. I think they are the only active legislature in America still. Um the schedule here is is very different, and so they will go through summer, and there were a lot of hope that people uh they might be out before the 4th of July. Increasingly, there's some doubt about that, but we really don't know. Um, but we're gonna talk about some of the things that that they are talking about right now, and uh some of them may be more serious than others. I want to talk about DEI because the uh Senate overrode, or the House yesterday overrode some vetoes from Governor Stein uh that we'll talk about. We're also gonna be a sad story um that is really relevant to some things we're working on here, where a young lady in high school has accused uh a young man of sexually assaulting her during a wrestling match because he was identifying as a female and um allegedly did some terrible things during a wrestling match. So that's kind of our show for today. But the first thing I want to get into is probably not something um we would necessarily always be talking about, like baseball stadiums. But Ashley, one of the um are you I don't even are you a baseball fan?
SPEAKER_02We've gone over this. We've talked about other sports that you're not into. You're not into any sports, okay. Basically, no.
SPEAKER_00Do you know what baseball is? Okay, do you know it do your boys play baseball yet? Do they play like no?
SPEAKER_02So that's the only sport my kids haven't played.
SPEAKER_00Is baseball.
SPEAKER_02Is baseball, yeah. Well, when we did t ball. Okay, we did t-ball.
SPEAKER_00It's miserable, isn't it?
SPEAKER_02You know, my son was so young. Um, it was actually yeah, it was fun. It was very cute. He hit the ball and started running and never stopped. Ran on to another field where some teenage boys were playing and promptly got flattened.
SPEAKER_00During the course of his game.
SPEAKER_02Oh, yeah. He's because he ran off of his field into the other field where teenagers were. No, it was pretty far.
SPEAKER_00He just kept going.
SPEAKER_02Well, I was pregnant, so I couldn't catch up. But, anyways, yes, baseball. Tell me about the stadiums.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, the the stadiums, and and I'll say to that point that I agree, I I think t-ball and little people playing baseball is so miserable because they don't understand the game, they don't really have any skill. It's just kind of like recess where it's slightly organized, just like playtime, right? And I did not enjoy that. So my kids played a lot of sports very early on, but I discouraged them from playing baseball early on. And as a result of that, perhaps nobody played baseball when they got bigger. But I played a lot of baseball growing up. I like baseball. Why are we talking about it right now? Because um, most people know that there has been a delay in passing a budget in North Carolina. Haven't had one for a while. And uh one of the new issues is whether the state should spend money for a major league baseball stadium in the uh in Raleigh. And uh Raleigh. In Raleigh. Well, we think in Raleigh, yes. I mean, there's a lot I don't know about this, but I but I but I now know this seems to be an issue of discussion in the legislature. Um should taxpayer funds go to a baseball stadium? Ashley, what's your first reaction to that?
SPEAKER_02That sounds like more of a private enterprise to me, but I think I would have to hear the reasons behind why it it would promote some sort of public good.
SPEAKER_01Well, the public good that it would promote, and the reason why this is actually quite common all over the country for cities to partner with major league sports franchises is because there's massive economic development when you have a major league baseball team. So if if it you know, Raleigh or Charlotte or any other city in America, major league baseball teams have 82 home games. When you build a stadium, you have, of course, hotels and restaurants and spin-off industries and businesses that result from that. And so there is unquestionably economic activity that is generated when you have a major league baseball or major league sports franchise. And I think part of the reason maybe this is happening now is that we all know the Canes just won the Stanley Cup and there's much joy in fanfare in Raleigh and around the region and around the state. And Tom Condon, who's the owner of the Hurricanes, was asked specifically about Major League Baseball. He's been kind of part of some conversations about the idea of bringing Major League Baseball to North Carolina. Perhaps some people think this is the moment to seize the day, to leverage public enthusiasm for that. And so maybe there would be an appetite for spending some taxpayer dollars to help incentivize a professional sports franchise to come to because the canes are the only major sports team that we have, right? Well, Duke and North Carolina basketball would disagree with that. That's actually professional. Those are all those players are now being paid, so they are professional. Yes, your point is taken. In major league, uh major league teams, baseball, football, hockey, um, what I did just leave out, basketball, right? Yeah. Raleigh only has a hockey team. Of course, North Carolina or through Charlotte has a football team and also a basketball team. There, but there is no baseball team in the state of North Carolina, and that is uh presumably the thing here that would be addressed. So I mean What do you think?
