Margaret Huang : Fighting Hate and Protecting Democracy

Here's something remarkable and not in a good way. Disengaged employees cost US companies almost $1.9 trillion a year. That's a lot of zeros. Why? Because when teams lack the right skills, productivity declines, turnover increases and strategies stagnate. But it doesn't have to be that way. At Project Management Institute, home of the PMP and globally recognized certifications, your people can learn to collaborate, deliver on time and actually get things the cost of not upskilling way higher than the investment. Project Management Institute. Find the answers@pmi.org.

I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is remarkable, people. Thank you very much for listening. We're on a mission to make you remarkable. And today I'm very pleased to host Margaret Hwang. She is the president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Margaret is a longtime human rights and racial justice advocate. She leads the SPLC in its mission to foster racial justice, end white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance human rights. Before joining the SPLC, Margaret was Amnesty International USA's executive director. She led campaigns to protect migrants, refugees, torture survivors, gun violence victims and activists. Margaret led human rights missions to the U. S. Mexico border to advocate for asylum seekers and to document abuse. Her work includes accompanying transgender youth seeking asylum and leading observer delegations to monitor U.S. police responses to civil and human rights protests. Margaret brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the fight for justice. With a master's degree in international affairs from Columbia University and a bachelor's in foreign service from Georgetown University. I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is remarkable people. And now let's explore Margaret's remarkable journey from East Tennessee to the top of one of the most important organizations in the fight against injustice. How did your family end up in East Tennessee of all places?

It's a great question. What a good way to kick off. So my father actually was born in mainland China. His family fled to Taiwan in 1949 as part of the nationalist departure from China. They settled in Taiwan. They were very poor when they arrived, like all of the mainlanders who resettled in Taiwan. And then he chose to study chemistry because he understood that was the best way to get a visa to come to the United States to study. And so he came to East Tennessee to get his master's degree in chemistry.

Where?

Johnson City, Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains.

Did it not occur to him he could have gone to Stanford or, you.

Know, I really don't know all the details of why that place, but he had a friend who had a connection to the university, and for him it was just the chance to come and study in the U.S. he did his master's degree there, so two years there. And then he went to the University of Illinois at Champaign Urbana to do his PhD, where he met my mother, who was doing her PhD in mathematics. And after they finished at that university, they ended up being offered a teaching job back in East Tennessee. So that's how we landed there.

And how many Chinese people were in East Tennessee?

Very few. Very few, actually, in a nearby town. So I grew up in Johnson City in Kingsport. There was the Kodak Eastman plant, and they actually did recruit a number of Chinese to come work there. So I did grow up with Chinese school. You know about Chinese school?

You grew up with Chinese school in East Tennessee?

Yeah, the parents organized. They were the teachers. We learned calligraphy and Mandarin and sometimes if there was a really inspired parent, tai chi or something. Every Saturday afternoon, morning and afternoon for several years in middle school. It was pretty tough.

Yeah, you play mahjong, make dim songs.

We didn't do anything that fun. Yeah.

And in East Tennessee, how much Chinese history did you get?

None.

None?

None.

Zero.

Zero. In this public schools.

You mean none at the same time, how much black history did your classmates get?

None.

What was history? Columbus, the white guy, came over and saved this native Indians from peril, made them Christian and had Happy Thanksgiving.

Absolutely.

That's it.

Yeah. It was what you'd expect. Plus a lot of memorization and dates of wars. I seem to remember that was really important in history was to remember when people were fighting.

And if you studied World War II. Did anybody mention the Japanese being interned?

No.

So this is. No pun intended, but history was completely whitewashed.

Completely. In fact, do you know how I learned about the Japanese internment? I do.

I read your bio.

So, you know, so I moved to Washington for college. I went to the National History of America, National Museum for American History, and I visited the. The exhibit and I sat down in the museum and I cried because you'd never heard of that, Never heard of it before. And I couldn't believe that that had been left out of my history classes.

