Welcome to Crazy and the King!!
May 5, 2022

SCOTUS Takes Us Back to 1970

SCOTUS Takes Us Back to 1970

Will we go out with a whisper or a roar?

An unprecedented leak from SCOTUS, prepares us for the overturning of Roe and Casey encompassing 50 years of women's rights to safe and legal abortions, contraception, and other reproductive services. In the same week, SCOTUS rules emotional damages are not included in a federal contractor's non-discrimination obligations. Torin says its a limited case, Julie says an open window allows the devil in the house. What's next? Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage are in the Right's sights. This and much more on this week's Crazy and the King.

Thank you to our sponsors and to the team at Evergreen!

Interested in sponsoring Crazy and the King? Contact us today! Email us at CATK@CrazyandtheKing.com

JobVite: Learn more at www.jobvite.com/catk

TalVista: Learn more at TalVista CATK

Clinch: Learn more at www.clinchtalent.com

Prepare yourself for Crazy and the King!

Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CrazyAndTheKing

Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crazyandtheking/

More on Torin and Julie:

Julie: https://www.linkedin.com/in/juliesowashdisabilitysolutions

Torin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/torinellis


Production and Music: DJ Cellz



0:00:00.0 Announcer: We've been about this work, diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging. Shared through the voices of a white woman and a Black man. We bring lived experiences. We have pursued DE&I progress for most of our professional lives. We use Crazy and the King to cover news, tips from colleagues and host incredible guests. Listeners, count on Julie and I to transparently drive the conversation. We thank you for rocking with us. Check it. Julie, kick off the show.


0:00:41.8 Julie: Welcome to Crazy and the King.  

0:00:48.4 Torin: Let me just say to you that... For the folks listening, you have no idea how Julie and I... We come together. And so I sort of like to give you a peak every once in a while. So we attempted to record a day before. And I had a couple of other things that I had said to Julie that I thought were interesting or whatnot. But she never even heard any of those. But then, on the morning of our recording today, I am waking up to a broadcaster smiling with a headline that basically has said, "He's created one of the most racist shows on television in terms of a news broadcast," and he's smiling about that. And I don't know if that's a smile in your face, I don't know if that's a smile like, "I could care less what you all say about me," type smile. And then, of course, we have the big, big, big story around the Supreme Court, which Julie and I will get into. I guess that long pause inside, J, was just... I'm never short on running through my emotions. I may not show all of them, but I'm never short on running through my emotions, the high and the low, the happy, the frustration. I'm just never short on just moving through our emotions, 'cause these people just find a way to get up under your skin. And they just find a way to disappoint you over and over again.

0:02:26.6 Julie: They do. And if you haven't read the, not one, not two, but three-part series on the racist infrastructure, the white nativist infrastructure and the power of that kind of nativism that Tucker Carlson is bringing in around on Fox News, I think it is 1000% worth a read. I'm halfway through part two. It's not shocking, but it is eye-opening. And it's 100% worth your time, because you realize the money that is behind, whether it's his act or his actual belief system that we're willing to put capitalism before our democracy.

0:03:15.5 Torin: Yeah, yeah. So let's get into our show this week, because the Supreme Court actually gets two mentions. The first of which happens to be around their banning recovery. And when we use the word recovery, we're talking about financial reward, some sort of recovery for emotional harm in discrimination suits. The story was actually over in New York Times. And it talks about a woman who is deaf, who was going through physical therapy. And in her being deaf, what she requested or wanted was for this physical therapy business to provide an interpreter, someone who could use sign language to communicate, to interface between her and the people providing her with physical care. And the Supreme Court basically said, "No. They don't necessarily have to do that, and you're not in a position where you need to be suing them for any financial damages." And I will tell you, Julie, when I read this story, I actually... I said, "Well, what a bold request." I understood why she did it, I get it. But I also didn't agree that she should have sued them. What were your thoughts when you read this one?

0:04:32.5 Julie: Yeah, so I think... I guess, let me ask you, why do you get it? What do you get about it that makes it okay for her to ask but not okay for her to receive a sign language interpreter?

