>> TO PROSECUTE OR NOT, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

THE CRUMBLING WALL BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

AND THE PUSH TO BAN TRANSGENDER ATHLETES FROM COMPETING.

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY, TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND RICK FENNER, ALSO FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

FOR THE PAST FEW WEEKS THE JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE HAS BEEN METICULOUSLY LAYING OUT A CASE THAT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP-AND OTHERS-- COMMITTED CRIMES IN TRYING TO OVERTURN THE 2020 ELECTION.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAYS IT'S WATCHING THE HEARINGS CLOSELY AND IT'S CONDUCTING ITS OWN INVESTIGATION.

A POLL OUT THIS WEEK FOUND 58% OF AMERICANS THINK TRUMP SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.

PUT YOURSELF IN MERRICK GARLAND'S SHOES •THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE OF GUILT, BUT WOULD IT BE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO CHARGE HIM?

>> WELL, IF HE BELIEVES THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW, THEN CERTAINLY THE ISSUE IS IS IT IN OUR BEST NATIONAL INTEREST.

NOW THERE ARE SOME WHO FEEL THAT ATTEMPTING TO PUT TRUMP ON TRIAL WOULD FURTHER DIVIDE THIS COUNTRY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, HONESTLY.

AND CLEARLY A TRIAL WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME, DRAGGING INTO THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

AND THEN IF CONVICTED THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE A STRING OF APPEALS PERHAPS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT.

BUT I'VE COME TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST.

THE FACT THAT SO MANY REPUBLICANS STILL REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT HE HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

AND IN FACT, ARE STILL REPEATING THE LIES THAT ARE THE BASIS OF THIS, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ALONG.

NOW IF THE LEADERSHIP-- FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T EXPECT TRUMP TO EVER TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE OR TO SHOW ANY REMORSE.

BUT IF THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WEREN'T COMPLICIT IN THIS, AND IF TRUMP WEREN'T TO RUN AGAIN, I THINK I COULD BE CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST JUST TO MOVE ON.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

>> SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, IT SHOULD BE-- HE SHOULD BE TRIED SO HE WON'T RUN AGAIN.

>> NO, I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO, WE NEED TO GET TO A PLACE-- AND I COMPARE IT TO A VACCINATION.

WE NEED TO HAVE A CRITICAL MASS IN THIS COUNTRY OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE LAST ELECTION WAS NOT STOLEN, ALL RIGHT.

AND THAT OUR DEMOCRACY WORKS.

AND I THINK THAT MEANS WE NEED TO GET SOMEWHERE ABOUT TWO-THIRDS TO THREE QUARTERS OF AMERICANS TO BELIEVE THIS.

AND I THINK THAT PERHAPS JUDICIAL FINDING BY THE COURTS WILL HELP MOVE US IN THAT DIRECTION.

WE ARE GETTING CLOSER AS THOSE POLLS THAT YOU REPORTED ON JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO ARE SUGGESTING, BUT WE NEED TO GO EVEN FURTHER.

>> LUKE, RICK SAID HE DOESN'T THINK THE COUNTRY COULD BE MORE DIVIDED.

BUT A TRIAL OF A FORMER PRESIDENT HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND I THINK WE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIVIDED.

>> I'M SKEPTICAL THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WILL GET US WHERE YOU THINK WE SHOULD GO, RICK.

I DO THINK RULE OF LAW IS PARAMOUNT.

BUT THINKING LIKE A PROSECUTOR IS NOT LIKE THINKING AS MOST PEOPLE WATCHING THESE HEARINGS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO ARE CRITICAL OF DONALD TRUMP AND SAY WELL, THERE IS A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEARLY SOME ILLEGALITY OCCURRED.

CHARGES SHOULD BE FILED.

IF YOU ARE A PROSECUTOR, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SUCCESSFUL, NOT ONLY GETTING INDICTMENTS BUT GOING TO A TRIAL AND GETTING A CONVICTION.

AND THAT IS A MUCH HIGHER BAR AND A LOT MORE PRESSURE.

I'M RELUCTANT, IF I WERE MERRICK GARLAND TO BRING CHARGES AT THIS POINT.

I WOULD DEFINITELY WAIT UNTIL THE PROCEEDING WERE OVER AND I WOULD ONLY PROCEED THERE WAS A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT THE EVIDENCE CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OCCURRED.

>> AND I AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY.

I WAS GOING FROM THE PREMISE THAT HE HAD ALREADY ANSWERED THOSE FIRST QUESTIONS AND ONLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE IS IT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST TO TRY TO PUT TRUMP ON TRIAL.