SPEAKER_02Do you think it sh does public funds should go to that?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, the the principle.
SPEAKER_02All the men are saying yes.
SPEAKER_01Well, kind of, but not all the men are saying yes, right? Because if you live, you know, if you live in the mountains, do you want taxpayer dollars, and in your four hours away from Raleigh or Charlotte, do you want taxpayer dollars being used to incentivize? And again, who are we in who are we incenting? People who are already probably billionaires, because those are the only people talking about owning baseball, major league baseball teams and building stadiums. So these are not poor people, they do not have like a lack of access to resources, but nobody's gonna turn down $600 million, $500 million if it's offered to you, including billionaires, which is why they do this. So, like if you want our economic activity, if you want my investment, why don't you invest too? We'll do this thing together. I'll own the team that'll benefit me as a billionaire, and this will benefit you as a state because there's gonna be all sorts of economic activity for you. I think that's the argument. And it's and it's a it's a defensible one. But then the principle is is it wrong for taxpayer dollars? And we're talking people who are not billionaires, right? You take taxes from very normal people, and now we're gonna use your tax dollars to go to somebody else under the theory that it's gonna generate other economic economic activity that'll benefit you.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I think it sounds to me it's a private enterprise situation. I don't I don't know that I think tax dollars should go to that, but I understand the debate. I do.
SPEAKER_01Well, and here's here's the free market response to the fact that it is unquestionably a private enterprise thing, right? The the state government is not gonna own part of a major league baseball team. But the reality is other markets, you're competing with them for this kind of economic activity, right? And so if you are a state or a city that says, I will give you nothing, and then you know, Nashville is like, hey, we got half a million, half a billion dollars for you. Why don't you come to us, right? That is quintessential competition. It just so happens that the government is involved in that competition. And should we care? Should we, on principle, say, hey, we're not gonna use government funds, we're not gonna use taxpayer funds to subsidize your professional sports franchise. And therefore, we are going to forego the economic activity and stimulus that would result from that. And that is governments, states competing with each other. So that is competition. And so I can't decide if that's a kind of you know on one hand, yeah, that's just the market at work, but on the other hand, it's the government going places where it should not go.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Seems like we can stimulate the economy by taxing people less. Well, yes. I mean, you there are other ways to stimulate the economy except through sports. So yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01And that's it. We're not gonna spend our whole whole show on this, but it's a thing going on in Raleigh right now where that apparently is a discussion. I have a feeling that the Stanley Cup Championship won by the Canes, or the Stanley Cup trophy won by the Canes, um, is a uh is part of that conversation. So will they resolve this? Will it be a sticking point? Will it be a reason that the budget continues to be delayed? Um no one knows. At least I don't. Somebody probably knows. I don't know. But I think it's worth thinking about, and hey, I think baseball would be fun. But no, all right.
SPEAKER_02So another thing that's happening down there at the General Assembly. Yes, they overrode two DEI bills yesterday.
SPEAKER_01Three, in fact.
SPEAKER_02Three. Three, and you were there. Tell me about it.
SPEAKER_01Well, DEI, and yeah, everybody kind of understands this to be a um controversial subject. There were three bills. One that eliminated DEI in K-12 education of the state, another that eliminated DEI in higher education, and of course, public higher education in the state, and then another that eliminated DEI in state agencies.
SPEAKER_02So that was the one I was missing. Okay. Yes.