0:04:45.8 Torin: Yeah, I think we can ask for almost anything. And so, I felt like she asked with a genuine spirit, "If we're gonna be in this relationship, if you're going to be pressing on my back, or whatever the case may be, I'd like to have somebody there that can sign out the conversation for me." Their rebuttal to that was... Probably, and I don't know this to be the case, but "Probably not willing to make that investment in that person because we have to pay for that. But we will write-out what we are saying to you, and you can read it. And then you can respond in writing, and we'll communicate in that way." And I thought that that was a fair concession. I don't feel like they were treating her any poorly in terms of the service that she received. I think that they were protecting the business and making that investment.

0:05:38.6 Julie: So let me ask you a question. Let me see how this rolls out. So if I went to the doctor in Belgium, where I am right now. And the personally spoke Flemish. And I said, "Hey, I need someone to speak to me in English." And they said, "No, but we'll let you write it down in Flemish to us, or we'll write it down in Flemish to you and that'll be good enough." Is that good enough?

0:06:11.9 Torin: Well, I don't know if that's the same thing. But if you would have said, "Writing it down in maybe English to help you because you only speak English," I'm assuming that that's what you're saying. Writing it in Flemish when you don't understand Flemish, I think is not really a concession. Reading it or speaking it, if I don't understand it, then I don't understand it. So I don't know if I would... I just don't see that as a work-around, if you will. But I also don't see it as the doctor responsibility to speak English. I see it more as your responsibility to learn Flemish because you are in their country.

0:06:55.4 Julie: So American Sign Language is not English. It is a different language.

0:07:03.3 Torin: I agree.

0:07:03.9 Julie: Just like French Sign Language, Indian Sign Language, Chinese Sign Language. And so because I could speak to you in American Sign Language, does not mean that I can communicate with you in English. They're not interchangeable languages. And I believe if I read correctly, not too long ago, people who use ALS as their primary form of communication only read and write at about a third grade level. And that's because they don't speak English. They speak American Sign Language, or they communicate in American Sign Language.

0:07:47.9 Torin: Interesting. I never heard of that before [0:07:51.3] ____ the third or fourth grade level, that's interesting. But how are you using the Flemish example for the sign language example? Because at least in the sign language example, they do have some degree of understanding around English. Maybe not all the way, but they have that third or fourth grade level. Whereas on your example, you have no understanding of Flemish. So show me the correlation, or maybe just show me where you're going with the story.

0:08:21.4 Julie: Yeah. I think the point is is that, I'm trying to differentiate that these are two different languages. And maybe I've done a few Duolingo or Babble, and I can say, "Hi, bye," and third grade things, but that doesn't mean I can communicate with a healthcare provider at the level I need to to get the appropriate care.

0:08:39.9 Torin: Got it. Your position on the story is, you're a little bit different. In the Descent, Justice Stephen Breyer, he wrote that the Chief Justice had asked the right question but given the wrong answer. Some sorts of contracts he wrote can give rise to suits for emotional harm. Whereas, Justice Breyer added that the majority had lost sight of the larger purpose of the anti-discrimination laws, which was "To vindicate human dignity and not mere economics." So you are feeling like they should have brought in a signer.

0:09:16.0 Julie: Yeah. So in my opinion, yes. They should have brought in a signer. I think what is more... My initial reaction to this conversation was, you as a doctor have a contract with the federal government. That contract with the federal government says you have an obligation and a privilege to not discriminate against people in under-represented communities. And so, if we're only saying as someone who is Black, who's LGBTQ, who's a person with a disability, who's a veteran, the only thing that they can be harmed is in an economic way. So if I'm abused at work, if I'm emotionally abused at work, if I'm discriminated against at work, but I don't get fired, does this change the fundamental conversation about the EEOC and being a federal contractor if the limitation of my penalty under this set of circumstances is loss of my federal contract and potentially economic damages due and payable to the victim, but nothing in excess of what they lost financially?

