.

>> PACKING THE SUPREME COURT.

CORPORATIONS FLEX THEIR MUSCLE .

AND NEW YORK SCHOOL CHILDREN ST. STAY TUNED.

"IVORY TOWER" IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER."

I'M DAVID CHANATRY FROM UTICA C. AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR, I'M JOI.

BOB SPITZER FROM SUNY CORTLAND.

NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERS.

AND I SHOULD SAY IT'S GOOD TO S. NICE TO BE BACK IN THE STUDIO E. LET'S BEGIN TONIGHT WITH THE SU.

FOUR DEMOCRATS INTRODUCED A BIL.

PRESIDENT BIDEN ESTABLISHED A C. AND JUSTICE STEVEN BREYER WARNE.

THIS AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP ADDE.

SO SHOULD BIDEN MOVE TO EXPAND 0 AND IN FACT THE VERY FIRST CHANGE MADE TO THE COURT IN 1801 WAS MADE BY THE OUTGOING ADAMS ADMINISTRATION, TO DENY THE INCOMING JEFFERSONIAN ADMINISTRATION OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

AND DURING THE CIVIL WAR ERA, THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT CHANGES MADE BECAUSE OF THE POLITICS OF THAT ERA.

SO IF DEMOCRATS ARE PREPARED FOR REPUBLICANS, IF AND WHEN THEY REGAIN POWER TO CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE COURT AGAIN, I SAY LET THE GAMES BEGIN.

I'LL MAKE ONE OTHER QUICK POINT AND THAT IS CONGRESS HAS OTHER OPTIONS FOR AFFECTING JUDICIAL OUTCOMES, IN FACT, ONE IS TO ACTUALLY REVERSE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS THROUGH WHAT WE CALL LEGISLATIVE REVERSAL AND THE MORE DIFFICULT PATH OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVERSAL BUT AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW, BOB, THERE IS ALSO THE OPTION OF CHANGING THE TYPES OF CASES THAT THE COURT CAN HEAR.

SO YOU CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE CHANGE THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION, WHICH ARTICLE 3 AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO DO.

OR TO REDUCE THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OF THE COURT BY CHANGING THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925.

SO, IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THERE IS A SHORTER WAY TO DO THIS OUTSIDE OF THIS HUGE STRUCTURAL CHANGE.

>> AND SOME OF THOSE-- GO AHEAD.

I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE POLITICAL ACRIMONIY AND PARTISANSHIP THAT SEEMS TO BE CHARACTERIZING THE COURT NOW OF CONSERVATIVE LAW PROFESSOR AT NORTHWESTERN PROAT AN OP ED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES LAST FALL THAT I WENT BACK TO BECAUSE I LIKED IT.

HE WAS ARGUING THAT IT WOULD NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, BUT THAT WE SHOULD CHANGE, GET RID OF THE LIFETIME TENURE AND THAT JUDGES SHOULD HAVE 18-YEAR TERPS.

EACH PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO APPOINT TWO JUSTICES IN HIS OR HER FIRST TERM AND TWO IN THEIR SECOND.

IF SOMEBODY RESIGNED OR DIED, THEY WOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.

BUT JUST TO FILL OUT THE TERM.

AND THE PRESENT JUSTICES, IF THIS WENT INTO EFFECT, HE SUGGESTED, WOULD DRAW LOTS SO WHETHER THEY WOULD HAVE TWO YEAR, FOUR-YEAR OR SIX YEAR.

I THINK THAT WOULD DO A LOT TOWARD GETTING RID OF THIS, YOU KNOW, HANGING ON TRYING NOT TO DIE AND HELPING TO CHOOSE YOUR SUCCESSOR.

AND IT WOULD, ONE HOPES, MAKE THE SUPREME COURT SEEM LESS PARTISAN.

>> I THINK TERM LIMITS FOR JUSTICES IS A GOOD IDEA BUT IT'S ALSO PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT TO DO BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS JUSTICES SERVE FOR LIFE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.

BUT THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT RODE TO HOE.

ANOTHER PROPOSAL I'VE READ RECENTLY SUGGESTED OR PROPOSED THAT EACH NEW PRESIDENT GET TWO SEATS TO NOMINATE TO THE COURT WHEN YOU BECOME PRESIDENT.

AND FOR SOME REASON-- >> IT WOULD JUST EXPAND AND GET LARGER.

