Top of Mind with Julie Rose

There are more than 100,000 people on the waitlist for an organ transplant. Every day 17 of them die. Most organs for transplant come from deceased donors. But the organs in highest demand for transplantation are kidneys and livers – both of which can be donated while a person is still alive. So, we could save thousands of lives each year if more people were willing make a living organ donation. Some advocates say giving donors money would increase organ donations enough to eliminate the entire waitlist. But federal law makes it illegal to buy or sell organs. Ethicists have real concerns about coercion and exploitation, too. In this podcast episode, we're exploring America's organ shortage and asking whether paying donors could close the gap.

Guests:

David Galbenski, liver transplant recipient and co-founder of the Living Liver Foundation (https://livingliver.org/)

Elaine Perlman, kidney donor, Executive Director of Waitlist Zero and leading advocate for the End Kidney Deaths Act (http://waitlistzero.org/)

Kathleen McLaughlin, journalist and author of Blood Money; The Story of Life, Death, and Profit Inside America's Blood Industry

Al Roth, Nobel-prize winning economist, Stanford University, expert in market design and game theory (https://marketdesigner.blogspot.com/)

Meet the teams behind Top of Mind and Uncomfy in this special crossover episode, where we share stories of sticking with a challenging perspective while working on the shows. We are exposed to a lot of nuanced viewpoints as we put podcast episodes together, which gives us the perfect opportunity to practice what we preach: choosing to lean into discomfort instead of lashing out or shying away. We’ve found clarity about our own beliefs, empathy for the people around us, and also developed the skills to tackle tough conversations. Tune in to Top of Mind to practice engaging with important, complicated topics. Check out Uncomfy, too, where we’re sharing stories of people choosing to engage in an uncomfortable moment instead of stepping back. And if you’ve had an “Uncomfy” experience lately, share it with us by emailing [email protected].

Guests:

Top of Mind producers - Alayna Beck, Caleb Leach, Vanessa Goodman, and James Hoopes.

Uncomfy producers - Samuel Benson and Henrique Prado.

Find links to the podcast episodes referenced in this conversation below:

What Does it Mean to Be White in America?: https://www.byuradio.org/top-of-mind-what-does-it-mean-to-be-white-in-america

The Changing Ways We Decide Who Gets into College an Why it Matters: https://www.byuradio.org/top-of-mind-the-changing-way-we-decide-who-gets-into-college-and-why-it-matters

Why We’re So Anxious About Retirement in America — And How We Can Fix It: https://www.byuradio.org/top-of-mind-why-were-so-anxious-about-retirement-in-america-and-how-we-can-fix-it

What Can We Do About America’s Money in Politics Problem?: https://www.byuradio.org/top-of-mind-what-can-we-do-about-americas-money-in-politics-problem

Spending a Day with People Who Think You Hate Them – Jefferson Shupe: https://www.byuradio.org/e14-spending-a-day-with-people-who-think-you-hate-them-jefferson-shupe

Only 44% of Americans say they have a "great deal" or "quite a bit of confidence" that the results of the 2024 election will be accurate. But party affiliation is a big part of the story. If you break down that 44%, only 1 in 4 Republicans have high confidence, compared to nearly 3 out of 4 Democrats. The reasons that so many Americans currently lack trust in elections differ on the political left and right, but a representative democracy like ours relies on all voters having a high level of confidence in the results of an election no matter who wins. Without it, people stop voting, losing candidates don't concede, winners can't lead effectively and the transition from one administration to the next is no longer guaranteed to be peaceful. In this episode, we hear what leads people on the left and right to lack trust in the integrity of U.S. elections. We meet a county clerk who ran for office because of his concerns about fraud and mail voting. Now he’s administering his first presidential election and trying to convince other voters to trust the system. Then we explore the recommendations of a group of Democrats and Republicans who came together in search of common ground around restoring trust in elections.

Guests:

Lenny Mirra, Republican former Massachusetts State Representative, “Red” member of the Braver Angels Trustworthy Elections Initiative leadership team (https://braverangels.org/trustworthy-elections/)

Catherine Roeske, city clerk of Oak Creek, Wisconsin (https://www.oakcreekwi.gov/government/departments/clerk/elections)

Aaron Davidson, Clerk of Utah County, Utah (https://vote.utahcounty.gov/home)

Jay Young, Senior Director of Voting and Democracy, Common Cause (https://www.commoncause.org/issues/stopping-voter-suppression/)

Reena Bernards, creator of Common Ground Workshop, “Blue” member of the Braver Angels Trustworthy Elections Initiative leadership team (https://braverangels.org/trustworthy-elections/)

Presidential elections in the US are twice as expensive as they were just a decade ago, and so are the most competitive Congressional races. Even state and local elections now routinely see record spending – typically from “outside groups” that have no restrictions on what they can raise or spend.