0:10:47.8 Torin: That's interesting. I feel like it's a bit of a stretch. 'Cause I don't feel like she was discriminated against. I just feel like she was compartmentalized like, "Look, this is what... " You can't see me listeners, but I have my hands up above the width of my laptop screen. "This is what we're willing to work within right here, and we'll do everything that we can in this parameter to accommodate you so we're not trying to not accommodate you, we're just saying this is our limit," if you will. And I don't see that as this being discrimination, but I can appreciate your position. Now, I think we'll both agree on the second reason why the Supreme Court was mentioned. You wanna... Everybody's talking about it, but we gotta make sure that we include it. For history's sake, we gotta at least make sure that we put it on the record. The leaked memo like the first time that this has happened ever, and certainly one of the biggest leaks in the last half of a century around what's impending. And we talked about this in a past show. If we look at... I know we talked about it earlier this year that, it's a very, very good chance that the Supreme Court is going to strike down Roe versus Wade. And now, we have an idea that it is absolutely coming within the next 40 to 60 days.

0:12:08.9 Julie: Yeah. And probably if we look back in our 2019 shows, I said something around the effect that "If Trump was elected, Roe would be overturned." And given that he was able to put a record three Justices on the court, it all but guaranteed that Roe would be overturned. And so what we have is a... I believe, a Mississippi case that wanted to ban abortion before 15 weeks, kind of the Before Viability stage. Alito, Justice Alito, appointed, I believe, by George W. Bush, has drafted the first opinion, which is the majority opinion, that states, "They will affirmatively overrule both Roe and Casey," the two cases. He mentioned, "Constitutional access to safe and legal abortions in the United States." In fact, he holds or says at the beginning, "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is labeled as the majority of the opinion of the court." He says further, "It's time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

0:13:27.2 Torin: Yeah, on page 15 of the 98 pages that were leaked, there were actually more than 98 pages leaked. But the 98 page is the initial draft from the Supreme Court of the United States. In such, Justice Alito, on page 15, first paragraph, he says, "Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion." Zero, none. No state constitutional provision had recognized such as a right. Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. And it goes on from there. He kinda repeats it a couple of times. He talks about scholarly articles. He talks about how the 22 out of 37 states at the time when... He gets into a whole lot of research. What does all of that mean to our listeners and to me and you, or to you and I, J? This was absolutely a long game for them.

0:14:30.9 Julie: Yeah. 100%

0:14:33.5 Torin: They sat back on their heels and they played an extremely long game. And you are the smartest of the two, because you said it in 2019. And I say, "The two," you and I. You said it in 2019. I'm not even thinking about this when Trump... I'm thinking about Trump running and being elected, and it just being a power play for him. One of those moves of arrogance and air, and "Look what I've done." I never even thought... And this is my right hand, both hands up. I never really gave thought to how much damage could be done by him being in office. And I say, "He," specifically, because I really thought about him in the sense of reality television Trump, not in public office Trump with the ability to appoint, to do, to... I just never really thought about that. So you were the smarter of the two. They played a very, very long game. And this is going to be... This is gonna have ramifications in a number of ways. And I'm not a political guru in any sense, Julie, but I'm hearing people on the radio say, "Okay, they get this one, then they're gonna come after gay marriage. They're going to come after... " just a whole litany of things that, basically, they just don't like.

0:16:15.7 Julie: Yeah, so the gay marriage case is already in the pipeline, it's already on its way to the court. Women's Rights is gonna be... Or Rights to a legal and safe abortion will end in this country effectively in June. They will go after marriage. They will certainly likely overturn at least some forms of affirmative action in the next year, which is why wouldn't we talk back to that first case. And we say the window is super narrow, that the narrow window opens up for the larger. And that's why Evangelicals and traditional family values, conservatives, to your point, and very smartly play the long game. The states have now been gerrymandered to a place where even if the majority of people in the State of Tennessee wanted to have fair and legal access to an abortion, they will not be able to get it. Because the people in control now own the map. And that was something that was put in by a Baltimore native... Oh my God, his name is just gonna escape me. He used to be the chair of the GOP, and he put in the red state map. Michael Steele, Johns Hopkins graduate, that basically built out a 15-year plan to make sure that they controlled the governor's houses and its legislators and as many states as possible, and this is the results of that 10-15 year plan that we're seeing right now.

0:18:01.1 Julie: And so that being said, to wrap this up, because this is a serious, serious topic. Primary started in the United States, Tuesday this week. And a lot of people set out and said, "I didn't wanna vote for the white lady. I didn't wanna vote for the super smart qualified woman. I'm gonna sit this one out." This is not one we get to sit out. There's no kind of do-over after this one, if we even get it now. So I think we have to talk about SCOTUS more continuously, because as a Democrat, as a Liberal, that's something that I think I've failed to see for a long time. And a good majority of us are much, much too far-sighted and much too identity-based to continue to play a long game that's gonna compete with the Republicans.

