>> INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT•SHOULD MENTALLY ILL HOMELESS BE FORCED INTO TREATMENT?

SCHOOL DAZE•THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WANTS YEARS OF DATA ON WHO APPLIES AND WHO'S ACCEPTED INTO COLLEGE.

ARE CIVIL RIGHTS AT RISK?

AND DRONE PATROL•SHOULD SYRACUSE POLICE USE DRONES TO RESPOND TO 9-1-1 CALLS.

STAY TUNED.

"THE IVORY TOWER" IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, AND TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

THE PUSH TO CLEAR HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS IN WASHINGTON, DC AND OTHER CITIES RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MENTALLY ILL SHOULD BE INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED FOR TREATMENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ORDERED FEDERAL AGENCIES TO MAKE IT EASIER TO FORCIBLY HOSPITALIZE MENTALLY ILL AND DRUG ADDICTED PEOPLE FOR LONGER PERIODS.

SUPPORTERS SAY THE MOVES WILL HELP RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER.

OTHERS SAY PEOPLE WILL BE UNJUSTLY LOCKED AWAY.

TARA, SHOULD WE MAKE IT EASIER TO COMMIT PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE HISTORY OF MASS INSTITUTIONALIZATION?

>> NO, WE SHOULD NOT.

IT REALLY SHOULD BE THE MEANS OF LAST RESORT FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS A MENTAL ILLNESS OR DRUG ADDICTION.

THE PROBLEM IS IT IS A SHORT-TERM FIX FOR A MUCH BIGGER AND MUCH LARGER PROBLEM AND PART OF THE PROBLEM FOR THE MENTALLY ILL IS MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS ONCE THE PERSON IS ARRESTED OR TAKEN INTO A FACILITY.

SO THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON GETS MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO A COUPLE MONTHS OF TREATMENT AND IS RIGHT BACK ON THE STREET.

IS THERE A POST CARE FACILITY FOR THAT PERSON TO GO INTO?

WHAT HAPPENS IN THE POST-CARE FACILITY?

SO REALLY JUST THE NOTION OF, OKAY, WE WANT THEM OFF THE STREET SO WE WILL HOUSE THEM SOMEWHERE WHERE SUPPOSEDLY THEY WILL GET TREATMENT.

HOPEFULLY THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS BUT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THOUGHTS NOT WHAT HAPPENS.

>> WE DO HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE TO DO SOMETHING.

IT'S ALWAYS TROUBLING TO WATCH HOW WE, AS A SOCIETY, NOT AS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT AS WE WALK BY PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUNG OUT ON THE STREET AND LYING THERE.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

OBJECT OBVIOUSLY WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH IS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.

I SORT OF LEAN TOWARD TARA'S VIEW THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE HISTORICALLY IN THE U.S., WE HAVE A TENDENCY TOWARD CRIMINALIZATION OF THINGS LIKE DRUG ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH TO A LESSER EXTENT.

I'M CONSIDERING OUR VERY FIRST VENTURE INTO THIS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IN 1970.

THERE, THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHOICE TO EITHER LEAVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DRUG LAW TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, OR TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AND THE CHOICE WAS MADE TO GO WITH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO WE HAVE TO TRY TO THINK OF OTHER WAYS TO NOT CRIMINALIZE THIS POPULATION.

BUT IT'S DIFFICULT.

IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.

>> AND WE ARE, TO BE CLEAR, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE A RISK TO EITHER THEMSELVES OR TO OTHERS.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST ANY PERSON WHO HAPPENS TO BE HOMELESS, LET'S SAY ON THE STREET.

>> YES, WELL, AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THAT.

THE THING IS, OFTEN, PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS-- AND I DON'T WANT TO PAINT EVERYBODY WITH A BROAD BRUSH, BUT OFTEN HOMELESSNESS IS CONNECTED TO MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES ARE OFTEN WORSENED BY DRUG ADDICTION.

SO THEY'RE VERY MUCH INTERCONNECTED.

AND I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AVOID THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT WITHOUT DOING IT VERY CONSCIOUSLY.

>> ARE WE EVEN PREPARED TO HANDLE IF WE HAD TO INSTITUTIONALIZE MORE PEOPLE, ANIRBAN?

>> I DON'T THINK WE ARE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT LEVEL OF PASS INSTITUTIONALIZATION.