SPEAKER_01And so two in education, higher ed, lower ed, and then one in the state agencies. And the background on these bills is that the legislature passed them, Governor Stein vetoed all of them. And in North Carolina, you can override the veto with uh three-fifths of both chambers. The uh House has um one vote, the Republicans have one vote short of a three-fifths majority, and so they have to get Democrats to vote with them, or as happened in this case, um, two Democrats, Carla Cunningham and Shelly Willingham, disappeared for a while. And and here's some political intrigue. The background is in recent years, Shelley Willingham and Carly Carla Cunningham have voted with the Republicans to override some vetoes. And they were primaried by the Democrats this year. Both of them lost their primary, which means neither of them are going to be on the general election ballot in November. They are done as representatives. And they have also declared themselves to be uh independents. No. Are they the ones? Because uh Majeed did as well, right? Yeah. I think only two of those three actually declared themselves to independent.
SPEAKER_02Believe Cunningham and Majid.
SPEAKER_01And Majid. So Shelley Willingham is still officially part of the Democratic Caucus, we think. Whatever that what whatever the case is there, right? They are on the outs with the Democratic Caucus for sure, because they were all challenged and lost in their primary. So yesterday in the in the General Assembly, everybody's there, kind of doing their thing. Both of them were present for the rules committee meeting that happened earlier in the day. And then when they had their floor session in the afternoon, incredibly, they were not present. And what did their absence mean? It meant that there were enough Republicans on the floor relative to the Democrats to achieve the three-fifths majority you need in the vote to override the veto. So their absence created an opening for the Republicans, which they seized upon. Now, I do not know, but I highly suspect that their absence had been coordinated. They probably received something for it. Maybe they just received political revenge against the caucus that has unseated them. Um, maybe that's what's going on. I don't know for sure. Or maybe there was something else that they got legislatively, but they were absent. And because they were absent, the Republicans in the House overrun the veto. It'll now go to the Senate.
SPEAKER_02So let's back up a tiny bit. These are two, these are three DEI bills. So, how do the bills define DEI and what exactly are they stopping from happening in the schools and in the state agencies? Just a high level.
SPEAKER_01Well, that's it's a great question. It it define it prohibits in education quote unquote divisive concepts. And it says you cannot teach somebody that they are better than somebody else because of their race. You cannot teach somebody that they are a victim uh because of their race. You can't teach that one person bears responsibility for the behavior of other people who are part of their, you know, race, identity group, whatever that is. And and so, and this is the challenge for me with with anti-DEI bills, um, because it's basically saying don't say harmful things to your children under the auspices of DEI. But I'm not sure you can actually accomplish that legislatively. And and the comparison that comes to mind for me is like if a school said thou shalt not teach Christianity in a school, and in some ways they basically have. But you're a teacher who really believes in like generosity and respect and kindness, are you gonna remain committed to those ideas and still teach your children, even if you don't teach like the theology of redemption and salvation? Are you still gonna treat teach ideas that you believe to be Christian and required of us because they're good for us?
SPEAKER_02Yes.
SPEAKER_01I think the answer to that is yes, right? As a teacher, I'm, you know, even though the law says don't teach Christianity, and and my the reason I believe we should love each other is because of Christianity, I'm still gonna teach my kids to love each other, even if there's a law that says don't teach Christianity. So I think the same kind of thing happens is that if you have a teacher in a classroom who is fundamentally committed to the, you know, the um principles of DEI in terms of we we must have a lay level playing field, the critical theory, there are oppressors and there are the oppressed, and we have to make sure that the oppressed get opportunities, even if it's at the expense of the of the uh oppressors. If you believe that, you might like change the branding, but you're still going to fundamentally teach that ideology and you might just call it something else. That's what I'm concerned about.
SPEAKER_02Well, and that's what we've seen happen around the country in places where DEI offices have been banned. They are still doing they still have the offices, they just change the name. They rebrand, they rebrand and carry on. So do you think this that these three bills are going to make a difference? Do you think they're going to change anything? Uh yeah.