0:18:50.0 Torin: Yeah, and we can't just necessarily be nice. Oftentimes, people are saying, "Well, hey Tor, how is it that you engage in these conversations with individuals and organizations that have opposing views?" Well, I say "Directly." That's what I... I'm direct. I'm not mean, I'm not a bowl in the China shop. But I'm direct. I'm not mealy-mouthed, I'm not soft-spoken. I'm very direct. And what I'm hearing from you, what I'm seeing from them, is that it's going to require all of us to be direct. We need to be more participatory and direct in what it is that we believe in, what we are supporting, what we'd like to see for our futures. We cannot leave it to chance. That is what you are enforcing here, reinforcing here. We can't leave things for somebody else to do it, waiting for somebody else to do it, kicking the can down the road and assuming and thinking that it's going to get done. So I'm with you. I know that I am going to up my game of attention. Yes, we have got thousands of things happening, but I'm going to up my game of attention. So thank you for hitting me with that early morning text of, "What had happened?" Did I say that? What had happened? Hitting me with that early morning text of what happened with the Supreme Court. But you found something interesting about equity, pay equity.

0:20:19.8 Julie: Yeah. So something we kind of mentioned in passing back in March. So you remember Brittney Griner, the basketball player who's now being held in a Russian jail. So this piece from The Hill talks about Griner's detention in Russia tied to US gender pay gap, says WNBA star Brittney Griner's manager.

0:20:44.1 Torin: Yeah, yeah. So her manager said a couple of weeks back that, bottom line is, she would not be in Russia in the first place if she received, hear me clearly, if she received adequate pay as a professional basketball player in the US. And I pause, because I know two years ago we talked about Megan Rapinoe and the soccer team. You remember?

0:21:11.7 Julie: Oh yeah.

0:21:12.5 Torin: We talked about how they were not being compensated in a way that their male counterparts were being compensated. I believe that was related to FIFA, certainly in soccer in general. But the spin from the manager, for me, was fascinating. That basically, "Pay her. If you paid her, she wouldn't be over in Russia, thereby she wouldn't be in jail." I thought that was extremely interesting.

0:21:44.0 Julie: Yeah, I don't know, honestly, I've read it a couple of times and I don't know if I'm there with it, I don't know if I agree with it. But I think it does bring front and center again the conversation about the disparity between male and female athletes, especially professionals at that level. I had no idea that top female athletes can make six to seven times their maximum WNBA salaries in countries like Russia and Turkey.

0:22:17.4 Torin: Yeah, well so you have to ask yourself like, "Okay, I can make 100 grand here in the US, or I can make 80 grand here in the US playing basketball, or I can go over and make a half a million close to a million dollars doing the same thing. What do I wanna do?" And I don't really see it as being a hard choice. Julie, I gotta tell you, if I was 6'5, 6'3, 6'1, and I could move the balls like some of these incredible women that can move up and down that court, block shots. I would have my happy ass right over in Turkey or Russia, suited up, collecting the bag and coming back to spend the holidays and off-season with the family. I think it would be a no-brainer for me. As it is for so many of them.

0:23:10.4 Julie: Yeah. No, I don't disagree that there's certainly a much greater opportunity. I just don't know enough about the WNBA to know anything about what pay equity might need to look like there.

0:23:22.1 Torin: I can dig it. I can dig it. I can dig it. I can dig it. Alright, so that'll do it for Julie and I this week. Just a quick break, we'll do what we normally do, pay some bills. We'll come back within a flash, and then we'll get into our topic for the rest of the show.

0:23:40.1 Torin: Alright, awesome. In a flash, "Air Force Major General William T. Cooley faces up to seven years in prison and dismissal from the Air Force after he was found guilty of one of three sexual misconduct claims made by," get this, Julie, "his sister-in-law." Cooley is the first Air Force Major General to be court martialed, tried and convicted in the military branch's 75-year history. And if you're like most and others, experts speculate as to what Elon Musk takeover means for Twitter users privacy. I gotta just insert this real quick, I didn't give a shit.