>> AN ACCORDION EFFECT.

INCREASING AND DECREASING.

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I THAN-- THE FIRST TIME I ENCOUNTERED THAT PARTICULAR SUGGESTION.

TO ME IT HAS SOME MERIT.

NINA MENTIONED ALTERING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS.

THAT WAS DISCUSSED SERIOUSLY IN THE 1880s.

-- 19ATION.

P I'M A LITTLE MORE LEER OWE THAT ONE.

BUT COURT NUMBER 9 IS NOT A MAGICAL NUMBER.

THE COURT BEGAN WITH AS FEW AS FIVE MEMBERS BACK IN THE LATE 1700s, BECAME SIX.

GRADUALLY INCREASED UP TO 10 DURING THE CIVIL WAR THEN BACK TO NINE SHORTLY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR.

>> MAYBE NINE SHOULD BE A MAGICAL NUMBER.

IT SEEMS TO WORK PRETTY WELL.

>> THAT'S THE ARGUMENT REALLY, THE COUNTER, COUNTER ARGUMENT WHICH IS THAT NINE HAS BEEN SO MUCH ESTABLISHED FOR NOW OVER 150 YEARS THAT THERE IS A LOGIC TO STICKING WITH THAT NUMBER.

I WILL ADD ONE OTHER THING AND THAT IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE EFFECTIVELY REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE COURT FROM 9 TO 8 WHEN JUSTICE SCALIA DIED IN FEBRUARY 2016 AND IT STAYED THAT WAY FOR A YEAR AND SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THIS REALLY IS AN IMMUTABLE NUMBER.

>> THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE HERE.

I THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE STINGING FROM THE FACT THAT THE REPUBLICANS STARTED TO PLAY POLITICAL FOOTBALL WITH THE NOMINATION WHEN THEY DENIED OBAMA THE ABILITY TO FILL THAT VACANCY IN 2016 AND THE ISSUE THE REPUBLICANS MADE IS THAT IT WAS WRONG TO FILL A VACANCY IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.

AND, YOU KNOW, LINDSEY GRAHAM INFAMILIAR USUALLY CAME OUT AND SAID YOU CAN USE MY WORDS AGAINST ME IF WE EVER TRY TO DO THIS.

FOUR YEARS LATER, THEY DID THIS.

AND GRAHAM THOUGHT IT WAS TO BE A HYPOCRITE THAN GIVE UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE TO THE COURT.

THE OTHER ISSUE THAT BREYER MENTIONED, DIDN'T WANT TO UNDERMINE PUBLIC SUPPORT IN THE COURT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY INTERESTING.

WHILE THE SUPREME COURT DOES ENJOY A HIGHER RATE OF APPROVAL THAN EITHER CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT, AGAIN VERY LOW BAR THERE,IT'S ONLY ABOUT 55 TO 60%.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPOSITION, TODAY, IT'S MOSTLY REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE A LOT OF TRUST IN THE SUPREME COURT.

WHEREAS IF YOU LOOK 20 YEARS AGO, IT WAS DEMOCRATS THAT HAD THE TRUST.

SO I THINK POLITICS HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE SUPREME COURT AND WILL ALWAYS BE PART OF THE SUPREME COURT.

>> YEAH, AND PART OF MY WORRY IS THAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT INFUSING MORE POPULISM INTO THE COURT THAT SOMEHOW IT SHOULD BE ITS DECISION SHOULD REFLECT THE POLITICS OF THE TIMES AND THE COURT WAS SET UP PRECISELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACTING AS A CHECK ON THE MAJORITY.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE LANDMARK DECISIONS, IT WAS THE COURT STANDING UP AGAINST PUBLIC OPINION GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

CONSIDER FOR EXAMPLE, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, THE COURT CONTINUES TO UPHOLD IT EVEN THOUGH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE AGAINST IT.

THE SAME WITH ABORTION RIGHTS.

WHEN YOU HAVE THE WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

THE COURTS STOOD IN THE GAP AND WITH LGBTQ RIGHTS, THE COURT STARTED EXPANDING THOSE BEFORE PUBLIC OPINION MOVED SO I WORRY, AND BOB IS RIGHT.

THERE IS A CONNECTION TO NINE BUT THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONNECTED TO THE NUMBER OF CIRCUITS WHICH IS WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING NOW BUT THAT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF THINKING ABOUT POPULISM.

