#robert tsai

[camyfilms]

SCHOOL OF ROCK 2003

God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. We are your humble servants. Please give us the power to blow people's minds with our high voltage rock. In your name, we pray. Amen.

[rock-ette]

School of Rock (2003) Rare Cast Interviews

[moviemosaics]

School of Rock

directed by Richard Linklater, 2003

[pennyroyal-teas]

School of Rock (2003)

365 Movie Challenge

136/365

[infinitemovielist]

[mercerislandbooks]

A Mighty Fine Aspiration: An Interview with Robert L. Tsai

Robert L. Tsai, a Professor of Law at American University, graciously took the time last week to answer questions regarding his new book Practical Equality. Between his busy schedule of TV appearances and book talks, I am grateful for the kindness he showed in answering my questions. Before we get to those, I want to tell you a bit about how reading his book made me feel.

Since graduating from college, I have been burying my head in fiction like an ostrich, giving my brain a rest from brain-stretching academia. Reading Practical Equality reminded me not only how much I love to learn but also how important understanding your country’s legal system is. I had so many “so that’s why this happens!” or “so that’s what that was all about!” moments while reading his book.

Boxing key concepts in the introduction

With a pen in hand, I annotated the first half of the book to track my reactions, important passages I wanted to return to, or questions I had about the material. I remembered that note-taking skills were life skills. Needless to say, I had fun being a student again. The reading experience was enlightening and incredible.

Practical Equality goes over court cases aimed at equality, and how historically  arguments alternative to equality have won civil and human rights cases. As Tsai said in one of his answers, “That’s a mighty fine aspiration, but in reality it’s a very hard promise to keep.” No matter what side of the political line you fall on, Tsai tries to appeal towards all readers dissatisfied with the status of social politics through facts and circumstances.

The most exciting aspect about this book is its scope: while he shares aspirations of a truly equal society, he integrates historical, social, and political contexts into his accounts of various court cases or social issues. He doesn’t shy away from hard-to-swallow pills, but he doesn’t cast anyone as a villain. His easygoing yet knowledgeable tone taught me more about myself through my reactions to the facts.

I found his insight invaluable, hence the hefty set of interview questions below...

Island Books: You use the word egalitarian frequently throughout the book. What does an egalitarian society look like to you? How far are we in America from that ideal?

Robert Tsai: For me personally, an egalitarian society is one that takes seriously the promise that each person living in that society is worthy of being treated with respect. That’s a mighty fine aspiration, but in reality it’s a very hard promise to keep. Some think that all we need to care about is political equality: a handful of rights that are closely associated with citizenship like the vote. Others think that we only need to care about equality among citizens but can mistreat non-citizens whose labor we extract to maintain the American lifestyle. I believe in a certain amount of reciprocity, so even non-citizens who contribute to our society deserve to be treated with respect. I also think that people who commit crimes don’t give up their basic humanity, and, while they are in prison, and especially when they’ve done their time, certain kinds of conditions shouldn’t follow them forever. In my book I spend some time thinking about felon disenfranchisement, which is an abomination in a democratic society like ours.

"The key is the social meaning of an act, not merely how the action is intended but also how it is received.” - Tsai on discriminatory laws.

IB: While you show that there is a way to communicate between conservative and liberal political agents without talking about social morals, you make clear which side of the moral and political argument you fall. Have you received political, social, or general backlash for your book?

RT: I haven’t yet received any backlash for anything I’ve written about the book, but I expect that not everyone will agree with what I have to say! I do hope they give the book a try, though, since I wrote it with an eye toward appealing to a broad cross-section of readers who might not always agree with where we are in terms of social progress. I think that’s a broader lesson when it comes to struggles over equality. We do have to take sides, and that will naturally cause social friction. Sometimes, though, we can shift our arguments slightly and find a more receptive audience. And history has shown that you can’t expect to get everyone on your side, but you do need to convince a handful of people to come your way, especially those in power, if you want to help the most vulnerable in society.