THANKFULLY THOUGH, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID YOU CANNOT CRIMINALIZE DRUG ADDICTION.

THIS IS AN OLD CALIFORNIA CASE.

THE NAME OF THE CASEY SCAPES MY MIND.

I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE, RIGHT?

WITHOUT A PREDETERMINED POST CARE INFRASTRUCTURE AND APPARATUS, WHERE THERE IS GENUINE POLITICAL WILL AS TO WHAT THESE PEOPLE DO, IT IS TANTAMOUNT TO KIND OF THIS INSTITUTIONALIZED CRUELTY, RIGHT?

YOU ARE LIKE BASICALLY, YOU LOCK THE DOOR.

YOU THROW AWAY THE KEY BECAUSE YOU THINK THERE IS SOMEONE IN MY HEAD THAT'S NOT ME, TO QUOTE PINK FLOYD.

AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THIS MASS INCARCERATION INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PEOPLE INTO THESE KINDS OF CELLS FROM WHERE IT'S NOT VERY SURE WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO GET OUT?

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN THEY GET OUT?

IF THEY'RE GOING TO GET OUT AND BE IN THE SAME SITUATION.

THE MOST ALARMING PART OF THIS IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE SHELTER, THEY CALL D.C. A HOME.

THEY MIGHT CALL SYRACUSE A HOME BUT YOU DON'T HAVE SHELTER.

IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE, HAPPEN TO ME, HAPPEN TO ANYONE.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE VETERANS AND HAVE FOUGHT AMERICA'S WARS AND FOR SOME REASONS, P PTSD, THEY DON'T HAVE PERMANENT SHELTER.

SO THIS POLICY WILL SHOE HORN THEM INTO THESE CELLS FROM WHERE IT IS NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT.

YOU CAN'T INDEFINITELY KEEP PEOPLE IN THESE PLACES.

AND REGARDING INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS, RIGHT?

WHO IS THAT PERSON?

IF THAT PERSON HAS A LEGAL GUARDIAN OR A PERSON WHO TAKES CARE OF IT, IT CAN BE DONE IN THOSE WAYS.

OTHER THAN THAT, I DO THINK THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA TO JUST SNAP UP PEOPLE AND PUT THEM IN JAIL WITHOUT ANY PLAN WHATSOEVER.

>> YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE HAS TO BE A PLAN.

AND CERTAINLY IF WE CONSIDER NEW YORK, WHICH IS, IN MANY WAYS LEADING ITSELF WAY HERE, AFTER WRANGLING BACK AND FORTH ON WHAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAST BUDGET SHOULD INCLUDE, IT WAS DECIDED THE POLICE WOULD NOT PICK UP THE PERSON OFF OF THE STREET AND ESCORT THEM TO THE HOSPITAL BUT RATHER AN AMBULANCE.

BUT IT IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT AND FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE THAT IS MOST CONCERNING.

BUT FOR ME, IT COMES DOWN TO WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT AND WHERE IS THE MONEY TO GOING TO COME FROM.

RIGHT NOW NEW YORK PAYS $115,000 PER YEAR FOR PRISONERS AND CERTAINLY THAT MUCH MORE MORE WOULD BE NEEDED TO CARE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS.

WHERE IS THAT GOING TO COME FROM.

AND SO WILL WE LIKELY END UP WITH JUST THE WORST CARE.

>> WELL, WITH THE PRESIDENT ISSUING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOUT THIS, HE HAS ALSO BEEN SLASHING MONEY FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES >> AND SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AND SO ON.

SO ON ONE HAND YOU ARE CUTTING OFF THE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS THAT ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE TO STAY OUT OF THE STREETS, HAVE SOME LEVEL OF NUTRITIONALLIZED ASSISTANCE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LOSE THEIR MEDICARE BENEFITS AND THEN YOU ARE SAYING YOUR VERY PRESENCE IN A PLACE WHICH ALSO BELONGS TO YOU IS A PROBLEM TO ME.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE YOU.

HENCE I WANT TO DELETE YOU FROM MY SPACE OF VISION.

THAT'S CRUELTY.

>> PEOPLE ARE FED UP WITH HOMELESS DISORDER, YOU MIGHT SAY , PUBLIC DRUG USE.

SO THIS COULD CERTAINLY RESONATE WITH PEOPLE, I THINK.

>> IT ABSOLUTELY WILL RESONATE WITH PEOPLE.

PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, IS THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF FINDING A SPACE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS, THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF FINDING TREATMENT FOR THEM.

BUT AS YOU POINTED OUT, PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, IS THE COST OF ALL OF THIS, WHICH WE DON'T LIKE THE OTHER PROBLEM IS IS THE NIMBY, YOU KNOW, I LOVE THE IDEA OF A GROUP HOME.

I LOVE THE IDEA OF A FACILITY THAT IS RESIDENTIAL AND GIVES THEM SOME OPEN SPACES, ET CETERA, BUT NOT IN MY BACKYARD.

>> BUT I COME DOWN HERE.

THIS IS A GOOD START.

IT'S A GOOD START, WHATEVER HIS MOTIVES ARE, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE AS A SOCIETY, WE HAVE IGNORED IT UP UNTIL THIS POINT.

>> THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SAID THIS MONTH IT WILL REQUIRE COLLEGES TO SUBMIT SIX YEARS OF APPLICANT AND ADMISSION DATA, SEPARATED OUT BY RACE AND SEX.

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SAYS IT NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO ENSURE GREATER TRANSPARENCY WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AGAINST RACE-CONSCIOUS ADMISSIONS.

WILL THIS INFORMATION HELP SCHOOLS COMPLY WITH THE LAW?

NINA?

IS THIS A HELPFUL STEP?

>> YES, I WANT TO USE SOME OTHER WORDS HERE BUT I'LL JUST SAY NO, AND JUST ASSUME THAT I'M SCREAMING NO.

IT WON'T BECAUSE, GO WITH ME ON THIS HERE.

IF YOU END UP WITH TEST SCORES THAT PROJECT LOWER ADMISSIONS RATES FOR RACIAL MINORITIES, THAT DOESN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING.

IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ADMISSION RATES OF MINORITIES AND THEIR TEST SCORES, THAT DOESN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING BECAUSE THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS REVIEW PROCESS IS VERY HOLISTIC.

YOU INCLUDE NOT ONLY TEST SCORES, BUT ALSO G.P.A.S, LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION, WORK EXPERIENCE ATHLETIC PROWESS, WHETHER ONE IS A LEGACY.

AND THAT LIST GOES ON.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTUALLY LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT G.P.A.S ARE ACTUALLY WEIGHTED.

AND HERE IS WHY I SAY THAT BECAUSE THE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY HAS BEEN ERASED BY THE BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THAT WOULD HAVE DONE THIS SORT OF ANALYSIS, HAS BEEN SLASHED FROM 100 EMPLOYEES DOWN TO FOUR.

SO I DON'T SEE THEM LOOKING AT SOME 10 MILLION COLLEGE APPLICATIONS IN THE HOLISTIC WAY THAT IS DONE NOW.

>> SO, TAR ARC, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE TO ANALYZE ALL THIS DATA, WHAT IS THE POINT?

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

>> THIS IS SIMPLY ANOTHER WAY FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK AT, AND I WILL USE THEIR PHRASE, AT ELITE SCHOOLS, TO SEE IF SOMEHOW EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE RACE AND GENDER AS A CRITERIA FOR ADMITTING SOMEONE, THAT THESE ELITE SCHOOLS ARE FINDING SOME WAY TO UTILIZE THOSE FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHO GETS A SCHOLARSHIP OR WHO GETS, YOU KNOW, A SPECIAL PROGRAM OR A GRANT, ET CETERA.

SO THAT'S WHAT THEY REALLY WANT THE INFORMATION FOR.

THE SECOND PROBLEM IS, ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ANNOUNCEMENT, ONE OF THE THINGS HE WANTS TO DO IS FIND SOFTWARE THAT WILL ANALYZE THIS DATA FOR THOSE FOUR PEOPLE, OKAY.

SO WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MONEY FROM TO BUY THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM TO DO THE ANALYSIS.

>> I SEE.

ANIRBAN, THIS WAS FRAMED AS A WAY TO COMPLY WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.

I'M WONDERING WHETHER THIS CAN BE USED TO UNDERCUT TITLE VI AND CIVIL RIGHTS.

>> YES, THIS BE CAN BE USED TO.

THIS IS RUN OF THE REGRESSIVE RIGHTS LIKE MENTAL CONTORTIONS WHERE THEY SAY SOMETHING THAT THIS IS ABOUT JUSTICE AND TRANSPARENCY BUT ACTUALLY THE MOTIVATION IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

THE PROBLEM LIES HERE.