>> AND MAYBE THE LIBERAL FEARS ARE NOT GOING TO COME TO PASS BECAUSE CERTAINLY THERE WAS THE ABILITY OF THE COURT TO TEAR APART THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT.

SO THERE IS A LONG HISTORY.

COURT MAKING DECISIONS THAT PERHAPS ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THE PRESIDENTS THAT NOMINATED THE COURT JUSTICES.

>> WE HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN OVER THE HISTORY OF THE COURT.

AMERICA'S LARGEST CORPORATIONS AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAVE LONG BEEN ALIGNED ON MOST ISSUES.

THE PARTY SUPPORTED BUSINESS AND BUSINESS SUPPORTED THE PARTY BUT LATELY THAT EQUATION SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED.

WHILE CORPORATIONS HAVE OPPOSED PRESIDENT BIDEN'S TAX PLAN, THEY'RE INCREASINGLY ACTIVE IN OTHER AREAS LIKE ELECTION INTEGRITY AND TRANS GENDER RIGHTS.

WHY ARE CORPORATIONS STARTING TO FIGHT NOW ON SOCIAL ISSUES?

>> I THIS I THAT ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT THE COUNTRY AND THE CUSTOMER BASE OF CORPORATIONS IS MUCH MORE DIVERSE AND CONTINUING TO BE DIVERSE.

SO TO IGNORE RACIAL ISHESZ, FOR EXAMPLE, AND RACIAL INEQUITIES, I THINK, IS MORE DANGEROUS JUST FROM A BOTTOM LINE POINT OF VIEW SECONDLY, I WOULD SAY THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOW THEIR MAIN SOURCE OF ARGUMENTS, ARE THESE CORPORATE WARS.

IT'S HARD TO AVOID THIS WITH SOCIAL MEDIA AND WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE AIMING AT.

I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THOUGH THAT THESE STANCES DO REPRESENT SOME CONCERNS ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE LEADERS THAT THE LAWS, FOR EXAMPLE, ELECTION LAWS, WHICH WERE PASSED IN NORNLG AAND ARE GOING TO BE PASSED IN TEXAS AND IOWA AND SO FORTH, MICHIGAN, DO REPRESENT A REAL THREAT TO DEMOCRATS DEMOCRACY AND TO THE SACREDNESS OF THE AVOTE, AND THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO REGISTER AND VOTE AND OF ELECTIONS TO GO ON WITHOUT PROBLEMS AND WITHOUT FRAUD AND WITHOUT BASICALLY DENYING SOME PEOPLE THE FRANCHISE.

>> IT DOES SEEM TO BE A BIT OF A PUZZLE BECAUSE AFTER ALL, IF YOU ARE A CORPORATION, YOUR JOB IS TO MAKE MONEY, TO SELL WHATEVER PRODUCTS OR SERVICES YOU SELL, RIGHT?

BUT INCREASINGLY, CORPORATIONS SEEM TO BE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE POLITICAL PICTURE AND ON SOCIAL ISSUES, NOT JUST THE VOTING RIGHTS ISSUE AND, BY THE WAY, IN MICHIGAN, BOTH GENERAL MOTORS AND FORD HAVE ANNOUNCED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE VOTING RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE MICHIGAN STATE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW.

BUT ON SAME SEX RIGHTS, GUN CONTROL, YOU HAVE COMPANIES LIKE DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH DECIDED A COUPLE YEARS AGO TO STOP SELLING GUNS.

CORPORATIONS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE SAYING THEY DON'T WANT GUN CARRYING IN THEIR PLACES OF BUSINESS AND THEY MUST BE KEEPING AN EYE-- THEY MUST DO POLLING, RIGHT?

THEY MUST HAVE A FINGER ON THE PULSE OF WHERE THE PUBLIC IS AND THE PUBLIC IS CHANGING, RIGHT?

DEMOGRAPHICALLY AND LOTS OF OTHER WAYS.

SO THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

THEY DON'T WANT TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS AND CHAMPION A RIGHTEOUS CAUSE AT THE SAME TIME.

SO THERE MUST BE AN EYE ON SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT AN EYE ON THE BOTTOM LINE, TOO.

>> AND IT'S NOT JUST THE POLLS.