The current state of money in politics is a rare point of bipartisan agreement in America. Overwhelming majorities of Republicans and Democrats think the cost of campaigns makes it hard for good people to run for office and that big donors and special interest groups have too much influence over politicians. Plus, political donors and special interest groups are more ideological than the average citizen, making political campaigns more polarized.

In this podcast episode, we explore what’s changed in the last decade to dramatically increase the flow of money in US elections. And we look at a wide range of efforts underway to address the influence of money in politics.

Guests:

David Jolly, former Republican Congressman from Florida’s 13th District (https://davidjolly.com/)

Jeff Clements, constitutional Lawyer and CEO of American Promise, sponsors of the “For Our Freedom Amendment” (https://americanpromise.net/)

Ray La Raja, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and co-author of “Campaign Finance and Political polarization: When Purists Prevail” (https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/h702q709t)

Rene LeBeau, Democracy Voucher Program Manager for the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (https://seattle.gov/democracyvoucher)

Alan Durning, CEO of Sightline Institute (https://www.sightline.org/)

A trial by jury is an important American right, enshrined in the 6th and 7th amendments of the constitution. But do jury trials work the way we want them to? Not all countries use citizen juries in their justice systems, and the ones that do generally don't give them quite as much power as America does. But juries are also becoming rare in the United States. Only 2% of criminal trials ever make it in front of a jury because prosecutors pressure defendants to take plea deals as a faster, cheaper alternative to trial. And most of us dread getting called to serve on a jury. Should America continue to lean away from juries, or press to make them more present in our system - and perhaps more just? In this podcast episode, we talk to someone who’s served on a jury, and someone who was wrongfully convicted by one. We'll also talk to experts about where juries fall short and what we can do about that.

Guests:

Kristen Cambell, CEO of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-jury-duty-yes-duty-changed-my-life-riyzc/)

Herman Lindsey, executive director of Witness to Innocence (https://www.witnesstoinnocence.org/single-post/herman-lindsey)

James Binnall, lawyer and professor at California State University Long Beach, author of "Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Juries" (https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12015)

Valerie Hans, law professor at Cornell University (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4168115)

Why is it so hard to draw the line between what’s funny or offensive? We love to laugh and we prize a good sense of humor in ourselves and others. But the ancient Greeks – Aristotle and Plato – said humor was bad for society: they thought of it mainly as mockery and laughing was a loss of self-control. When you consider how quickly humor can go wrong in the hands of a bully or an edgy standup routine, you have to wonder - were the Greek philosophers right? In this podcast episode we meet a biracial standup comic who jokes often about race and thinks comedians should be able to joke about anything, so long as it’s funny, original and authentic to their experiences. We also consider the difference between racist humor and humor that’s racially insensitive or “merely racial” with a leading expert on the ethics of racial humor. And then we ask what it would take to maximize the benefits of humor in every day interactions, where you could argue the goals and rules are different.

Podcast Guests:

Isak Allen, Los Angeles-based standup comedian (https://www.drybarcomedy.com/isaka)

Luvell Anderson, professor of philosophy at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Mike Cundall, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina A&T State University, author of The Humor Hack, and founder of Mirth Management consulting. (https://www.mirthmanagement.co/)

For a century, the ACT and SAT played a central role in filtering college applicants. Most colleges and universities stopped requiring standardized test scores during the pandemic; that change has turned into a permanent shift across higher education. A lot of people think that's for the better, particularly since the tests have long been shown to disadvantage students of color and those with fewer economic resources.

But now a growing number of elite schools - including Harvard, MIT and Dartmouth - are reinstating the test requirement. Why are they struggling to make up their minds?

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court outlawed another prominent filter elite schools have used to make admissions decisions - race. Now that test score requirements are in flux and affirmative action is illegal, how do we decide who gets into college?