This is slightly bizarre, but I grew up in Hawaii and I swear to God, I learned about Japanese internment also in college. Because in Hawaii, even though it was one third Japanese American, there was very little internment in Hawaii. I think there was a couple hundred people. I get to Stanford and I meet these. A Japanese American from the mainland. There's a derogatory term called katonks. So I meet all these katons and they're all like, all pissed off because In World War II their family was injured. I don't know what the hell are you talking about, man? I'm from Hawaii, man. We own Hawaii. It was like. Oh, it was for different reasons. We both didn't get that part of World War II.

Exactly.

Oh, that's amazing. And did you experience racism as a kid?

Of course. We grew up as children of color in the United States. Has anyone ever said no to that question? What?

You were the slant eyed devil?

Yes. Ching Chong. Some other less. Less polite words. Yeah.

But then your. Your black schoolmates had it worse or.

The same, different and probably worse. And there were no Latinos in my school at the time.

There were what?

There were no Latinos in my school at the time. No, it was black, white, and a few of us Asian. That. That has changed over the years, but yeah.

Okay, now switching gears here. Can you just explain what the Southern Poverty Law center does?

Sure.

Because I'm fairly literate and I don't know what it does.

We are an organization that was founded in 1971 with a commitment to making the civil rights movement a reality. So not just the laws that were being passed in the 50s and 60s, not just the Supreme Court wins that. That promised a new kind of United States, but actually suing on behalf of people who were being denied equal opportunity, equal access, equal treatment under the law. Over time, that has evolved significantly. And that is because of what we learned along the way. Our initial cases were representing women who were suing for discriminatory pay or unequal access to jobs. We also sued on behalf of black families who were being denied access to the YMCA swimming pools. Or in some memorable cases, we represented women who were forcibly sterilized by our. By the federal government as being people who should not have children. So we did a lot of those cases, and as we went along, we kept running into the open and ongoing discrimination of white supremacist groups in the Deep south that were causing serious harm to black communities, black families. And in one terrible case, there was a young black man who was lynched by the kkk. And we decided to represent his mother in a civil suit against the kkk. And that decision and that win. We did win the case. They were forced to compensate the family, and they were then forced out of business. They had to give up all their property, all of their holdings as a chapter of the kkk, and they were put out of business.

What city is this?

This was in Alabama. I should remember the name of the city. And I'm sorry I don't.

And this is in the 70s.

This was in the early 80s. We were founded 71. So the beginning of the next decade, we took this case on, and it really changed. We became experts on the topic of extremism, on white supremacy, and on putting those people out of business.

And if I were to go visit your office, is it just basically a bunch of lawyers and administrators?

It would have been then. If you'd visited our offices in the 80s, that's what it would look like. But as I said, over the last few decades, we've evolved. So first we developed research and analysis capacity. So we were studying, who are these groups and where do they come from, and what are their ways of operating, and where does their funding come from in a sociological sense and a political sense? We've provided a lot of information over the years to law enforcement about groups who are planning bad acts. We at different points have collaborated with law enforcement. We don't do that anymore, but that has been part of our history. We also then developed an entire educational arm. And this is where your questions about education are so important. What we saw is that when children don't learn about our true history, they're much more inclined to repeat it or to not see the risks and the dangers of what's surrounding them because they don't recognize apparel.

And is that learning a language in the sense that if you don't get them by 10 years old, it's too late or something?

I think you can reach them at different ages, but I think you also can't avoid it in early ages. And so we now have curriculum experts and training specialists who offer professional development to teachers and schools across the country on how to teach about the civil Rights movement, how to teach about slavery and genocide, how to teach about some of the difficult periods of our life in the United States, and how to make sure that all students feel welcomed and included in the classroom. And that is a huge part of our work.

And these people doing research, are they just poring over books and data, or are they like Leonardo DiCaprio and they're out there in a field tapping heat? Like, what? Is there going to be a movie, splc, CIS or something?

Definitely not. No movie, but when we started, it was a lot of human intelligence. So it was actually going and studying the groups in person, sometimes infiltrating, collecting information that way.

When you say infiltrating, you mean into the Ku Klux Klan?