SPEAKER_01I have to think yes. And and again, this is assuming that the Senate overrides the vetoes, and and that's much more likely than the House. And I think I think we can expect that to happen. Yes. Are they going to make a difference? I think it's more likely in state agencies that they will make a difference because what they're not going to have is those the those training programs that that basically you go in and you learn that all white people are racist, or um, you know, the rate the hiring quotas that have officially existed um in the agencies when they're when they're hiring people. So that kind of thing, I think, will necessarily go away. And when this is in law, I think people who kind of are in agencies as employees and they and they discover that something like this is happening, they will report it and there will be some kind of recourse because there will actually be a law in place saying you cannot do that. So I have to think there will be some impact, especially in the state agencies and and schools, um they'll be cautious. I mean, because again, the the leverage that the state would have is hey, if you're doing this, you're gonna lose your state funds. And local educators and schools and school boards, superintendents are gonna be nervous about the prospect of losing their funds. So I think they're gonna care about it. Yes. But I st but I'm also very confident that there are plenty of teachers inside the system who are just gonna get creative and say, oh, it's not DEI, but of course I'm teaching equity.
SPEAKER_02I think one of the big impacts is going to be culturally. And, you know, thinking back to 2020 and before that, the idea that if you pushed back against DEI and those concepts at all, you know, you were called racist. And so a lot of people were scared to push back against some of these ideas and to say anything, even if they didn't agree with it. And so I think now that we have these laws in place, I think it uh it helps open up the conversation and for people to challenge that um dogma that was kind of pushed down people's throats in different settings, like schools and employment places.
SPEAKER_01What do you think of when somebody says DEI?
SPEAKER_02I think of a really bad solution to a real problem.
SPEAKER_01What does that mean in practice for you? Is there something specifically that comes to mind when somebody says DEI? You're like, this is where my mind goes.
SPEAKER_02I think of just sort of artificially trying to uh like um create inclusion, like with these hiring quotas, um, with these sort of statements that people are supposed to adhere to, you know, I repent of my whiteness, things even if it's acknowledgements. Well, even if it's not specifically that, that's sort of the message, right? Like I feel sorry for for what people that look like me did. Um, and I think those things are just they're bad solutions to a real problem. Racism is a problem. It can happen from any group, whether it you no matter what group it is, there's there can be people who have racist feelings. And the solution is not DEI policies. It is not.
SPEAKER_01Well, your description of what DEI is, of course, if we asked somebody else that, they would have a very different answer. What they think of, and and and people on the left just see it as basically like character development. And we're just going to make sure that people understand how important inclusion and kindness are. That's what they understand DEI to be. And so part of the debate over this is our understanding of the facts and what DEI even means in practice, are so different that we have very different responses. It's like the whole idea of, you know, critical race theory. Like people are some people think critical race theory is simply acknowledging that racism exists and it's a problem. And some people think critical race theory is an actual like academic form of Marxism. So how you answer that question, what is this thing, has everything to do with whether you think it's a good thing or whether you think it's a bad thing. And I think, you know, just from watching the floor debate over these veto override votes yesterday, it's very clear that there is not an understanding. I mean, because that there are people on the left who think this is essentially, you know, we're just basically going back to segregation when you eliminate racial quotas and classes that spend specifically teach kind of Marxist critical theory ideas about race. And that trans there, there are, there are conservatives on the there are there are black conservatives and there are a lot of white liberals, right? It just it transcends ethnicity even. It's just what do we understand this thing to be? And uh our different answers to that question, I think, inform the debate tremendously.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I think that's true. We're we're definitely at odds in in how we think about these concepts, how we think about DEI. I would say it's not, it's not about kindness and inclusion though, because what they're specifically advocating for is uh going beyond that. And the I can't think of a better way of saying it right now than just like special treatment or like some kind of accommodation or provision for the past injustices. That's where we are, that's where we're not meeting. Because they they would say we need to go beyond just kindness and inclusion because of these these past bad things that have but been done against this specific group. Whereas we would say we do owe kindness inclusion to everyone, but we don't need to go past that.
SPEAKER_01Right. And the difference is and I think it's worth repeating though we've talked about it here before it's um the DEI advocates would advocate for an equality in outcome. And the right generally in this represents me for sure would advocate for equality of opportunity that everybody should have the same chances. The law should officially disadvantage no one but we should not guarantee that there will be equality of outcome across different demographics you know Asian people, white people, Native American people, black people. And and that's DEI generally measures success by are these groups having the same results? And the answer to that sociologically and across you know economically in lots of ways is unequivocally no. And and the rebuttal to that argument from them would be well that's because historically we have been so disadvantaged so we are still suffering the consequences of that. And I think that's actually true. I think that it's real that the experience of your my grandparents is different than the experience of other people's grandparents and that influences our life. I just think that's a historical reality.