>> TARA.

>> I THINK YOU PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE PROOF.

AND THAT IS WHERE IT REALLY BECOMES DIFFICULT BECAUSE IF YOU WANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO REACH THE CRITICAL MASS THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IN BELIEVING THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING WRONG, THEN MERRICK GARLAND HAS TO HAVE THE PROOF.

IF HE DOES NOT HAVE THE PROOF AND CANNOT MAKE THE CONNECTIONS-- AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS HERE IS I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS, YOU KNOW, EVEN PEOPLE WHO WON'T ADMIT IT PUBLICLY, OKAY, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF LYING.

THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF TRYING TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE, ET CETERA.

BUT IF YOU CANNOT MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT TRUMP SAID AND DID AND THOSE PEOPLE ATTACKING THE CAPITOL.

IF YOU CANNOT MAKE A VERY CLEAR AND ALMOST EASY CONNECTION, YOU KNOW, YOU HATE TO PUT IT THIS WAY, BUT RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANT TO REACH THAT CRITICAL MASS, IT HAS TO BE AN EASY CONNECTION, A CONNECTION THAT'S VERY CLEAR, TO EVERYONE, EVEN THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT, THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY SAID AND DID SOMETHING THAT PUSHED THOSE PEOPLE TO ATTACK THE CAPITOL THAT PUSHED OTHERS TO CONTINUE TO LIE, CONTINUED TO PRESENT THE FALSEHOODS THAT THE ELECTION HAD BEEN STOLEN.

THAT'S WHERE THE DANGER IS FOR MERRICK GARLAND BECAUSE IF HE CAN'T DO THAT AND THEN TRIES TO GO FORWARD WITH A PROSECUTION, YES, IT WILL MAKE A CERTAIN PART OF THE POPULATION HAPPY BUT THE OTHER PART OF THE POPULATION IS GOING TO SEE THIS AS A POLITICIZED PROCESS AND FOR THOSE CRAZIES WITHIN THAT PORTION OF THE POPULATION, IT WILL ONLY GIVE THEM AN INCENTIVE TO GO EVEN FURTHER IN THEIR CRAZINESS.

>> AND IF THERE IS A TRIAL AND THERE IS NOT A CONVICTION... >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WHAT HAPPENS THEN?

>> WELL EVEN JUST HAVING A TRIAL IS NOT GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY.

LOOK AT OTHER SYSTEMS WHERE PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN PUT ON TRIAL.

IT CREATES A PRECEDENT WHERE THAT IS A MEANS OF POLITICAL OPPOSITION THAT CREATES INSTABILITY.

SO I'M TORN ON THE LARGER NATIONAL INTEREST PART OF IT.

I THINK NOBODY SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

I THINK THE PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER FOR 200 YEARS IN AMERICA IS IMPORTANT AND NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED BUT I ALSO HATE TO SEE THE PROSPECT OF TRYING PRESIDENTS OR FORMER PRESIDENTS FOR CRIMES BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.

IT WILL BE MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE AND IT WILL CREATE INSTABILITY.

>> WHAT IS TO HAPPEN IF WE DON'T TRY HIM?

I'M AFRAID THAT IF WE DON'T TRY HIM, THIS SENDS A SIGNAL THAT THE PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE.

GO BACK TO WHAT HE SAID, SHOOT SOMEBODY ON FIFTH AVENUE AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

I THINK THIS WOULD JUST FURTHER 'EM BOLD EP HIM AND OTHERS LIKE HIM TO THINK THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

AND I THINK THE RESULTS SHOW FROM THE POLLS THAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK THIS COMMITTEE PROCESS IS FAIR AND IT IS SHOWING THAT MINDS ARE BEING CHANGED, SLOWLY BUT SURELY.

NOT 100%.

SO I DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY.

BUT I THINK THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE WHERE DEMOCRACY REQUIRES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO TAKE THESE RISKS AND PUT TRUMP ON TRIAL.

>> I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE POINT.

HE WAS IMPEACHED TWICE.

HE FAILED IN HIS REELECTION BID.

HIS OWN VICE PRESIDENT HELPED KEEP THE SYSTEM IN CHECK.

SO FORTUNATELY THERE ARE OTHER MEANS TO DO SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT I THINK YOU RAISE A GOOD POINTED AS WELL.

>> THE SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK STRUCK DOWN A MAINE LAW BANNING RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FROM A STATE TUITION PROGRAM.