Yes.

SPLC members are, like, wearing the sheets and being spies.

I'm not going to comment on all the ways that that was done. But just to say that that was the best way of getting information at earlier times, that is no longer the case. These groups aren't meeting in person and these groups aren't doing the activities the way that they always have. Now all of it has moved online. And so in order for us to track what's happening, we have to use online open source and other sources of intelligence.

Understand that it's worse in the sense that obviously digital communication is instant and free and far reaching and all that, but it's also more easily monitored, right?

Yeah, but you know this. There are hundreds, thousands of platforms out there that have no restrictions or rules about the kind of content you can post. And it can be very challenging identifying and tracking all of those. But that's what our researchers do today.

So every once in a while I read that such and such organization has been labeled a hate group. What does that mean when you guys label something a hate group?

So we have a definition. You can find it on our website. It is a group that actually designates a community of people either by the words of their leaders, by their official statements, or by the association, the activities that they do around those groups that malign or attack a group of people based on their immutable characteristics. So forms of identity, race, gender, religion, immigration status, a whole host of things. And that's a hate group. We also track anti government extremist groups, which is, which can be different. So sometimes they share some of that ideological hatred of groups, but sometimes they really just want to overthrow a government.

Walk me through the mechanisms. Okay, every Monday we meet at 8 and this Monday we're going to decide on Q and A. How do you say we're declaring you a hate group?

So in our annual Year in Hate report, we start the Slate clean in January. So even if you've been on a report in the past, it doesn't mean that you're continued automatically. And we spend that year, everybody, everybody, everybody's wiped clean in January. And we start the year by monitoring. What are groups across the country saying, doing? What are their leaders saying? How are they using their platforms to talk about other communities? And if we see evidence, then you can be added to the hate list. But it's not an automatic. We've had groups that have been on the hate list one year and then they're not the next year because they no longer embrace that ideology or because they've become defunct.

But I'm really interested in the tactics. Is there like a person who stands up at a meeting and says, okay, is why I think this should be designated a hate group. And there's a demo that get work against. They're like, how's the decision made? You poll your members? I mean, what?

No, not at all. It's data based. It's a rigorous analysis by trained researchers and data folks. And they're looking at a whole range of things. It's. It can't just be that you stood up at a meeting and said something. That's not the way to designate. It has to be a track record. You have to be publishing things that malign a group of people. You have to have your leader go out and criticize a group of people. Maybe you're involved in things like flyering where you're dropping off pamphlets in a neighborhood criticizing a group of people. Those are all activities that will get you listed. But not one person affiliated loosely with somebody who stands up in a meeting and says something.

I meant someone on your staff says, no, no, no.

And we have, you know, researchers who backstop one another. So when one person comes and says, I've been researching this group, I think they might need to go on the list. There are other researchers who then go back and check all of the facts and determine whether that designation is appropriate.

Okay, so let's say this group makes this hate list. What's the impact on that group?

It really varies. I don't think the Ku Klux Klan ever minded that they were on our list. Some groups consider it a badge of honor. Other groups very much resent the designation. We do get sued on a somewhat frequent basis, I would say, by groups who do not appreciate the designation and want to have it removed. But the other thing to remember is this is the opinion of the splc. We ground it in data and analysis. We don't think it's frivolous in any way. And we're ready to stand by our research. But it's our opinion. Just like you can have an opinion about the Southern Poverty Law center if we think that you're a hater. Extremist groups, we actually are allowed under the Constitution to say every year it resets.

And so in one month, QAnon might not be, Moms for Liberty might not be, or they might be, or who knows?

Or their actions could change their activities, their leaders could change. And the way they talk about things. It would be really unusual to see that degree of change. In our experience, that doesn't happen often, but we create the opportunity. Every January we start again, and that's the Thing about the year in hate report. It's a snapshot of the year that we're reporting on. For example, the year 2023. Our new report will come out in March and it will cover who was actively engaged in hateful or anti government activity in 2023. It's not who's doing it in 2024. That will be the next year.