SPEAKER_02But there are a lot of factors besides race that can impact that too.
SPEAKER_01Of course and the question is what's the just way to respond to that now is is is the just thing because undoubtedly you know our lives are affected by what was happening with our grandparents and other people's lives are affected by what's happening in their grandparents does that mean that you and I should be obligated to transfer wealth or transfer opportunity or you know specifically back away because our our situation might have advantages that other people and I would argue that that is itself its own kind of injustice. And you cannot I mean when does that game end? How far back in history do you go? I mean at some point you have to kind of look forward.
SPEAKER_02We're all born into a situation we're all given a lot in life but we do care about justice. And I'm very thankful that we live in a country that has come so far in terms of um under the law, recognizing uh discrimination based on race is bad and ensuring that that people are treated equally under the law.
SPEAKER_01And I and I'll I think we can I'll end this conversation by saying I I think it's important to note that I that the goals of the left and the right I actually think are very, very similar that we generally all want the same thing. We want people to have great opportunities. We want their families to be successful. We want them you know our neighbors regardless of ethnicity or racial identification or gender we want people to be successful and happy and fulfilled in their lives. The question here between you know the DEI advocates and then the non-DEI advocates is what is the best way to achieve that? Is the best way to achieve that by highlighting and emphasizing and prioritizing our identity our various identity categories or by minimizing our various identity categories and saying you are an individual, you have autonomy, you have agency, you have great opportunity here in America, go seize it, but it's on you. Or is it hey you're an American but you're also this gender and this sexual orientation and this ethnicity and so we're gonna give you points or we're gonna, you know, you're gonna get oppression points or privilege points based on that and the government's going to try to officiate that to make sure the outcomes are the same. And um those who take that perspective I think they kind of want the same things. It's just the way they're they're going about it in my judgment are not productive and won't succeed.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_01So that's why I'm ultimately like I'm happy that the uh the um you know eliminating DEI programs are succeeding I have some questions about you know I I'm confident there are still people in the system who are going to continue pushing these values because it ultimately is a worldview and it's a value system. But but I think it's good. I think it's progress.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. What do we got next? All right moving along we have to look at a very concerning case that came to my attention last week I believe so in Washington state there was a 15 year old female wrestler named Kaylee Keeler who was sexually assaulted during a girls wrestling match by a male opponent that she was wrestling who she did not know was male when she went to the mat to wrestle him. This actually happened in December of 2025 but we're hearing about it now because a lawsuit has been filed. So this took place at a girls wrestling tournament that was sanctioned by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. So it was within her school system W I A that's just the public school athletic system.
SPEAKER_01That's exactly by the by I think everybody knows I'm from Washington state my niece was a high school wrestler. I kind of have questions about girls wrestling in general but at this point it's by the by it doesn't really matter because you know it it's a sport.
SPEAKER_02So the policy in this district actually explicitly prohibits notifying parents or athletes when a girl is supposed to be matched against a male opponent.
SPEAKER_01Because that's Washington right it's it's the the the political leadership there in the in the school system is is all in all in on the trans stuff. And so they are working very hard to make sure that boys who identify as girls can do absolutely anything they want. And in this case um specifically writing rules that say you do not have to disclose your maleness when you decide you want to wrestle as a female.
SPEAKER_02So the more you read about this the more disturbing it becomes her mom was actually present in the gym watching and video recording this wrestling match which is of course very common right like for performance reasons.