0:24:17.6 Torin: Anyway, some worry that there is nothing stopping him from accessing users DMs, and ain't that special? The 2022 National Association of Broadcasters inducted NBC Nightly News and Dateline anchor, Lester Holt, love him, into its Achievement in Broadcasting Hall of Fame this past Sunday. Which is more than I can say for some of the other broadcasters, one of which we mentioned at the top of the show. And this commercials are coming to Netflix. And finally, Harvard redress, "Harvard has pledged $100 million to redress its historical ties to slavery as it released a report detailing its connections to slavery, segregation and discrimination." And this is a good moment for me to recommend a book that outlines the relationship with some of the country's most celebrated institutions. It's a book titled Ebony and Ivy, by Craig Steven Wilder. Let's get into the show.


0:25:35.8 Torin: Alright, so everybody's talking about "The great resignation," "The great reset." I've seen other phrases out there, "The great regret," "The big mistake." And I can only think about my time in corporate America, which some might call me a bit of a dinosaur. Because that time in corporate America physically actually in W2 corporate America, that stopped for me back in 1998, Julie. But as I hear these phrases, "Great resignation," "Great reset," "Great new beginnings," "Great regret," "Big mistake," I can only imagine, why is it that people are going through all of this? Are people leaving these positions purely because it was convenient to do during COVID? Are people leaving these positions purely because they are fearing the possibility of contracting the disease that could possibly take their life? Are people leaving these positions because they just have poor leaders, poor managers, poor people, or people with poor relational skills? And I sat there, and I just thought about an article that Bernard Coleman had wrote over in Inc. Magazine and a couple of other pieces. And I just... I wanna start with, is any of this a surprise to you? Are you finding any of this "leaving of corporate America" to be a surprise?

0:27:27.8 Julie: Yeah, I think I was surprised by it in terms of the mass. We talked February, March, April, the greatest resignations, the greatest number of people leaving their roles, sort of the history of that that we've been tracking that, that kind of number shocked me. Does it shock me that people are fed up with working to... Or living to work and not working to live? No, certainly not in America. I think that that's been coming for a long, long time. And to your point, I think most of the time, we leave really bad managers. We leave managers who are not really bad, but pretty mediocre who don't engage us on any level, whether it's pride in our work, attention to our lives, general engagement. I think is a lot of it, but we also changing wages now too. With all of the great resignation, great regret, whatever we call it today, it is driving up wages. And so people are getting more opportunity, I think, especially women. We've talked about that several times over the last month or so, that our chances to earn more for the same or less amount of work is very attractive.

0:28:47.9 Torin: So I wanna bring in a clip real quick of Sam Zell. And those of you who may not know who Sam Zell is, he is extremely successful in the real estate space. Last name is spelled Z-E-L-L. It's just over a minute, maybe two minutes. But have not listen to this quick clip from Sam Zell.


[inserted audio]

0:29:12.1 Speaker 1: I've met A number of your employees, and a number of them are Michigan graduates. And one of the things that's universal when they talk about what it's like to work with and for Sam is, "It's not always easy, you will challenge them, but they know that you believe in them." And there's something about how you've cultivated a culture.

0:29:33.9 Speaker 2: Well, you don't... Obviously, this is a little cliche-ish. But you don't kill the messenger. The answer is that, as I say to my people all the time, "Take me on." I'm not afraid to defend my position, neither should you. And so you gotta take me on if you think I'm wrong. And nobody, nobody is quicker to acknowledge that they're wrong than I am. Because ultimately, the environment that I create is one of access, is one of nego... Not negotiation, but interface among people. We have a very unusual environment, and that we've only had one person recruited at a senior level away in 50 years. One. And he came back.

0:30:33.6 Speaker 1: That was gonna be my question, is what happened to that person?

0:30:36.6 Speaker 2: He came back after less than six months. So when he came back, I sat down with him. And I said, "Richard," I said, "I don't understand. You got a much bigger title. You got paid significantly more. Why did you come back?" And he said, "It's very simple." He said, "I sat at my desk, and if I had a problem and I was here, I'd get up and I walk into your office and say, "Here's the problem, what do we do?" He said, "In my new job, I write a memo. And then I wait two weeks for somebody to respond to me." And he said, "That isn't fun." And I think that there's been a historical perspective that "Fun is a very, very important part of success."