Is there someplace that even you would not go? Not you use DLC. Take an extreme example. March 2024. You guys say the Republican Party is a hate group. The qualities you listed seems to me that it's based on race. It's based like the qualities. You could check the box for the gop.

It's not necessarily the case. We haven't typically watched political parties for that.

You have not?

No. And remember, we're. We only look in the United States. We're not designating groups outside of the United States. We have identified individual candidates running for political office.

Yeah.

As extremist candidates. And that is something that the SPLC Action Fund does. That's our C4.

So there's a bad boys list and that comes out once a year or.

It'S come out around election times every year. And we haven't been doing it that long. Our C4 has only been around for six years. Some names you might recognize, but there are also some folks who are running for local or state office who might not be familiar. But you can find those on our website as well.

Just throw a name out now.

Sure. So Marjorie Taylor Greene's made it on the list. This is not a surprise. No. Yeah, there are a few others. We actually just recently uncovered that Congresswoman Greene has a white nationalist working for her who has formal affiliations with extremist organizations. I think that he no longer now works there.

What's the trend line though? Because it's hard to judge from reading media. It is worse.

It is worse in some ways. So let me explain. There has always been hate and extremism in this country since before it was founded. And the organization of that hate and extremism has never been as open, as coordinated, as well funded and as tied to political leaders as it is now. These groups have traditionally been more on the extremes. Now, of course, in the Deep south during Jim Crow, there were political leaders, law enforcement leaders who were part of the kkk. So that's. That's familiar.

The George Wallace days.

But we haven't seen that since the end of Jim Crow. Right. Like that was.

We're getting close.

And that what I'm trying To say is it's a return. So it's not new. We've seen it before. But we are going back to a moment where it is inextricably tied to people in power and seeking to return to power in ways that we have not seen for decades.

And do you see this as a last gasp, desperate play for survival and the trend is not their friend, or this is just how it's going to be forever, or is it?

It's not inevitable? No, it's not. The key here is that this is coming as part of a backlash. They're recognizing the changes that are happening in the country demographically, the values and morals of the younger generations who are growing up and coming into power. They are not aligned with this way of thinking. And so it is a bit of a last gas. But only if we stay organized and aware and push back. If we don't turn out in record numbers to reject this in 2024, we may lose the opportunity to have our democracy push back because our opponents have been very clear that they're going to take away all of the powers of participatory democracy. This will become much more of an autocracy of a fascist state. And that is when we are really in trouble because we, we won't be able to organize at that stage.

It would be very difficult to dig yourself out of that hole.

Very difficult. Not impossible, but it will be much more difficult and likely much more violent. They're suppressing the vote now, Guy. If you look at the states where the Southern Poverty Law center has offices, work, staff, we are seeing hundreds of of bills to suppress the vote in each of our states every year. They're going after people of color, they're going after people with disabilities, they're going after women, they're going after young people, they're going after senior folks. There is not a constituency that they haven't identified ways to suppress their vote. And the more that we let them do that, who will be voting in the end? That's when we lose our power.

Call me naive or stupid, but how can you believe that it's going to be a winning strategy in the long.

Run for some of them? I don't think they care about the long run. If they did, we wouldn't be seeing the crisis in climate issues. Right. Really only thinking about themselves at this moment. Maybe their kids, probably. So I don't think these are people who care about the long term. I think they're people who are in it for their own benefit right now. I think for the rest of us who are worried about the future, who have to think about what happens next, it's a very different calculation.

And how do you think they came to have this kind of mentality?

I think people like having power. I think once they've had it, they're unwilling to share or give it up.

This is a depressing interview.

I don't mean it to be because I'm not actually demoralized by this. If anything, I feel strongly motivated. And I'll tell you, we see stories all the time. Even in the Deep south, where some of these challenges are the biggest. I think there are communities that are organizing and fighting back. The organization that happened in Georgia over the last decade, Stacey Abrams. Stacey Abrams movement and the movement of so many other strong black women who led the organizing effort in Georgia has transformed the way that people in that state feel about their relationship to government and the accountability that they expect elected officials to have. Is it sustainable? We've got to keep working on that. But they've shown us how to do it. And we are trying to replicate that incredible model across all of our states in the south to really build strong leadership, strong communities who understand what their priorities are and what they're going to stand for.