Guests:

Emi Nietfeld, journalist and author of "Acceptance: A Memoir"

Nicholas Lemann, professor at the Columbia School of Journalism and author of "The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy" and "Higher Admissions: The Rise, Decline, and Return of Standardized Testing"

Alix Coupet, former admissions officer at Stanford and the University of Chicago, currently working in private admissions counseling

Patricia Gandara, professor at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education and a co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA

Most Americans are anxious about when – or even if – they’ll be able to retire. And we’re not wrong. Social Security is on shaky footing. Half of Americans on the cusp of retirement have no money saved for it. This isn’t how retirement in America was supposed to work. But 40 years ago, Congress shifted the US away from employer pensions and toward a do-it-yourself system based on 401K retirement saving plans. It’s not going well. In this episode we get to the bottom of why so many Americans are unable to retire comfortably and end up, instead, living in poverty or working well past age 70. And we’ll learn what we can do on an individual and national level to improve retirement in America.

Podcast Guests:

Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economics at the New School for Social Research, author of Work, Retire, Repeat: The Uncertainty of Retirement in the New Economy (https://teresaghilarducci.org/)

Aubrey Johnson, 24, recent college graduate

Heather Sheffer, 45, self-employed

Mike Cundall, 50, philosophy professor North Carolina A&T State University

Jaye Crist, 63, printing business employee, artist @jayecrist on Instagram

Penny Pennington Weeks, 58, retired from Oklahoma State University faculty at age 55, posts garden and retirement content @pennypenningtonweeks on Instagram

Cami (last name withheld), 38, full-time nurse, divorced mother of four kids

Maryann O’Connor, 67, owner of Kindred Woman Travelers (https://www.kindredwomentravelers.com/)

Elaine Jarvie, 68, retired, RV traveler

Compared to other wealthy nations, America has twice as many traffic deaths per capita. And in recent years, pedestrian and cyclist deaths have spiked. Experts say road design plays a big part in this. The most dangerous roads are “suburban arteries” that are often 5 or 6 lanes wide, with long distances between traffic lights where pedestrians can cross. On this episode of the podcast, we explore why American roads are designed almost exclusively for vehicles and what it would take to make them safer for people on foot and bicycle. Can streets allow good flow for vehicles, but still have bike lanes and safe crossing options for pedestrians? Cars these days are supercomputers on wheels – could technology solve this problem for us?

Podcast Guests:

Lizi Rahman, mother of Asif Rahman and member of Families for Safer Streets (https://www.familiesforsafestreets.org/)

Angie Schmitt, author of “Right of Way: Race, Class, and the Silent Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America” (https://usa.streetsblog.org/author/angie)

Steve Morris, co-founder of the West Roxbury Safety Association (https://www.facebook.com/WestRoxburysafetyassociation/)

John McElroy, journalist and president of Autoline (https://www.autoline.tv/)

What does it mean to be a father in 2024? In the US, the “primary breadwinner dad” is increasingly rare, while the "primary caregiver dad” is becoming more common. And dads are generally doing a lot more childcare and housework than their fathers and grandfathers did. But women still do twice as much housework as their husbands, so it’s not uncommon to see tempers flare online when fathers get praised for parenting while mothers don’t. How are American families navigating these changings?

In this podcast episode, we talk with a working father who overcame some biased assumptions about household duties. We talk to a stay-at-home dad about the decision he and his wife made more than a decade ago to have him be the primary caregiver for their children. And then, a single father with full custody of his three young kids talks about what the experience and taught him about society’s assumptions about the needs of parents. Finally, a historian of American family life will explain how the division of duties we consider “traditional” is a relatively recent development.

Podcast Guests:

Clint Edwards, author of “No Idea What I’m Doing” dad blog and parenting books “Father-ish: Laugh-Out-Loud Tales From a Dad Trying Not to Ruin His Kids’ Lives” and “I’m Sorry... Love, Your Husband” (https://clintedwards.substack.com/)

Shannon Carpenter, father and comedy writer, author of “The Ultimate Stay-at-Home Dad” (https://www.shannoncarpenterauthor.com/)

Daniel Ortega, single dad with full custody of his three kids and founder of The Mindful Wolf (www.themindfulwolf.com)

Stephanie Coontz, Director of Research and Public Education at the Council on Contemporary Families, Professor Emerita at Evergreen State College, former Woodrow Wilson Fellow, author of “The Way We Never Were - American Families and the Nostalgia Trap” (https://www.stephaniecoontz.com)

Voices from the Council of Moms, hosted by The Lisa Show (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwfgWmzxxX046s1nNNo7HNa-LTIfguVnT)