0:31:37.5 Torin: Alright, so again, Sam Zell, he's in conversation. He's a Chicago-based founder, chairman of Equity International. So fitting, since I'm sitting in Chicago right now while we are recording this. He's made several fortunes in the fields of real estate, energy and communications. And in that clip, he was in a conversation with Scott DeRue, the Edward J. Frey Dean of the Michigan Ross School of Business. And in a recent Pew Research Center report, of those who quit their jobs in 2021, 33% cited "No opportunities for advancement," as a major reason for their departure. "No opportunity for advancement," as a major reason for their departure. 35% stated that feeling disrespected was their primary reason. So with the increased focus on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, I guess the question becomes really, what can companies do to ensure that their efforts are not just about recruiting, but also retaining talent? And then the bigger question that I wanna get to, hopefully we have enough time. And if not, maybe we can pick it up next week in our conversation is, are we doing people a disservice, Julie, through our Diversity and Inclusion efforts considering some of the ramifications of automation, robots and whatnot, displacing people in the workplace in the next 5, 10, 15 years?

0:33:18.2 Julie: So I think it's so interesting that you just said that we would be doing it as a disservice. What I think that we are just now recognizing is that, when we're talking about automation, when we're talking about unionization, when we're talking about collective bargaining rights, access to healthcare, access to mental health services, access to maternal and paternal leave, we are talking about DEIB. And that at the core is what DEIB should be focused on. It should be focused on creating equitable opportunity through benefits, attraction, compensation, how and when collective rights need to overrule and have balance with the corporate and shareholder rights. We're talking about 33% of resignations saying they have no opportunity to advance. We are at record level profits for hundreds of companies. And that money is going to the board, the C-suite and the shareholder. It's not driving job growth, it's not driving wage growth, it's not driving opportunity for people who are sitting and stagnating in roles for a long time. It's not supporting fast food workers and service industry people, and manufacturing people who are seeing collective bargaining rights stripped away year after year after year. It's not taking things to the hill that need to have more worker protections put in them. It's not.

0:35:11.2 Julie: And at the core, DEIB cannot do its job if we don't think about the worker, if we don't create situations where that empower the worker. And that's what I think. What I hope is gonna come out of this great resignation. We can't stop the pace of technology. Automation is going to happen. Jobs are going to get eliminated. What does that mean? Who's responsible for creating the next skill in the workforce? Who's responsible for getting workers to that place where they can take advantage of the next evolution in our economy? Right now, we think that it's... We say it's the US government, but the ones that are reaping the benefits of that are corporate America. And again, that goes to the C-suite, the board and the shareholder. And at its core, DEI should help level that field. So I don't think it's a disservice at all. I think it's the next evolution of where we go.

0:36:16.2 Torin: So in the clip, Sam Zell talks about losing one person over a 50 year period, talking, of course, about a high level individual. He wasn't necessarily referring to other levels in the organization. But at a very high level, one person, 50 years. It says something about the culture to me. In Bernard Coleman's article, he talks about early in his career back in 2008, where he left the job for more money. And unfortunately, he was disappointed. And so I think it gets down to the point about, it really is a matter of "How is it that we are supporting individuals inside of the workplace?" And one of the things that I see missing in so many of these conversations, Julie, you know in the beginning when we are going through the interviewing process, there are questions that we're not supposed to ask of the candidate. We're not supposed to ask some of these questions because they are a red flag, they are triggers. If you will, they are illegal. The bottom line is, those questions are illegal.

0:37:19.5 Torin: But where I continue to struggle when I think about the time that I've spent in D&I, well over a decade. I think about the time that I spent in corporate America leading sales teams, building high performing teams. One of the things that absolutely helped me both in corporate America, in recruiting and in consulting, is my intimacy with my people, asking them about family, about birthdays, painful events. Trying to be just... The more I knew about them, the better we were able to connect. And we could move through the relationship in a way that I could support them, I could develop them. I just felt like we are... We find too many leaders that are inoculating themselves in the title. They are shielding themselves because they have this title sort of creating a bit of a barrier, which goes into the 35% leaving because they don't have any opportunity. Sorry, 33% opportunity, 35% leaving because they feel disrespected. If I got a relationship with you, I'm not... I'm just gonna have less of a tendency to disrespect you. And I just feel like we have not done a good enough job of focusing our D&I efforts on leaders and making them model what good relationship building looks like.