COLLEGES ALREADY SHARE THIS KIND OF RELATED DATA ABOUT THEIR ADMISSIONS.

BUT HERE THEY WANT DATA ON APPLICANTS AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AND THEY WANT THE G.P.A.

AND TEST SCORES.

NOW TEST SCORES HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, ARE CORRELATED WITH FAMILY INCOME.

IF YOU HAVE HIGH FAMILY INCOME, YOUR TEST SCORES ARE GENERALLY BETTER BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE TUTORS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM.

SECONDLY WHAT IS HAPPENING THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT WANT SOCIAL ECONOMIC DATA.

IF THEY USE SOCIAL ECONOMIC DATA TO MAINTAIN OR ACHIEVE A CERTAIN RACIAL ETHNIC DIVERSITY, THAT WOULD BECOME A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD SAY OH LOOK, YOU HAVE A DIVERSE DEPARTMENT.

I WANT ALL PEOPLE IN THERE SO, YOU KNOW, THAT MUST BE WRONG.

BUT THAT IS NOT WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE USING SOCIAL ECONOMIC DATA THAT CAN LEAD TO A MUCH MORE DIVERSE CLASS BUT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY SOBER ECONOMIC DATA.

-- SOCIOECONOMIC DATA.

SO THEY ARE SAYING HOW COLLEGES ARE DOING BETTER OR NOT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS NOT REALLY.

IT'S ABOUT FINDING OUT WAYS TO HARASS DIFFERENT COLLEGES BASED ON CERTAIN END RESULTS THEY WANT TO SEE AND FOCUS ON.

>> SO, I MEAN, THESE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND THE LAW, HAVE LED TO MORE DIVERSE CAMPUSES IS THE IDEA.

>> IN THEORY, RIGHT?

SO HERE'S A NEWS FLASH.

THE RACE PART OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION WAS HOLLOWED OUT IN 1978 AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE SUCH A TINY PERCENTAGE OF BLACK AND BROWN STUDENTS WHO ATTEND ELITE UNIVERSITIES.

SO THERE IS REALLY-- THIS IS SORT OF A-- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT.

A TEMPEST IN A TEA POT.

THIS IS NOT A REAL ISSUE.

THERE ARE REAL ISSUES HOWEVER, SUCH AS THE FACT THAT ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR WOMEN ON THE COLLEGE CAMPUS REPORT BEING SEXUAL ASSAULTED.

AND THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF MAGA BASE THAT IS UNDEREDUCATED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD COLLEGE.

SO IF HE REALLY WANTS TO RIGHT THE SHIP OF COLLEGES, THAT WOULD BE A PLACE TO START, TO MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THIS WHOLE RACE BAITING THING DOES NOT HAVE AN EMPIRICAL BASIS, PERIOD.

>> I LIKE THAT SOCIALIST ANALYSIS FROM IT.

>> I SAID AFFORDABLE NOT FREE.

>> IT'S HEART WARMING.

BUT I AGREE COMPLETELY.

YOU ARE NOT CONCENTRATING ON A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT HOW CAN YOU MAKE COLLEGES, WHICH TWO-THIRDS OF PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES DO NOT GO TO, HOW CAN YOU MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE SO THEY CAN GO IN AND NOT END UP IN MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEBT.

THAT WOULD CREATE MORE, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO COLLEGES OF MORE PEOPLE FROM ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND THAT WILL HELP OUR EDUCATION.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT REDUCING EDUCATION COSTS EXCEPT FOR BERNIE SANDERS AND YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> WELL, AGAIN, REDUCING NOT MAKING IT FREE BECAUSE WE ALL GOT TO GET PAID.

>> SO THIS WHOLE ISSUE THEN IS-- I CAN'T SAY A NON-STARTER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE TO ANALYZE THE DATA AND IT'S THE WRONG ISSUE IS WHAT-- >> IT IS THE WRONG ISSUE.

RACIAL PREFERENCES WERE NEVER REALLY A THING EXCEPT IN OUR DISCOURSE AND ON PAPER AND TO GET THE WHOLE STORY, YOU WILL JUST HAVE TO READ MY BOOK THAT'S COMING OUT.

>> SUBTLY DONE.

THE SYRACUSE COMMON COUNCIL IS EXPECTED TO VOTE SOON ON WHETHER TO BUY SOFTWARE FOR "FIRST RESPONDER DRONES" TO USE IN 9-1-1 CALLS.