I interviewed Stacy for this, which took me two years of groveling to get there, but it was worth it. Funny, it's a coincidence, but I asked her for a blurb for my book today. I'm such a dumbass, though. I sent the wrong attachment, so she sent back an email. It's just, where's the game? So anyway, she's a powerhouse.

She is. She has a vision. She has a vision for what people led democracy should be.

Now, you were also Amnesty International.

That's right.

Another organization I think very few people understand. So what does Amnesty International do?

Amnesty is actually a movement for human rights. It is member organized and driven. It is international in scope. And the theory is that by individual people paying attention, taking action on behalf of human rights defenders, that we can make change happen, that we can hold autocrats and dictators to account. The original founder of Amnesty International was somebody who wrote a letter to a newspaper about some political prisoners in Portugal. He was in the UK and after he wrote his letter, other people around the world started sending in letters. And ultimately the prison officials decided to release those detainees rather than continue to have the scrutiny and attention from the international community. It's premised on a few things. It's premised on the idea that individual actions matter. It's premised on the idea that you can shame government officials into changing their behavior. It's premised on the idea that the international community can work coherently and coordinating their efforts to push for human rights. All of those are premises that have certainly been challenged in the last few years. But it's a powerful, powerful message when people from around the world are all demanding the release of a prisoner or the change in policy that's harming a particular group of people.

Now, to get really tactical at the US Mexico border.

Right.

What does Amnesty mean? I mean, is Amnesty a certain kind of person trying to get into America, or is it just people trying to find a better economic situation for the family? What divides the Amnesty group from the other group?

Sometimes Amnesty advocates on behalf of asylum seekers and refugees, but that's not where the name came from.

So it's fundamentally trying to reverse false imprisonment.

Amnesty. Yes. Amnesty really believed that people were being arrested and detained because of political belief or because of identity. And the idea of Amnesty was to seek their release, to seek amnesty on behalf of those prisoners.

But it's only political. It's not someone wrongly accused of murder.

Over the years, it's evolved quite a bit. And now it's not even necessarily about people who are being detained. Now Amnesty campaigns on behalf of, for example, women human rights defenders in Iran who may or may not have been arrested, but who are being mistreated, maligned by political leadership. So they. They're campaigning on a whole host of issues, not just those who are being detained.

Okay, I keep forgetting to ask you this, but, like, how is it that a Chinese American from East Tennessee is running the Southern Poverty Law Center? You're not exactly mine.

No, I'm not. Of course, they've never had a black leader. Southern Poverty Law firm no. So I'm only the third president and CEO of the splc, and the first two were white men.

And is that just an interesting factoid, or is there, like, some deeper meaning to draw from that?

I think it's an interesting factoid, but what I will say is this. The person who leads the SPLC has to have a fundamental belief in the priority of serving black communities of the south, which I do. Why? Because I truly believe that none of us will be free and able to exercise all of our rights until we prioritize the equality and the equal treatment of African American communities in the South.

So we're only as good as our weakest link.

African American communities have always suffered, and in fairness, so have indigenous communities in this country. And until we prioritize those communities, the rest of us are competing for breadcrumbs. It doesn't do me any good to worry about the treatment of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders if I'm not willing to put it all on the line for African American communities or indigenous populations. It has to be in all of us and in the south, particularly because of the legacy of slavery, because of the legacy of Jim Crow. It has to be a priority for my organization. I may be the leader, but my organization is deeply committed to prioritizing black communities in the south for everything we can do to ensure they can exercise all of their rights moving forward. Focusing on the south, well, that was easy because I grew up in Tennessee. That knowledge of the south, that awareness of the history, that being in community in the south really helps when confronted by the realities of the day to day lives of my neighbors and fellow residents.

What's your reaction when you hear politicians say something so stupid? You know, slavery helped teach black people new skills. Like how do you wrap your mind around someone saying something like that?