IB: In Practical Equality, you utilize terms such as “fair play," “reason,” etc... in place of the word “equality” to persuade judges to see your argument for equality. Why do you think it is difficult for people to understand that “equality” and “fair play” are one in the same? Do you think that eventually judges will catch on to this as a tactic for helping them understand the importance of equality? If so, do you expect backlash or open arms?

RT: A lot of the alternative arguments I talk about in the book already share some commonalities with the traditional idea of equality. They’re also all deeply rooted ideas in our political and legal culture. But each of them has a slightly different structure and appeals to progressive and conservatives a bit differently. It’s not that these arguments lack morality, but they might emphasize a different kind of morality (for instance, fairness arguments stress procedural morality). One thing I want to point out is that although many of the historical examples in the book are in the courts, a number of my examples are out-of-court battles over equality. And my broader argument is that these arguments can be made to judges, but also to other people who have outsized influence over our lives: principals, teachers, mayors, city council members, legislators, governors. The point I try to make is that you have to build coalitions if you want to get anything done about inequality, but they don’t always have to be massive endeavors. On a three-judge panel, you have to get one judge to slide over and join a progressive judge (if there is one). On today’s very conservative U.S. Supreme Court, you need to convince Chief Justice Roberts, who is already an institutional and social conservative, to join the liberals. At the state level, you might need only convince an attorney general or governor about the righteousness of your cause and, say in the criminal context, a great deal of inequality could be ameliorated that way.

The location of the final say on many of the cases Tsai discusses in his book.

IB: When I first started your book, I wondered if pursuing these other arguments for the sake of justice would be putting aside the work of equality. Though we were still holding to its message, the idea of equality and the moral ground would be left out of the media and the judges’ responses. Many people feel as though the system of justice is not successful unless the offenders are told that they were wrong. How would respond to someone who argued that your book was not doing the moral work of equality?

RT: I try to make clear that accepting my argument about how to do practical equality doesn’t mean giving up one’s closely held moral views about who deserves equality. It doesn’t mean that we should stop arguing, for instance, that people who don’t look like us deserve to be treated like full moral beings like the rest of us. It just means that you need to recognize that conflicts will arise, and that you can’t convince everyone, or even most people, to adopt your moral view of things. I say that we should look into alternative arguments as backups, so we can reduce the suffering of vulnerable segments of society whenever we can, while we continue to have our important moral arguments.

IB: What do you see as the most common method from your book for dealing with justice?

RT: At the moment, arguments about fairness and avoiding cruelty are capable of doing tremendous work. And as I say, sometimes these arguments can help reduce existing inequities even though we aren’t talking about equality in a full-throated sense. These ideas overlap with equality and can have broad appeal even when people disagree over who deserves to be treated equally. Right now, we are going through a trying time as refugees and visitors from Hispanic and Muslim countries are being treated unequally by the Trump administration. We might not all agree in a deep sense that foreigners should be treated exactly the same as U.S. citizens, but many of us think that these populations should be treated fairly, and that abusive conditions must be avoided. The administration is dealing with different migrants and refugees differently, it has separated migrant children from parents, and even plans to speed up asylum applications and deportations. These arguments can do some good in reducing disparities in how people are treated.

To learn more about Robert L. Tsai and his research, join us Friday, March 8th at 6:00pm for a Mercer Island Democratic Association. He will discuss his book and have a Q&A session about the his research and the current state of affairs in America and the world.

-Kelleen

[usnatarchives]

America’s Forgotten Constitutions: Defiant Visions of Power and Community

The U.S. Constitution opens by proclaiming the sovereignty of all citizens: “We the People.” Robert Tsai will discuss the history of alternative constitutions and those who refused to accept the Constitution’s definition of who “the people” are and how their authority should be exercised. A book signing will follow the program.

Thursday, September 18, at noon in the William G. McGowan Theater. 

The discussion will be streamed live on YouTube

[ut-terlyclue-less]

Kids from School of Rock, Then and Now