SPEAKER_01Everybody records their kids doing exactly exactly um and the video I have watched it's um it's online it's I'll be honest it's really upsetting to watch because Kaylee looks visibly distressed and she's calling out to her mom who's videoing it and telling her mom what's happening to her in the course of the match in the course okay yes and I can't I'm not going to say specifically what she's saying but she's describing what is happening to her body physically and when I say this was a sexual assault it was a true um violent uh very um very how do I even describe this it it wasn't just that he was uh you know touching her buttocks or something it was much much further than that it was it's it's disturbing and and very upsetting to read about what happened to this young woman's body on the wrestling mat in front of her mother and and every her coaches everyone else who is present um uh what happened to her body um I just I can't believe it just to to understand the facts most people have probably seen a high school wrestling match right and so it is it is very physical wrestlers are very much in contact with each other because that's the nature of the sport but there are certain things that you don't have to do in the course either of a wrestling match places you do not have to put your hands on particular bodies in order to like try to manipulate your opponent which is what you do in the course of competition and everybody expects that. And so you know use your imagination we're trying to keep this to be a family show but we are this is something that could not have happened by accident though. That's and and that's could not have happened by accident. This was this is um if this is the kind of thing that would happen just in the course of a wrestling match no one would wrestle because no one would consent to it.
SPEAKER_02Yeah but so so okay so they reported they reported this in writing to the school immediately and there's a mandatory 48 hour reporting requirement that the school is under and they did nothing for fifty for 53 days.
SPEAKER_01They did not report this to the police they have a 48 hour reporting requirement like after a wrestling match is like sexual assault oh just for for sexual okay we're talking within the criminal code you only have 48 hours to report a sexual assault schools are mandatory reporters of sexual assault so so the athlete reported to the school and the school has 48 hours to report and they did okay okay so the the the athletes I mean because if you are a victim of sexual what I thought I heard you say is you only have 48 hours to say something to the authorities.
SPEAKER_02No no that's the school the school yeah yeah yeah sorry if I said that incorrectly the school must report within 48 hours and that's what they did not do.
SPEAKER_01So there's potential um criminal liability for this male wrestler who was identifying as a girl and certainly the school did not uh uphold their duties in this case and they're it's not hard to imagine well the officials are the ones getting sued the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. Do you know if there has been criminal charges pressed against this the boy identifying I don't know that I don't know the answer to that question.
SPEAKER_02So this but but what we're talking about here is a lawsuit against the school itself for failing to report, failing to protect all of the above and this policy of not notifying the parents or the wrestler that they are going to be wrestling someone of the opposite gender like not not telling the girl that okay you're about to wrestle a boy.
SPEAKER_01And that honestly is the and so they've sued the WIAA the school also their their specific high school because the WIAA would have for uh prohibited the school from making this disclosure because their rules would say you cannot know the the athlete does not have to disclose this the school does not have to know this and probably the school would be prohibited from saying it even if they knew that. But what they're not prohibited from doing is um reporting a sexual assault when they learn that somebody has been sexually assaulted and that's what they did in this case. And it's not difficult to understand that the reason why they probably couldn't get around to reporting a sexual assault is because it was a um a protected class that was being accused of this and they thought that was going to make them transphobic. Well evidently they didn't do anything until the mother took the story to the media and news and that's usually and and that I mean how many times have we seen that here in North Carolina recently right where we have bad things happening at school they go talk to their principal and the principal's like don't worry about it it's just a boy in the girl's bathroom you know it's not a big deal or there's nothing we can do they feel uncomfortable oh here young lady here's your restroom you want to use if you're uncomfortable with the boys in your in your bathroom and the only recourse that parents and families have is to go to media who will elevate the story so people so the public can become outraged because the people supervising these situations aren't yeah that is a it is sadly kind of the pattern that has developed and I think there's a a couple things to learn from this is parents and students you have to be courageous and you had have to advocate for yourself because when you advocate for yourself you're also advocating for other people so it doesn't happen to them. And also adults in the room you need to change the policies so these things can't happen anymore and that's what we're working on and you need to be brave and stand up for what's right I just feel so many people are are cowering uh because they're being afraid that they are afraid of being called a bigot and that is the leverage no that's the whole thing that's the whole game right there this high school in Washington the ones we've seen in you know throughout North Carolina why do the adults not report sexual assault? Because they're gonna be they're afraid of being called names being called transphobic or being called bigoted that's it and so that accusation against them is the reason why they just you know don't do the decent thing so this situation would not have happened in North Carolina.