I actually not sure that person even believes it. I think that person is merely trying to make a political point. And if they do believe it, I feel really sorry for them. I think we're in a real battle at the moment. We have a battle of worldviews, of people who think that it is only by hiding the worst parts of our history and pretending that they weren't bad that we can be a society comfortable with one another. And then those of us who recognize that will never happen unless we reckon with the past and we make amends to those that we owe.

In that sense, do you view Germany dealing with its Nazi past? When you go to Germany, there's that place where there's all those blocks. That's Berlin, right?

Yeah.

So there's that. It's not like they're hiding anything. No, this is the wall and this is. There's a lot of Nazi stuff there and it's not hidden. You think Germany is reconciling with its past better than we are?

I think they're a model in seeking to address the past. Do they get it all right? No. And there are still a lot of extremists in Germany. So it's not like you can end the problem. But the distinctions are really important. Guy in Germany, they teach the history of the Nazis in school. When you grow up in Germany that your neighbors, your family participated in that process, you're not exempt from that history. It is part of your history as a German. And they have museums and they're openly acknowledging that history and the concentration camps are open for tour groups and school groups and others to go learn. It is a deep commitment to both honoring and refusing to look away from the past. And we have nothing like that. If you look at our home state of Alabama for the Southern Poverty Law center, that's where we're headquartered. The state legislature of Alabama funds only one museum in the entire state, and it's a museum to the Confederacy. There is a statue on the grounds of the state legislature in Alabama to the man who liked to call himself the father of gynecology, J. Marion Sims. And the way he developed his tools and his procedures as a gynecologist was by operating on enslaved women without anesthesia. And there's a statue to this man on the grounds of the Alabama state legislature. This is a society that refuses to acknowledge past harms, never mind seek to make amends or apologize for the past. And in that context, it's not a surprise that they don't want the younger generation to know about those terrible things. They want to pretend that everything has been fine. Young people are not fooled by this.

Well, how come Germany has that attitude and we have this attitude, like, what happened?

I'm sorry to say, it's not just the United States. There are many other societies that don't do it. Japan is one. Italy is one. Austria is one. They do not teach about their honest history in the conduct of World War II or any other wars for that matter. So it's not unique to the United States that we are unwilling to look at our past in that way. But there's something very compelling about Germany's model. And as I said, if. If we just started with the premise that it is our obligation to look at our history and to reckon with it, we are not going to get it all right. There are going to be times when we make a mistake and don't acknowledge something or miss a community who was, in fact, harmed in the past. But by seeking to do it, we actually invite a very different world and a very different democracy as we move forward.

Are we doing irreparable harm by not teaching this history?

I believe so. And our educational materials seek to make that point. We want teachers and schools and communities to understand that it is only when you recognize the problem and the history that you're able to make it better and to move past it.

What's education's role in this? What are the tools you have or we have at our disposal?

So the Sudden Poverty Law center has an educational initiative called Learning for Justice. We Produce curriculum, teacher's guides, articles and resources for children. For communities who care about learning about our civil rights history and our inclusive history, we have curricula on a whole host of issues. So if you're a teacher who wants to know, how do I talk about the genocide of indigenous peoples in the United States, we have materials that can help you. If you're a teacher who has students of diverse backgrounds in your classroom and you want to teach about the history of immigration, good and bad, in US History, we have resources for you on how to talk about that and offer an inclusive way to make everyone in the classroom feel represented and heard. So that's our goal, is to give teachers, schools, and communities the tools they need so that they're not concerned about how to handle those questions that come up from young people.

But wouldn't a teacher from Florida or Texas be in deep shit if they used any of those materials?

Sometimes depends on the district. We do have teachers from both of those states and from many, many other states. Most states in the country, we have folks on our mailing list, teachers who come through our training and professional development. And we have teachers who teach, for example, African American history in Florida who've come through our programs. So they're there. And the question is, wherever they are, are they allowed to teach what they want? Not everybody can.

And do you think that's getting worse?