THE ACTUAL DRONES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED.

CIVIL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ADVOCATES HAVE BEEN SOUNDING THE ALARM ABOUT THEIR USE.

PUBLIC RESPONSE HAS BEEN STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE TECHNOLOGY, BUT USE OF SIMILAR POLICE DRONE PROGRAMS IS GROWING AROUND THE COUNTRY.

SHOULD THE COUNCIL FUND THE SYSTEM AND LET POLICE USE IT IN SYRACUSE?

ANIRBAN?

>> I, ON THE FIRST TAKE, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE USED.

WITHOUT ADDRESSING VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, RIGHT.

SO ONE CAN SEE THIS AS A GIANT RED FLAG AND KIND OF A MISSION CREEP.

YOU WILL SAY THAT SOMETHING WILL BE USED ON A CERTAIN KIND OF BENIGN WAY BUT THEN IT CREEPS INTO THIS KIND OF OVERWHELMING PRESENCE OF LIKE MASS SURVEILLANCE, SCOOPING UP A BUNCH OF DATA.

FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD THE DRONES BE USED ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE A WARRANT AND WOULD THOSE DRONES ONLY SEARCH THOSE PLACES WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO FIND SOMETHING.

WOULD THEY HAVE A LIST LIKE A WARRANT HAS?

OTHERWISE YOU ARE TRYING TO FIND SOMEONE WHO HAD DONE GRAFFITI AND YOU ARE MOVING OVER MY BACKYARD.

I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TAKING PICTURES OF MY BACKYARD.

>> IF SOMEONE CALLS 911, WOULD THE DRONE BE THE INITIAL RESPONSE BEFORE A POLICE OFFICER GETS THERE.

>> AS WE SEE WITH DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE DOING IT, ONE IN 10 OF THEIR FLIGHTS THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE FLYING.

THE REASON WAS GIVEN UNKNOWN REASON.

RIGHT?

I WOULD SAY THAT YES, IF YOU WANT A CERTAIN KIND OF HELP TO MOVE FORWARD AND SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING, IF THERE IS AN ACTIVE SHOOTER, YOU WANT TO GO CHECK, SURE.

YOU CAN GET A WARRANT OR YOU CAN GET A CERTAIN STATUTES-- YOU CAN FOLLOW A STATUTE.

>> GET A WARRANT IN AN ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATION, GO OUT AND GET... >> THERE CAN BE STATUTES THAT SAY IF THERE IS AN ACTIVE STATUTE, IF THERE IS AN ACTIVE SHOOTER, YOU CAN GO AND COLLECT THE DATA.

OTHERWISE YOU ARE CONSTANTLY VIOLATING MY FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO HOVER OVER MY BACKYARD OR MY ROOF OR LOOK THROUGH MY WINDOWS AND CARS BUT THESE THINGS ARE BUILT IN SUCH A WAY TO ACTUALLY VIOLATE FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS CONSTANTLY.

>> NINA.

>> EVERYTHING ANIRBAN JUST SAID I DISAGREE WITH VERY VEHEMENTLY.

AND HERE IS WHY.

BASICALLY, I DON'T SEE A DOWNSIDE TO BETTER POLICING.

BETTER POLICING IS VERY STRONGLY CORRELATED WITH LOWER CRIME.

AND CERTAINLY I IMAGINE THE SYRACUSE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER LAWMAKERS ARE ABLE TO PUT IN PLACE VARIOUS PROTOCOLS TO ESPECIALLY SURE THAT THEY ARE ONLY USED IN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR EMERGENCIES.

I, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THESE DRONES USED FOR CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE THAT WILL BECOME PROFILING, NOR, FOR THAT MATTER, FOR INVESTIGATIONS, BUT FOR ENSURING THAT THE POLICE ARE ABLE TO GATHER SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE THEY ARRIVE ON WHAT COULD BE A DANGEROUS SCENE, OR A SCENE THAT REQUIRES RESOURCES.

THIS IS A GOOD USE.

PERHAPS THIS COULD CUT BACK ON THE OVERTIME PROBLEM THAT SYRACUSE HAS HAD.

I SAY THIS AND I GO KNELLS THAT IS GOING TO IMPROVE POLICING AND THUS SAFETY.

WE ARE ALREADY AN OVER SURVEILLED SOCIETY.