BY A NOW FAMILIAR 6-3 VOTE, THE COURT SAID IF STATE MONEY CAN GO TOWARD TUITION AT A SECULAR PRIVATE SCHOOL, THEN IT -MUST- ALSO GO TO A RELIGIOUS ONE.

IN A BLISTERING DISSENT, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR WROTE THE COURT'S CONSERVATIVE WING IS DISMANTLING THE SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

THIS COURT SEEMS TO PRIVILEGE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES-IS SOTOMAYOR CORRECT THAT IT'S TEARING DOWN A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF THE CONSTITUTION?

>> WELL, THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE HAS BEEN ONE WITH A LOT OF WINDOWS AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THE SCWOAT WANTS TO OPEN THOSE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

THE PROPONENTS OF THE RULING LIKE JOHN ROBERTS, ARGUE THAT IF YOU ARE A STATE AND YOU ARE PROVIDING AID TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS, YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RELIGIOUS PRIVATE SCHOOLS AS OPPOSED TO ALL OTHER TYPES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE THREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, DISCRIMINATING AGAINST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.

THE COUNTERARGUMENT MADE BY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR TALKS ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE THAT BY COMPELLING STATES TO FUND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, YOU ARE CREATING AN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT, WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE, BETWEEN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT.

>> I GUESS I'M WORRIED HERE BECAUSE MAINE, IN THIS CASE, APPEARS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC EDUCATION TO ALL OF THE STUDENTS IN THE STATE.

AND SO IT'S LEAVING IT UP TO THEM TO FIND OTHER WAYS OF GETTING THIS.

AND SO THEY'RE ALLOWING THEM TO GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS WITHOUT REQUIRING THESE PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO TEACH THE STATE CURRICULUM OR TO USE STATE CERTIFIED TEACHERS.

SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN THOSE OTHERS PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

SO IS IT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT ALL RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS ARE DOING MORE DISSERVICE THAN ANY OF THOSE OTHER PRIVATE SCHOOLS?

ARE THERE OTHER WAYS THAT MAINE COULD CONFIGURE THE LAW TO ENSURE THAT SOME OF THE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES OR OTHER THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE DISSENT AREN'T OCCURRING WITHOUT BLANKET SAYING THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS... >> MAINE HAS ALREADY PASSED A LAW, WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE A BIT OF A WORK AROUND PRIOR TO THE COURT EVEN MAKING ITS DECISION.

>> SO DO YOU THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN THE CURRENT LANGUAGE?

>> I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF STATES THAT HAVE CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF PROVIDING PUBLIC EDUCATION.

MAINE IS PREDOMINANTLY RURAL.

HALF OF THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICTS DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL, FOR INSTANCE.

AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE PUBLIC POLICY IMPETUS TO USE PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO HELP FILL THE GAP.

I THINK WHERE WE DIFFER IS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT ABOUT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS THAT RAISES A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE STATUS CLAUSE.

I'M ARGUING THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY THERE IS A 300-YEAR TRADITION OF TRYING TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THESE TYPES OF SCHOOLS ARE DIFFERENT THAN ALL OTHER PRIVATE SCHOOLS, WHICH SORT OF RUNS COUNTERRER TO THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERN ME ABOUT THIS DECISION WAS THE COURT HAS A NUMBER OF OPTIONS THAT THEY COULD HAVE REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE LOWER COURTS.

THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN A DECISION WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO MAINE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THIS SORT OF FUNDING, PROVIDE IT TO THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS BUT REQUIRE THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO FOLLOW SOME SORT OF STANDARDS IN TERMS OF HOW THE INSTRUCTION IS PRESENTED, WHAT IS PRESENTED; YOU KNOW, ONE EXAMPLE, SOME SCHOOLS, IT MAY BE A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL BUT FROM 8 TO 2, IT'S A STANDARD CURRICULUM AND THEN FROM 2-3 IT'S THE RELIGIOUS SORT OF VERSION OF IT.

THOSE WHO ARE NOT INTERESTED, YOU GO ON HOME AND THOSE WHO ARE, YOU JUST STAY AND GET THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

SO THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS THAT THE COURT IS COULD HAVE FOLLOWED HERE AND THAT'S WHAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT THE DECISION.

IT WAS VERY CLEAR AS LUKE POINTED OUT, THAT THE COURT WAS TRYING TO OPEN ANOTHER WINDOW IN TERMS OF ALLOWING MORE ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND HAVING PUBLIC FUNDING PAY FOR IT.