SPEAKER_02We have a law here that prevents boys from playing in girls' sports this is a 2023 law that uh NC Values our organization worked really hard on and we're so thankful to people like Peyton McNabb. Peyton's an athlete from North Carolina who also suffered injury while playing against a male athlete she was had a volleyball spiked in her face and had lasting repercussions from that. And you know a lot of people that have been working on this issue uh like us our friends have been saying girls are going to get harmed girls girls are gonna get harmed. Now we have a girl who has been sexually assaulted in the midst of males being allowed to participate in female sports. That is something that I could not have even I never would have thought of this. Yeah we'd I never would have imagined it like that that was never an argument keep boys out of girls' sports so girls don't get sexually assaulted in the midst of a wrestling match.
SPEAKER_01I mean this but when when order breaks down and you're in a chaotic and frankly like evil situations like this, you start to these cases come out and you start to see what becomes possible you know when when um nature is disregarded essentially we talk about this often in terms of fairness right and and we've probably all made jokes about the male identifying as a female basketball player who dominates his community college league because he's six foot seven right and so he's like the leading rebounder he's all league and it's it's a dude playing basketball against women so obviously he's doing pretty well and the male identifying as a female weightlifter. It's not fair because he's bigger he's a man he went through male puberty and now he's just competing against the women and setting all these records right that's just a fairness issue. When we're talking in volleyball oh you can you hit the ball a little bit harder and that's a that maybe even is a health risk. But in wrestling in that context yeah I mean that that's a totally different ballgame it's not just he can bench press more than she can. It's now he's in a position his hands can be all over her body and my goodness and and that is that is very different. So we talk about this often in fairness as a fairness issue and it is but when applied to this context it's much more than a fairness issue. Certainly he had a competitive advantage as well but it was much more than that. And uh this is a really tragic outcome we shouldn't be shocked though. It's just a reminder of why it's so important to be vigilant.
SPEAKER_02In the coming days the Supreme Court is going to decide about this issue that it and it's going to have you know nationwide implications. So you're an attorney Joseph if the Supreme Court in this case is it's BPJ BPJ West Virginia.
SPEAKER_01Yes it's it's a sports case out of West Virginia.
SPEAKER_02Yes so BPJ is um a boy claiming a transgender identity and he challenged the law in West Virginia much like North Carolina's law prevents biological males from competing in female um in female sports in in schools and so so he challenged that law and it's gone all the way up to the supreme court and they're going to answer the question of whether this whether states may have these laws.
SPEAKER_01That's right that that decision will be released by the end of this month. By the end of June we will have and we expect that the Supreme Court will come down on the right side of this issue and say that Title IX in fact prevents a state from allowing boys to compete with girls with the city for you Joseph what what are the implications for Washington state of this Supreme Court decision. If if the if the BPJ case comes down the way we think it will uh the current law in Washington state will be found to be illegal because Title IX says the boys and girls sports are separate and that he's not a a girl. And so that he can't do that anymore even if the activists who are in charge of most things in Washington state want him to that's a violation of Title IX at the federal level supremacy clause federal law supersede state law and therefore you know just have to deal with it in Washington even if it makes you sad the boys can't wrestle the girls and and and that is frankly the expected decision. It's certainly the hoped for decision um but we're gonna know in in days looking forward to that yeah we are we it it's uh you know thank god for the supreme court man because of all of our institutions it is the thing that has preserved our sanity through some really really um trying times so wild times go to law school kids and get on the supreme court because you can save civilization that's right oh man so uh good news to come I mean be in prayer for this as always for our country and and you know the 250th coming up be grateful for that and uh but of course there's always work to do because we are uh not a quite perfected union but hopefully we're getting better by the day and significantly hopefully we are doing our part to make it better by the day that's right so thanks friends for being with us today so good to have you with us reminder new episodes every Tuesday and Friday like and subscribe where you found us because that helps us make new friends including you. We'll see you next time here on Politics for Happy People