EVERY TIME I WALK MY DOG, I'M WALKING PAST 10 OR SO RINGS THAT RING BELLS AS I GO-- IS THAT WHAT-- >> RING CAMERAS.

>> AND SO THAT'S AN ISSUE.

IF THERE WERE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, POLICE CAN RUN THROUGH YOUR BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT BUT AGAIN IT SHOULD BE TRULY EXIGENT, NOT FOR INVESTIGATION OR PREVENTION BUT FOR SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT.

>> AND THERE CAN CERTAINLY BE-- IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE A SITUATION IN WHICH THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL TO POLICE WHO MIGHT BE GOING IN RUSHING TO A SCENE WHERE THERE IS SOME DANKSER, WHICH THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, SOME DANKSER.

>> ONE OF THE EXAMPLES-- DANGERS.

>> ONE OF THE EXAMPLES IN THE RESEARCH WAS THAT THE POLICE WERE ABLE TO SEE THAT A GENTLEMAN HAD-- THEY WEREN'T SURE WAS IT A GUN OR A PHONE.

THEY WERE ABLE TO SEE EXACTLY WHICH IT WAS SO THAT DETERMINED SORT OF THEIR LEVEL OF RESPONSE AND THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE HAD A PHONE, POLICE THOUGHT IT WAS A GUN, ET CETERA AND VICE VERSA.

BUT THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH ALL OF THIS IS THAT'S WHY NOT AM NOT QUICK TO SAY WHETHER THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT.

YOU SAY THE DRONES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED.

I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THE LACK OF TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANOTHER ISSUE IS WHY DID YOU AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF THE DRONES IF YOU HADN'T ALREADY MADE THE DECISION THAT THE POLICE COULD USE THEM?

THERE IS A LITTLE...

THERE IS A DISCONNECT THAT SEEMS A LITTLE WIDE TO ME.

THERE IS NO CLEAR PICTURE WHAT HAVE WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE COST BECAUSE HAVE YOU TO HAVE A QUOTE UNQUOTE PILOT WHO IS IN A PILOT CENTER TO WATCH THE MONITORS AND AND SEND THE DRONES OUT.

THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE, LEAST THEY'RE SAYING THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF OBSERVER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DRONES ARE NOT IN A SPACE THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

AND THEY'RE SAYING WELL THIS CAN BE PERHAPS AN OLDER OFFICER OR SOMEONE WHO IS ON LIGHT DUTY, ET CETERA.

SO THAT SEEMS TO BE UNCLEAR.

THE POLICY YOU SUGGESTED SHOULD BE DEVELOPED HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET.

THERE IS NO CLEAR PLAN.

THERE IS NOT A DISCUSSION OF POLICE LIABILITY.

WHAT IF YOUR DRONE MALFUNCTIONS AND THE POLICE DON'T GET TO THAT SAENZ AND THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM OR WHAT IF THE DRONE GOES TO THE SCENE, SAYS OKAY, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SENDS BACK THE MESSAGE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS A POLICE RESPONSE AND THE DRONE IS HEADED BACK AND THINGS GET OUT OF CONTROL.

THE POLICE DON'T GET THERE IN TIME.

SO THERE HASN'T BEEN A REAL DISCUSSION ABOUT POLICE LIABLE, WHAT WILL BE THE ROLE OF CIVILIANS IN ALL OF THIS.

IS THERE GOING TO BE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT?

THAT'S MY CONCERN BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO SHOULD WE.

Y DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH PROCEDURE DEVELOPED.

>> AND YOU DID MENTION THERE THAT THERE WASN'T MUCH OF A PLAN AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DID INITIALLY TRY NOT TO GO THROUGH A NORMAL REVIEW PROCEDURE.

>> THEY TRIED.

THEY TRIED TO SCUTTLE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND PEOPLE STARTED CRYING AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE ARE QOAG TO DO THE REVIEW PROCESS.

GUESS WHAT.

67 PEOPLE WHO RESPONDED TO THAT SAID WE DON'T WANT THOSE DRONES.

>> HANG ON A SECOND.

67% OF THE PEOPLE.

HANG ON A SECOND.

I ALWAYS HEAR THIS.

TICKING TIME BOMB HYPOTHESIS.

THE POLICE ARE GOING TO DO THIS BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU ARE USING THIS EXTREME SITUATIONS TO BASICALLY BRING IN A TECHNOLOGY WHICH THEY ARE SAYING CAN BE USED FOR LOW PRIORITY CALLS LIKE VANDALISM, GRAFFITI, LOUD NOISE.