>> WELL, DOES THIS WINDOW THAT'S BEEN OPENED NOW MEAN THAT STATES WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR RELIGIOUS CHARTER SCHOOLS?

ESSENTIALLY TURNING THE CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM INTO A VOUCHER PROGRAM?

>> AT LEAST IN MAINE, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT.

>> YEAH, I MEAN RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE 37 STATES WHO HAVE LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT PROHIBIT PROVIDING STATE FUNDING TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

SO THAT'S ALL BEEN TURNED UPSIDE DOWN.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION AND A LOT OF OTHER PUBLIC POLICY AREAS.

TO TARA'S POINT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY RULED ALONG THESE LINES IN A WAY THAT TRIES TO, AS THEY SEE IT, PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

THERE IS A CASE ON PLAYGROUNDS, THE STATE TRIED TO GIVE AID TO PLAYGROUNDS BUT DIDN'T GIVE IT TO THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

IT'S PART OF A LARGER PATTERN AND ONLY GOING TO EXPAND.

>> THERE IS A TENSION BETWEEN THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

IT SEEMS LIKE THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE NOW HAS THE UPPER HAND.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE ARE LIKELY TO SEE A GREATER SUPPORT FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ACROSS SOCIETY?

>> CLEARLY IF YOU LOOK AT COMPOSITION NOT ONLY OF THE SUPREME COURT, BUT OF STATE LEGISLATOR AS ROUND THE COUNTRY, I THINK THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY YES.

>> AND THE QUESTION I THINK IT WAS BRIAR WHO BREYER WHO SAID IT HAD THE POTENTIAL TO DISMANTLE SECULAR PUBLIC EDUCATION.

IS THAT OVERWROUGHT?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S OVERWROUGHT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S OVERBROUGHT.

MAYBE WE ARE NOT QUITE THAT FAR YET.

BUT I CERTAINLY THINK IF YOU COMBINE THIS TYPE OF DECISION WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE AN INCREASING NUMBER OF CONSERVATIVE FAMILIES, PARENTS, WHO, IF THEY CAN, WOULD PREFER TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

IF YOU COMBINE THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER, THEN, YES, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AN INCREASING NUMBER OF STUDENTS GOING TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS WHERE THEY'RE GETTING SOME SORT OF QUOTE UNQUOTE MORAL EDUCATION.

>> INTERESTING QUESTION WILL COME UP WHEN JUAN ONE OF THOSE SCHOOLS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL.

>> EXACTLY.

>> IN COUNTRY.

IF IT WERE AN ISLAMIC SCHOOL, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN BECAUSE BY THIS RULING, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED.

>> ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.

>> THE WORLD'S GOVERNING BODY FOR SWIMMING VOTED THIS WEEK TO BAN TRANSGENDER SWIMMERS FROM ELITE COMPETITIONS.

TRANSGENDER SWIMMERS MUST HAVE COMPLETED THEIR TRANSITION BY AGE 12 IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR TOP EVENTS INCLUDING THE OLYMPICS.

A RECENT POLL FOUND MOST AMERICANS OPPOSE ALLOWING TRANSGENDER FEMALES TO COMPETE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE SPORTS.

WHAT DOES THE PANEL THINK-SHOULD TRANSGENDER ATHLETES BE ALLOWED TO COMPETE IN THESE EVENTS?

>> IT DEPENDS ON THE SPORT.

IT DEPENDS ON NOW THE RULINGS HAVE DEALT WITH ELITE ATHLETES.

IT DEPENDS ON THE SPORT.

IT DEPENDS ON THE AGE.

FIRST AND FOREMOST WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NOT MANY STUDIES ON SORT OF PHYSICAL ABILITY AFTER TRANSITIONING.

SO A LOT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS BASED ON A SMALLER NUMBER OF STUDIES.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN FOUND IS THAT FOR THE TWO YEARS AFTER YOUR COMPLETE TRANSITION, IF YOU ARE TRANSITIONING FROM MALE TO FEMALE, AT LEAST THOSE TWO YEARS YOU DO MAINTAIN TESTOSTERONE WHICH GIVES YOU MORE STRENGTH, MAKES IT MORE LIKELY THAT YOU CAN COMPETE IN ENDURANCE SPORTS, ET CETERA.

AND SO IN THAT CASE, I DON'T THINK THAT TRANSGENDER ATHLETES SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMPETE IN SPORTS AND THIS FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS MORE ON MALES TRANSITIONING TO FEMALES, PROBABLY THE SPORT WHERE IT IS BEST KNOWN IS IN SWIMMING AND AQUATICS.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE SOME SPORTS WHERE IT MAY NOT MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE; FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TRANSITIONING FROM MALE TO FEMALE AND YOU WANTED TO BE A GYMNAST, THIS PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU.