0:38:50.9 Julie: Yeah. No, I couldn't agree more. We have that conversation around mental health every single day knowing your team is critical to not just your success as a leader and the corporation's success, but to their success. And as leaders, we should be invested in their success. And their success is bigger than just them showing up at that job 9:00 to 5:00 and making you look good.

0:39:15.1 Torin: Yeah, absolutely. And Bernard lays out a couple of things that he wants people to think about when considering. And he's speaking specifically to the firm person considering a new opportunity. And so I think his article in Inc. Magazine, its title, How to Avoid Buyer's Remorse in the Great Resignation. He published it on... I don't exactly see a date. But it came out this week in Inc. Magazine. Again, How to Avoid Buyer's Remorse in the Great Resignation. I just think that it's important. Again, now you didn't weigh in on this. I hope... Weigh in real quick on this one. Are we doing enough in our D&I efforts to prepare people for, follow me, getting them into these roles, but what might happen if automation or robots comes through and takes the role away from them? Are we doing enough there, or is that something that we should be thinking about a little bit more, in your opinion?

0:40:18.3 Julie: Yes, I think we should be thinking about it more. But I think that instead of creating more programs and cool acronyms or something like that, we need to be forcing the consciousness of our leaders at the C-level to invest in the talent that they need to build. So they really have that power to change things, and we as DEI leaders need to make sure that they understand the value of that future investment.

0:40:47.8 Torin: "Understand the value of that future investment." Alright, something that we are not going to stop talking about because Julie said it very, very well. It is about the people. It's not the acronyms, the shiny new tools. Those things are efficiencies or they're coefficients towards how we do, build, motivate, lead, achieve, become efficient. But they are not the primary, the central driver. It really is and should always be about the people. Quick commercial break, and then we will do our Her Voice segment.

0:41:28.4 Torin: In our Her Voice segment, it's where we amplify women making moves. And this week, we want to shout-out YouTube for hiring former Amazon VP Alexa Toni Reid as VP of YouTube Shorts. The platform's TikTok competitor.

0:41:46.8 Julie: And Barbra Gago, who began work on her startup in March of 2020, says "The biggest mistake that companies are making today is keeping employees in the dark about their future. If you keep them in their dark about what their future is at your company, you're basically ensuring they don't have a future there."

0:42:06.9 Torin: And Barbra Gago founded Pando. And that goes to exactly what Julie and I talked about in the last segment. We wanna also shout-out Rutgers Hall of Fame women's basketball coach, C. Vivian Stringer. She announced her retirement after 50 seasons. Stringer is a Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Famer. Guided her teams to 28 NCAA tournament appearances, and four Final Four berths across her storied career, which she coached at Cheyney State at Iowa, and most recently at Rutgers. And finally, J, shout-out to all of the women that belong to The Cru. The Cru, C-R-U. You can get them on Twitter @findyourcru. Again, C-R-U. The Cru is a constellation of women committed to helping each other thrive. The Founder and CEO of such is Tiffany Dufu. You can find her on Twitter @tdufu. That's T-D-U-F-U.

0:43:11.6 Julie: Alright, quick mentions this week. David Green over at myHRfuture release a new course, Building a Neuro-Diverse Workforce Strategy. Three modules, takes about one hour. You can get more information at myHRfuture.com. And a quick name-drop for me this week. One of our dear supporters of our community, a long time colleague and member of our family at Ability Beyond has passed away this week after succumbing to injuries suffered in a car accident. She was an amazing member of Arbory, the Quality, ERG, and supported so many young women and young people of color in their career at Ability Beyond. Dorothy, we thank you. And enjoy your rest. It is well deserved, my friend.

0:44:01.6 Torin: Call to remind each and every one of you to share the pod with your digital tribe to find your voice. Be a better human, less creep, better culture, better teams and work places. For now, J overseas, Todd hold it down in the US.

0:44:23.4 Julie: See you.