ARE THEY GOING TO HOVER OVER PROTESTORS IN SYRACUSE?

>> PLEASE DO TO ENSURE THERE IS NO BOMBER BUT THAT 67% WAS BASED ON A REVIEW OF COMMENTS SO THAT WAS NOT A SYSTEMATIC STUDY AT ALL.

>> I WELCOME A SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF COURSE BUT I'M EXTREMELY AGAINST THIS IDEA THAT THE POLICE CAN USE THE DRONE TO HOVER AROUND NEIGHBORHOODS TO MASS SURVEIL, TO GO AND PROTEST AND FIND OUT WHO THEY ARE PROTESTING.

>> WE HAVE TO LEAVE THAT THERE AND GO TO OUR AS AND FS.

NINA YOUR F. >> THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WILL REQUIRE APPLICANTS FOR TEACHING JOBS WHO ARE FROM NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA TO UNDERGO SPECIAL SCREENING.

OKLAHOMA WILL TEST TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT ADHERENCE OF-- RADICAL LEFTIST IDEOLOGY.

I'M NOT SURE HOW ONE EVEN TESTS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BUT I'M SURE OKLAHOMA SHOULD NOT BE THE STATE DOING THAT.

WHY?

BECAUSE FOR DECADES NOW, THAT STATE HAS RANKED NEAR THE BOTTOM NATIONALLY IN READING AND MATH TEST SCORES.

SO BEFORE THEY GO TO A POLITICAL TEST, THEY SHOULD FIRST MASTER READING AND MATH TESTS.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY F GOES TO UNITED HEALTH AND OTHER COMPANIES WHO ARE USING LEGAL THREATS AND LAWSUITS TO DEBTOR OR PENALIZE LEGITIMATE JOURNALISM AND CRITICISM OF ITS CRUELTY IN HEALTHCARE.

NEGATIVE PUBLICITY MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR STOCK PRICE, DAMAGE OUR REPUTATION AND EXPOSE US TO UNEXPECTED AND UNWASHED REGULATORY SCRUTINY SAID THE UNITED HEALTH IN ITS MOST RECENT ANNUAL REPORT.

THE COMPANY SHARES HAVE BEEN DECLINING TO 40% AND THIS IS A TERRIBLE DAY FOR JOURNALISM.

>> TARA.

>> MY F CONCERNS THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

AND THE SCHOOL SEPTEMBER RYAN WALTERS.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO FOCUS ON THIS CERTIFICATION TEST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED BY WALTERS AS AN AMERICA FIRST TEST.

AND IT WILL ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT U.S. GOVERNMENT, RELIGION AND GENDER.

>> AS.

NINA.

>> OKAY, IT'S OFFICIAL.

I AM OBSESSED WITH SOUL LINE DANCING AND SO ARE MORE AND MORE MESHES.

SOUL LINE DANCING HAS MADE A HUGE RETURN IN THE SOUTH.

IT'S A GREAT WAY TO SOCIALIZE, EXERCISE AND ENJOY R&B & HIP-HOP MUSIC ALL AT ONCE.

ENJOY.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A GOES TO POPE LEO CELEBRATING SPECIAL MASS FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE POOR PEOPLE WHO HELP THEM INVITING THEM INTO THE VATICAN LAKE SIDE ESTATE FOR VEAL.

AND I ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE WHO ASSIST AND THOSE WHO ARE ASSISTED.

>> TARA.

MY A GOES TO THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS.

THEY ARE RESPONDING TO SECRETARY ROBERT KENNEDY STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT HEALTHY CHILDREN SHOULD NO LONGER RECEIVE THE COVID-19 VACCINE THAT CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 6 AND 23 MONTHS SHOULD RECEIVE THE VACCINE.

THEY BASE THEIR INFORMATION ON CORONA VIRUS DATA FROM 2022 TO 2024 AND VACCINATION RESULTS FROM 2024 TO 2025.

>> WANT TO MAKE A QUICK POINT ABOUT THE DRONE DISCUSSION WE WERE JUST HAVING AND GET A LITTLE SHOUTOUT TO NON-PROFIT NEWS SITE CENTRAL CURRENT HERE IN SYRACUSE HAS BEEN ALL OVER THAT STORY.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.