THERE ARE MANY, MANY CITIZENS WHO ARE PERFECTLY WILLING TO TAKE A STAND AND THREATEN TO BOYCOTT AND THREATEN TO NOT BUY THE PRODUCTS IF THE COMPANIES DON'T DO SOMETHING.

>> AND THAT'S REALLY THE POINT.

THE INTERESTING THING IS, POLLING BEGAN AS PART OF BUSINESSES TRYING TO TEST THE VIABILITY OF THEIR PRODUCTS.

I WOULD GO BACK TO KRISTI'S POINT THAT THE SAME SOURCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT WORRY REPUBLICANS, ALSO ARE ON THE MINDS OF THESE CORPORATIONS BECAUSE THESE VOTERS, WHOSE RIGHTS COULD BE SUPPRESSED ARE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES BUT ALSO INVESTORS.

I THINK THE TELL TALE SIGN OF WHETHER THIS IS JUST BUSINESS OPPOSED TO JUST DOING THE RIGHT THING IS WHAT WILL THESE CORPORATIONS DO WHEN IT COMES TO DONATIONS TO CAMPAIGNS, AND ALSO TO BUSINESS INVESTMENTS THAT COULD BE PROFITABLE TO THEM.

AND THEN FINALLY, WHAT WILL THEIR REACTION BE TO THE CORPORATE TAX HIKES THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO PAY FOR THE HUGE BILLS.

WARREN BUFFET SAYS THE MORE TAXES, THE MERRIER.

I'M NOT SURE WE ARE GOING TO SEE OTHER CORPORATIONS TAKE THAT STANCE.

>> THEY MUST BE VERY HAPPY WITH THE 21% TAX RATE.

>> I WOULD GO BACK TO THE RECENT STATEMENT THAT THE CORPORATIONS SIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE VOTING RESTRICTIONS.

AND I READ THE STATEMENT AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT UNDERWHELMED WHILE THEY CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY, GREAT.

AND WE WANT MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE RATHER THAN LESS.

IT WAS STRIKING, AGAIN, NO STATE WAS MENTIONED IN THIS, NO SPECIFIC BEHAVIOR THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH VOTING RIGHTS THAT THEY WERE AGAINST; NOR ANY CONSEQUENCES THAT MIGHT OCCUR.

SO IT REALLY LACKS SOME TEETH.

OTHER THAN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL WHICH PULLED THE ALL STAR GAME OUT OF ATLANTA, THERE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN ANY CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE STEPPED UP AND SAID WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IN OPPOSITION.

AND SO I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CAREFUL, YOU KNOW, THERE IS THAT LINE, MICHAEL JORDAN WAS OFTEN CRITICIZED FOR NOT SPEAKING OUT MORE ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND HE FAMOUSLY SAID, WHICH HE SAID NOW WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK, THE REASON I DID IS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS BUY SNEAKERS, TOO.

IT'S A FINE LINE THAT CORPORATIONS ARE FACING.

>> ARE PEOPLE TURNING TO CORPORATIONS, LOOKING TO CORPORATIONS TO TAKE STANDS ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO FIX ANYTHING ANYMORE?

>> I THINK THERE IS GREATER SENSITIVITY ON THE PART, GREATER AWARENESS ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS TRACKED THE DEGREE OF POLITICAL PURCHASING ACTIVITY PEOPLE FOLLOW.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF PEOPLE START FREQUENTING A STORE OR A PRODUCT BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE KIND OF THE POLITICAL AIR OF THE INSTITUTION.

I MEAN.

I WONDER IF THERE ARE ANY STUDIES THAT ENDORSE.

>> OPPOSED TO PURCHASING FROM A COMPANY THAT HAS A POSITION YOU BELIEVE IN.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MORE LIKELY THEY MIGHT BOYCOTT A COMPANY THEY DON'T.

>> I THINK BOTH.

>> YOU SAW THAT WITH HOBBY LOBBY.

>> THE BACKLASH RIGHT NOW HAS NOT BEEN BY CONSUMERS.

IT'S BEEN BY POLITICIANS.

DELTA MAY BE LOSING A TAX BREAK THAT GEORGIA IS GIVING THEM.

TED CRUZ HAS COME OUT AND SAID PERHAPS THEY OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT THE ANTITRUST EXEMPTION THAT MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL HAS.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE REAL FEAR THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE RIGHT NOW IS FROM CONSUMERS, BUT FROM POLITICIANS.