Yes, there's no question. We're actually suing on behalf of a teacher who was fired in Georgia for reading a book called My Shadow is Purple. The book is about a young person who talks about how their father has a blue shadow, their mother has a pink shadow, and their shadow is purple. And the idea is that everyone might have a different identity and way of seeing the world or wanting to be seen in the world, and that that's welcome.

And you get fired for that.

She was fired for reading the book to her class. The class chose the book out of a book fair and asked her to read it to them. She did, and she was fired. So we're now representing her in a lawsuit and against. Okay, Mommy.

So kid went home and said, mommy, we read a story where people have different colors or, I don't know, whatever. And mommy or daddy went crazy and called the school board and called the school.

School wanted the school to fire the teacher. Raised a big ruckus. The school did fire the teacher. The teacher appealed that decision to the school board, and the school board ruled that she had to be fired. So we're now suing on her behalf. Yes, it's getting worse, Guy. This is why we listed a number of groups on our extremist list last year. We call them the Anti Student Inclusion groups. And they're people who don't want books about LGBTQ characters, books about people who see the world differently or have different identities, books about somebody with parents who are the same sex, the book about the two male penguins in the New York City Zoo who raised a baby penguin. They're all offended by these books. Groups like Moms for Liberty, and so they're organizing to remove those books from libraries. And the truth is, I didn't have books like that when I was growing up. And many people that I grew up with probably would have felt so much more welcomed and included in our classroom if they felt that they could see themselves in books that were available. Over the years, we've seen such a beautiful explosion of themes and identities shared in children's books that really make children feel seen and heard in ways that I could only dream of in my little East Tennessee public school. I think it's incredible and a huge gift. And the notion of banning those books is truly bizarre. It's strange that parents think that you would read a book and that would change who you are. I think reading a book helps you understand who you are, and that is a gift for any of us. It's a huge challenge for us to not let parents attack people's identities in ways that are harmful.

Do you think these people have even read those books?

I think they have. I think they're children's books, so they're pretty easy to review. But I also believe, Guy, very strongly, that ultimately these folks are not actually doing any of this because of books. I think these are people who want to destroy public education.

Why?

Because they see it as the cornerstone of our democracy. Because people who are educated participate in democracy because they expect things from their elected officials, because they vote based on their knowledge and understanding of things. And that's not what these people want.

But what I don't understand about this thinking is, like, what's the end game? We're going to do this to the educational system, and then our kids will be better off for it. I just shake my head. I do not understand what the end game here is.

The people who are pushing this agenda are the same people who've been trying to remove public funding from public schools. They're the ones fighting for vouchers to be used for private and parochial schools. The more you defund public schools, the less capacity those schools have to serve those with the least. We've been seeing that onslaught for decades now. This is the next level where not only are they attacking funding, which is already a huge problem, but they're now trying to prevent these schools from actually offering quality education to young people. So it's part of a larger strategy and this is all being funded by the same people who fund the voucher systems and who fund the parochial and private schools.

So somebody listening to this and they agree, what do they do?

They should definitely check out our website.

Okay.

Learn more. The website is splcenter.org okay. There's lots to learn. There's different ways to get involved. We always welcome donations. But even more importantly, we need partners and people who want to do this work with us. Maybe that means sharing our curricula and resources with educators or community members who they know might be interested. Maybe it's talking about the concerns about voter suppression with their elected officials. Maybe it's participating in get out the vote drives in their local community. There are many ways for people to get involved. We want to champion the institutions of democracy that protect all of us with the rule of law. And we're going to have our hands full. But we have them pretty full now. So we just need to figure out the best ways to organize, to mobilize and to bring people together. Because none of us can do this individually, organizationally. We need all of us participating to win this.

Well, you, you could build the case that unintended consequence, for example of gerrymandering and voter suppression, you think you've solved the problem by suppressing votes, but you've exacerbated the problem because there's, I don't know, there's no one, but very few Gen Z are going to say, yeah, let's suppress votes. That's a good thing.

Right?