SO I THINK IT REALLY DOES DEPEND ON THE SPORT.

IT DEPENDS ON THE AGE.

IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN, YOU KNOW, UP UNTIL PUBERTY, YOU KNOW, MUSCLE MASS PRETTY MUCH IS THE SAME SO IT REALLY SHOULDN'T MATTER.

THEN IT BECOMES MORE OF A COMFORT ISSUE, COMFORT ON THE PART OF PARENTS, COMFORT ON THE PART OF CHILDREN IN TERMS OF DRESSING UNDRESSING ET CETERA.

>> YOU MENTION CHILDREN AND SOME OF THE STATE LAWS HAVE BEEN BANNING K-12.

VERY FEW TRANSGENDER ATHLETES, YOU KNOW, ARE COMPETING AT THOSE LEVELS ANYWAY.

I THINK IN UTAH, OUT OF 80,000 ATHLETES, HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETES WERE THERE WERE FOUR.

SO IT SEEMS MORE THE COMFORT LEVEL YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT AT PLAY.

>> IT IS INTERESTING HERE BECAUSE WE ARE USING THE TERM TRANSGENDER BUT THEN WE ARE ADDING THIS IN TRANSITION BECAUSE ALL OF THE NCAA AND THE SWIMMING FEDERATION, CYCLING FEDERATION DO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY IDENTIFY WITH A DIFFERENT GENDER THAN THEY WERE BORN WITH.

THEY ALL REQUIRE THAT THERE BE AT LEAST MEDICAL TRANSITIONING.

AND SO THE QUESTION IS-- ACLU CAME OUT AND SAID WOMEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORTS AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF THESE DECISIONS.

BUT THEY HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE CASE-- DO THEY MEAN ANYONE THAT IDENTIFIES SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMPETE?

AS TARA MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE NCAA IS MESS USUALING-- MEASURING TESTOSTERONE LEVELS BECAUSE THERE IS A BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE.

WE GENERALLY DO NOT AGREE IN WITH DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF GENDER BUT WE HAVE CARVED OUT AN EXCEPTION AND THAT IS IN SPORTS.

AND SO I WOULD SAY YES, WE ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST TRANSGENDER ATHLETES FOR THE SAME REASON WE ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MALE ATHLETES AND NOT ALLOWING THEM TO COMPETE IN WOMEN SPORTS AND THAT'S TO PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

AND, AGAIN, UNTIL MORE STUDIES ARE DONE IN TERMS OF THE EFFECT OF LOWER TESTOSTERONE LEVELS OVER TIME, I THINK THAT I AGREE WITH TARA, THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ALLOWING TRANSGENDER ATHLETES TO COMPETE IN MANY... >> YOU SAID YOU THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE.

I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT THE REASON THAT WE'VE CARVED OUT THIS EXCEPTION FOR WOMEN'S SPORTS IS ON BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL GROUNDS THAT TRANSGENDER ATHLETES SHOULD NOT BE... >> THAT WOULD GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

>> HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE.

THE WORLD SWIMMING FEDERATION SAYS YOU HAVE TO COMPLETE YOUR TRANSITION BY 12 TO COMPETE AND NCAA SAYS A TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PROCESS AND THEN... >> ONE YEAR.

>> THERE IS A TIMING DIFFERENCE THERE AND CERTAINLY EXPECTING PEOPLE TO TRANSITION AS MINORS BY THE AGE OF 12 TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE AS ADULTS EXCLUDES A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS, I WOULD IMAGINE, TO BE TRANSGENDER AND MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND GO THROUGH THAT.

I CERTAINLY CONCEDE THERE IS LIKELY A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO SOMEONE TRANSITIONING FROM MALE BIOLOGICALLY TO A FEMALE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TORSO, MUSCLE MASS, HEART CAPACITY AND LUNG CAPACITY AND TESTOSTERONE.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS JUST A HUMAN COMPETITIVE ISSUE BUT HUMAN DIGNITY ISSUE.

IF A GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR SO LONG ARE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WANT TO COMPETE IN THE CLASSIFICATION THAT THEY IDENTIFY WITH, I WOULD RATHER FOLLOW THE LEAD OF PEOPLE LIKE OLYMPIAN DISTINGUISHED SWIMMER AT THE NCAA LEVEL WHO SAYS IT'S LESS IMPORTANT WHO WINS THE TROPHY AND MORE IMPORTANT TO CONFIRM HUMAN DIGNITY IN THIS CASE AND I WANT TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF PEOPLE LIKE THAT.