>> SOME OF THE BACKLASH IS ALSO COMING FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES WHOM THEY ARE PROPORTEDLY HELPING.

FOR EXAMPLE, STACY ABRAMS HAS WARNED THAT THIS COULD BACKFIRE.

>> HE HAS CONSISTENTLY DONE THAT.

WHEN THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE, SHE SAID IT JUST HURTS GEORGIANS WHO ARE WORKING AND SO ON.

>> BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT GEORGIANS.

IT'S GOT TO BE A DETERRENT.

>> WE ARE MORE THAN A YEAR INTO THE PANDEMIC.

MANY STATES INCLUDING NEW YORK, SCHOOL KIDS ARE TRYING TO LEARN VIA ZOOM.

MOST KIDS IN BLUE STATES ARE NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL IN PERSON FULL TIME.

NOW IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOMETIME THAT TRANSITION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IS LOW.

SHOULD ALL SCHOOLS BE REOPENED FULL TIME?

DID NEW YORK AND OTHER BLUE STATES, BOB, OVERREACT?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

AND IT PAINS ME TO SAY THIS, BUT IT CONCERNS ME THAT TEACHER UNIONS HAVE NOT NECESSARILY BEEN TAKING THE BEST POSITION ON THIS ISSUE.

ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA WHERE IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHENEVER THE PUSH TO GET MORE KIDS BACK INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAS SWELLED UP OUT THERE, THE UNIONS HAVE COME UP WITH DIFFERENT REASONS FOR OPPOSING IT.

AND CAUTION IS UNDERSTANDABLE, RIGHT?

I MEAN THIS IS A PANDEMIC.

PEOPLE GET SICK.

PEOPLE DIE.

THAT'S NOT A LITTLE THING.

AND EVEN THOUGH THE INFECTION RATE AMONG CHILDREN IS LOW, THEY CAN PASS IT ON TO THEIR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS.

THAT'S A CONCERN.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE BEEN-- GIVEN THE YEAR THAT WE HAVE UNDER OUR BELT, WITH RESPECT TO SCHOOLS IN PARTICULAR, WE HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE, THE TECHNIQUES, SO THAT, WHEN YOU BRING KIDS BACK INTO SCHOOL, IF THEY'RE WEARING MASKS, THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT, YOU HAVE INCREASING INOCULATION RATES AND I ASSUME BY THE TIME THE FALL COMES AROUND, THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ENOUGH INJECTIONS FOR EVERYBODY.

AND SURELY BY THE FALL, WE CAN BE BACK TO 100% BACK IN SCHOOL PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR NEARLY TO IT.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS HERE WE ARE IN APRIL, WHAT ABOUT BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR.

MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF CAUTION IS STILL WARRANTED.

IT SEEMS TO ME THE UNIONS, AT LEAST IN MORE LIBERAL STATES, HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY ON TOP OF THE DATA ABOUT THIS AND THAT SCHOOLS BRINGING KIDS BACK TO THE SCHOOLS SHOULD BE DONE SAFELY AND CAN BE AND THERE ARE COST TO NOT DOING IT.

>> YOU ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE RISK.

YOU HAVE TO COUNTERBALANCE THAT WITH THE HARM BEING DONE.

IF SCHOOLS WERE SIMPLY ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, THEN REMOTE LEARNING WOULDN'T BE SUCH A PROBLEM WHETHER STUDENTS READ A BOOK OR WATCH A VIDEO IN A CLASSROOM VERSUS HOME ISN'T A BIG DEAL.

BUT ESPECIALLY IF THE K-6 LEVEL, THAT'S NOT WHAT EDUCATION ABOUT.

IT'S ABOUT BUILDING SKILLS.

IT'S ABOUT THE SOCIALIZATION AND SO YES, WHILE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ELIMINATE THE RISK TO TEACHERS OR TO STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILY, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS A HUGE DAMAGE THAT'S BEING DONE TO KIDS AND THAT HAS TO BE VIEWED, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT MORE SERIOUSLY.

AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, IT'S NOT JUST ARE WE GOING TO BRING THEM BACK IN THE FALL.

BUT, YOU KNOW, MANY FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN YEAR OLDS DON'T KNOW WHAT A NORMAL CLASSROOM IS, YOU KNOW.