So you just wiped out one generation there. Yeah, just, just on this pure market. Don't understand logic here. The demographics and trend is not your friend. And instead of gerrymandering and suppressing votes, why don't you just do what's right for people? Maybe you'll get re elected that way.

Right.

What am I missing?

It defies logic.

Two last questions.

Sure.

You've mentioned democracy several times and one of the arguments that just makes my hand explode is whenever you get into an argument with some people about preserving democracy and all that and they come back with, you know, that the American system is not a democracy, it's a republic and re elected officials and not necessarily majority rules and blah blah blah, it's as if when they say that, that bit of sophistry, it means, oh, it's okay to gerrymander as oppressed votes because we're not a democracy or republic, what should I say when somebody says that?

To me, there's a famous line that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form. And I actually think that's the right line. It's not that democracy is perfect. Certainly a republic has different angles than a pure democracy. But democracy can really help a society to make better decisions. You pool the talents and expertise and ideas and commitments of an entire community of people to make the best decisions you can. And you can make mistakes, but you can learn from those mistakes and get better. And when I look at American history, that's what I see. I see plenty of mistakes. Don't get me wrong, it has not been a great form of government, except that no other form has been better. We take democracy to be the best chance we have of ensuring that we all feel a state in the outcome. And that's why it's so important to me. It's why it's so important to the Southern Poverty Law Center. For a long time, communities of color in the Deep south have not been part of the democracy. They were intentionally excluded in the past. They now. They're now facing a whole host of obstacles seeking to suppress their vote and participation. But they also championed and led a movement to win the vote for their communities that has inspired progressive movements around the world. Everywhere I have traveled around the world, people have talked about the civil rights movement of the US as something that fundamentally gave them hope that they could be part of making change happen. So I believe that. I believe that the south can demonstrate how we bring that change about.

I used to make a lot of money with speeches, and now I will not speak in the state of Texas and Florida, just to be transparent. I am going to Southwest. Southwest, but I don't consider Austin part of Texas.

Okay, they probably don't either.

So, okay, I just decline something in Florida, I think all the time because I don't want to support in any way, manner or form Florida. Whether it's my intel. What I'm asking you is, Guy, a better attitude would be you go with Florida and you show them there is a better way. So instead of boycotting Florida, you should go and educate Florida. So you should accept those speeches and go be a little bit of light. I'm asking you, what's your advice? Should I decline Florida and make a statement or should I go there and try to be part of the solution, not the problem.

It's a fair question because we have offices and staff in Florida, too. And we've had internal discussions about whether our presence contributes in ways that are unintended to supporting or enabling the government that is doing so much harm. But I will tell you that there are extraordinary organizations in Florida who are not giving up, who are fighting hard for their communities to be heard, to be represented, to have a voice. And I think they're going to win. They have young people, they have a diverse constituency that is truly outraged and ready to fight. And I feel an obligation to stand alongside and support. And so that's the question. Can your presence help lift up that effort? I think you can look at each request to you individually and say, is this gonna give me an opportunity to speak to people who need to hear my message about what's important? Is this gonna give me a chance to connect with people in Florida who are fighting that. That good fight and lift up their work? If it is, I should go.

Okay.

And if it isn't, I'm happy to decline. It's not.

It's the NRA asking me to come to Florida. Just to be clear.

That's good. That's good.

So I may have to go to Florida.

You don't have to, but it is worth asking because there are people who will welcome your support and desperately need it on the ground.

I guess I'll be accepting more speaking engagements in Florida, per the advice of Margaret Hwang. She's the remarkable person who runs the Southern Poverty Law Center. I hope you enjoyed this interview. I hope it gives you hope about the future of our country. I'm Guy Kawasaki. This is Remarkable People. The Remarkable People team is Shannon Hernandez and Jeff C. Tessa and Madison Knysmer, Louise McGanna, Alexis Nishimura and Fallon Yates. And don't forget, Madison and I have a new book out. It's called Think Remarkable. And if you want 88 methods to make a difference and change the world and make the world a better place, please read Think Remarkable. Mahalo and aloha. This is Remarkable People.