>> AND THE GOVERNOR OF UTAH, STEWART COX, I BELIEVE, WHO VETOED A LAW BANNING THIS, SAID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THAT.

HE SAID I ALWAYS TRY TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF KINDNESS, MERCY AND COMPASSION AND BECAUSE THERE IS A HEIGHTENED RISK OF ATTEMPTED SUICIDE AMONG THIS PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE... >> WOULD YOU ALLOW SOMEONE WHO IDENTIFIES BUT IS NOT TRANSITIONED OR NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING ANYMORE HONES?

>> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE UP THAT QUESTION ANOTHER TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET TO OUR AS AND F. LUKE.

>> MY F EXPRESSES SYMPATHY FOR THE EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS IN AFGHANISTAN.

OVER A THOUSAND PEOPLE DIED.

HUNDREDS OF HOMES WERE DESTROYED.

DOZENS OF VILLAGES WERE ELIMINATED OVERNIGHT WHILE PEOPLE SLEPT.

VERY TRAGIC.

>> TARA.

>> MY F GOES TO HARRY REED INSURANCE COMPANY IN MAINE.

ON YOUR SCREEN IS THE COMPANY'S IDEA OF A CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE AND TACTFUL JUNETEENTHY CLOSING SIGN.

WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN THIS COUNTRY BUT WE HAVE FAR TO GO.

>> AND RICK.

YOUR F. >> TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN TEXAS, WHICH PASSED RESOLUTIONS THIS WEEK CLAIMING THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN WASN'T LEGITIMATELY ELECTED, THAT HOMOSEXUALITY WAS AN ABSORM AL LIFE CHOICE, THE FEDERAL RESERVE SHOULD BE ABOLISH ISSUED AND TEXANS SHOULD VOTE TO DETERMINE WHETHER TEXAS SHOULD BECOME ABINDEPENDENT NATION.

MAYBE I COULD AGREE WITH THAT LAST.

>> LET'S GO TO AS.

LUKE.

>> MY A TO LIBERTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THEY WILL BE RENOVATING THE HISTORIC APARTMENTS IN UTICA WHICH WAS CLOSED DUE TO UNSAFE CONDITIONS EARLIER THIS YEAR.

>> AND TARA.

>> MY A GOES TO THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE AND THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES.

THE FLAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE COMPLETED A STUDY ON THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF OBESE PATIENTS AND THE LACK OF RESPECT AND TREATMENT THEY RECEIVE BECAUSE OF THE OBESITY.

FINDING THAT LESS THAN 1% OF THE DOCTORS HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO TREAT OBESE PATIENTS, THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES HAVE ISSUED NEW STANDARDS ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION AND THAT INCLUDES OBESITY.

>> AND RICK, YOUR A.

>> MELANCHOLY A TO MARK SHIELDS WHO DIED AT AGE 85.

MARK, A LIBERAL POLITICAL COMMENTATOR WAS A CONSTANT PRESENCE OVER THE LAST THREE DECADES ON SHOWS SUCH AS THE CAPITAL GANG INSIDE WASHINGTON, PBS NEWSHOUR, PASSIONATE, FUNNY, POINTED BUT CIVIL WAS HIS STYLE.

I'LL MISS HIS TAKE ON CURRENT POLITICS.

>> SPEAKING OF MARK SHIELDS AND YOUR A AND YOUR F THIS WEEK, RICK, WHAT ON EARTH WOULD MARK SHIELDS HAVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN-- THE TEXAS REPUBLICANS PLATFORM, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF SECESSION?

>> I THOUGHT WE HAD SOLVED THAT ISSUE OR ANSWERED THAT ISSUE.

I GUESS NOT.

I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE HEARD WHAT HE SAID ABOUT NAT.

>> THAT PLATFORM WAS PRETTY REMARKABLE AND ESPECIALLY, I KEEP COMING BACK TO SECESSION.

I MEAN THIS IDEA THAT, YEAH, WE SHOULD ALLOW STATES TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF THE UNION.

I THOUGHT ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND ULYSSES S. GRANT.

>> TEXAS IS NOT ALONG.

THERE ARE OTHER STATES WITH STRONG SECESSIONIST ROOTS.

>> SOMETHING ELSE WE WILL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT ON THIS PROGRAM.

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.