AND SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN NEW YORK THAT WE BRING THESE KIDS BACK AND AT LEAST HAVE THEM HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH WHAT A REAL FUN CLASSROOM IS, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS STILL SOME RISK.

>> AND THEY'RE BEGINNING TO COME BACK.

AND SOME HAVE BEEN BACK THROUGHOUT.

>> I WOULD JUST MAKE A POINT THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY BLUE STATES AND RED STATES.

IT'S URBAN BIG SCHOOLS VERSUS SMALL SCHOOLS.

I MEAN THERE ARE PLENTY OF PLACES AROUND HERE, INCLUDING THE DISTRICT WE BOTH LIVE IN, WHO HAVE HAD KIDS BACK 75, 80% OF THE KIDS BACK THE WHOLE TIME.

I THINK PART OF THE REASON FOR THE CAZENOVIA DISTRICT IS THEY HAD A LOT OF EXTRA SPACE BECAUSE ENROLLMENT WAS DECLINING SO YOU COULD SPACE THE KIDS OUT.

THAT'S REALLY LESS POSSIBLE IN THESE BIG URBAN DISTRICTS.

AND I THINK THE UNIONS IN VARIOUS PLACES HAVE PLAYED A ROLE, TOO.

>> AND YOU ARE ALL BEING MUCH MORE CHARITABLE TO THE UNIONS THAN I'M GOING TO BE.

I THINK TEACHER UNIONS HAVE SOMEHOW LOST SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT SCHOOLS ARE NOT THERE PRIMARILY FOR TEACHERS.

THEY'RE PRIMARILY THERE FOR STUDENTS, PARENTS AND COMMUNITIES, BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, I SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A DOUBLE STEP HERE IN THAT PROGRESSIVE, AND TRUMP SUPPORTERS NOT FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE.

YOU HAVE CDC AND THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SAYING IT'S OKAY, WITH ALL OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT YOU MENTIONED, AND YET YOU HAVE TEACHERS SAYING, WELL WE WANT TO NOW TELL YOU WHAT WE THINK.

WELL, EXCUSE ME, BUT YOU ARE NOT SCIENTISTS AND UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO GOING TO OFFER A PLAN THAT DEALS WITH THE UNDERRESOURCED SCHOOLS AND URBAN SCHOOLS, OR THE LACK OF RESOURCES IN URBAN SCHOOLS AND HOW YOU ENSURE THAT LESS WELL TO DO STUDENTS BOTH HAVE ACCESS TO REMOTE LEARNING IN THE SAME WAY AND THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION THAT OTHERS DO, LET'S HAVE THE EXPERTS MAKE THAT CALL.

>> DO WE KNOW MUCH ABOUT THEIR ABILITY, STUDENTS ABILITY TO LEARN FROM HOME IN THESE SITUATIONS?

>> THERE HAVE BEEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW SYSTEMATIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN.

THERE ARE CLEARLY SOME SCHOOL CHILDREN WHO HAVE DONE FINE AND EVEN THRIVED IN THE HOME ENVIRONMENT IN DOING THINGS BY DISTANCE LEARNING, ESPECIALLY SCHOOL CHILDREN WHO HAVE SOCIALIZATION ISSUES AT SCHOOL.

AND THERE CERTAINLY IS, I'M LEARNING, CAN OCCUR, BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SOCIAL INTERACTION OF FACE-TO-FACE SCHOOLING IS THE CONCERN THAT RICK STATED.

>> THANKS, BOB.

AND WE ARE GOING TO GO TO OUR As AND Fs SO BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR F. >> I'M GIVING AN F TO THE ALBANY BOYS CLUB.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL IMPORTANT NEWS STORIES ABOUT THAT THIS WEEK.

AND I'M NOT REFERRING TO A BUNCH OF GUYS SITTING AROUND HAVING BEER WATCHING A FOOTBALL GAME.

I'M TALKING ABOUT POWERFUL PEOPLE SOME ALBANY, MEN IN ALBANY, WHO HAVE BEEN-- WHO HAVE ENGAGED IN A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES IN THE YEARS AND DECADES AGAINST WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.

OBVIOUSLY GOVERNOR CUOMO HAS SET A LOUSY EXAMPLE WITH THIS.

IT IS TIME FOR THE ALBANY BOYS CLUB TO BE DISBANDED.

>> NINA.

>> I KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT BASEBALL AND EVEN LESS, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WHEN FACEBOOK EXECUTIVE CHERYL SANDBERG WROTE THE BOOK "LEAN IN," SHE DID NOT MEAN NEW YORK METS OUTFIELDER SHOULD LEAN INTO A PITCH WITH HIS ELBOW SO THAT THE METS COULD CLAIM A WALK OFF HIT AND PITCH WIN.

I'M SURE SHE MEANT LEAN INTO OPPORTUNITIES WITH INTEGRITY.

>> AND KRISTI.

>> I'M GIVING AN F TO MY CONGRESSWOMAN CLAUDIA TENNEY.

SHE DID HOLD A VIRTUAL TOWN HALL THIS WEEK, I'LL GIVE HER THAT.

BUT WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY SHE DIDN'T SUPPORT HR-1 THAT IS TRYING TO PROTECT AND EXPAND VOTING RIGHTS.

SHE CLAIMED PASSAGE OF THIS LAW WOULD "ALLOW PEOPLE TO VOTE MULTIPLE TIMES AND WOULD PREVENT ELECTION OFFICIALS FROM MAINTAINING ACCURATE VOTER LISTS AMONG MANY OTHER FALSE CLAIMS.

>> MY F TO REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN OF OHIO.

HE RECENTLY ATTACKED Dr. ANTHONY FAUCI AT A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, ACCUSING HIM OF AN ASSAULT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS FOR SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE NOT OUT OF THE WOODS YET AND THAT WE STILL SHOULD BE TAKING SOME PRECAUTIONS TO STEM THE TIDE OF THE CORONAVIRUS.

>> LET'S TURN TO OUR As.

BOB.

>> FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE CLEARED THE CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT AND KILLED ASHLEY BABBITT ONE OF THE PROTESTORS WHO STORMED THE CAPITOL ON JANUARY 6.

I'M GIVING AN A TO THE OFFICER WHO WAS DOING HER JOB UNDER AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND DIFFICULT MOMENT.

>> I'M GIVING AN A TO THE TEAM THAT ORGANIZED THE COVID-19 VACCINE SITE AT THE ON CENTER.

I WAS JUST AMAZED AT THE ORGANIZATION AND SO KUDOS TO THAT TEAM.

>> AND KRISTI, YOUR A.

>> I'M GIVING AN A TO NEW YORK'S PLAN TO VACCINATE FARM WORKERS.

IN COOPERATION WITH THE LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE POPUP VACCINATION CENTERS ON FARMS ALL OVER THE STATE.

THIS IS CRITICAL.

THESE ARE ESSENTIAL WORKERS WHO TEND NOT-- MANY OF WHOM WHO DON'T HAVE VERY MANY FLEXIBLE HOURS, THEY DON'T HAVE INTERNET TEXTS, THEY DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION.

SO THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.

>> AND WE REALLY NEED TO GET EVERYBODY VACCINATED.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND RICK, WE'LL TURN TO YOU FOR YOUR A.

>> I'M GOING TO FOLLOW NINA AND MENTION BASEBALL BUT MY A GOES TO HOPE TROUTLINE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS AND SHE RECENTLY PITCHED A PERFECT GAME.

THAT IS A GREAT FEAT IN AND OF ITSELF.

SHE MAY BE THE FIRST WOMAN OR MALE TO HAVE PITCHED A PERFECT GAME AND RECORDED EVERY OUT VIA STRIKEOUT.

SHE FACED 2 IS BATTERS.

SHE STRUCK OUT ALL 21 BATTERS.

MAYBE MY YANKEES COULD USE HER.

>> YOUR YANKEES MIGHT NEED SOME HELP AND NINA, WHEN EVER WE TALK BASEBALL ON THIS PROGRAM, YOU KNOW I'M HAPPY.

AND SO I WILL ADD TO YOUR F THAT THE UMPIRE, THEY DID ADMIT THEY BLEW THE CALL.

THEY MADE A MISTAKE AND THE WALK-OFF HIT BY PITCH STILL STANDS, OF COURSE.

>> TOO MUCH, TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.

>> ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU ABOUT THESE TOPICS OR OTHERS YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS.

IF WRITE US ON THE ADDRESS ON THE SCREEN.

IF YOU MISS THE SHOW FRIDAY NIGHTS IT REPEATS SATURDAY AFTERNOON AT 5:30 OR ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

FOR EVERYBODY AT "IVORY TOWER," HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