Karl Rhoads, the state senator who represents a district that includes downtown Honolulu and surrounding areas, is going to use the “bully pulpit” provided by his position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to launch a series of public briefings to highlight the damage being done by the Trump administration policies.
The first session, scheduled for 10 a.m. on Thursday, August 31, will focus on “the rule of law.” It will be broadcast on the Senate’s YouTube channel.
The purpose of this informational briefing is to discuss the rule of law. The World Justice Project defines the rule of law as “a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment that delivers four universal principles: accountability, just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice.” Recent presidential executive orders and policies raise questions about whether the current Administration is following federal law. This informational briefing will examine that question and what effect federal government actions are having on
Hawai?i residents.
Kudos to Civil Beat for calling attention to the meeting and interviewing Rhoads about the project.
So mark your calendars!
Without using the term, Rhoads is reminding us of the potential power of teach-ins.
From an entry in Wikipedia (which includes footnotes):
The concept of the teach-in was developed by anthropologist Marshall Sahlins of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor during a meeting on March 17, 1965. Previously, around 50 faculty members had signed onto a one-day teaching strike to oppose the Vietnam War. About a dozen of these faculty members, including William A. Gamson, Jack Rothman, Eric Wolf, Arnold Kaufman, Frithjof Bergmann and Roger Lind, reconsidered the strike and gathered to discuss alternative ways to protest the war in the face of strong opposition to the strike from the Michigan legislature and governor as well as the university president. The New York Times Magazine summed up how Sahlins arrived at the idea: “They say we’re neglecting our responsibilities as teachers. Let’s show them how responsible we feel. Instead of teaching out, we’ll teach in—all night.”
The term teach-in was a variant of another form of protest, the sit-in. Later variants included the die-in, bed-in, lie-in, and draft card turn-in.
This first teach-in was organized by faculty and Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor on March 24–25, 1965. Michigan governor George Romney and other politicians still opposed the event. The teach-in was attended by about 3,500 people and consisted of debates, lectures, movies, and musical events aimed at protesting the war. Michigan faculty members such as Anatol Rapoport and Charles Tilly were also involved. Women students who attended received special permission to stay out during the night. Bomb threats emptied the hall three times over the course of the teach-in, sending participants into the freezing cold, where they continued their activities. Other Michigan students in the Young Republicans organization picketed the event, protesting “anti-American policy.” The teach-in ended the next morning, concluding with a 600-person rally on the steps of the library.
Teach-ins were instrumental in educating the public, galvanizing opposition to the war, and shaping the broader anti-war movement during the Vietnam War period.
Here’s hoping Rhoad’s briefings, and public programs organized by other community groups, will play a role in mobilizing the public in opposition to the Trump demolition derby.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Senator Karl Rhoads is Exhibit A in why so many Americans turned to Donald Trump in the first place. When leaders use the “bully pulpit” not to unify but to moralize and scold, it breeds resentment more than reform. Rhoads may mean well, but his public forums risk becoming echo chambers for the already converted, not honest engagement with a broad public. Teach-ins once brought fresh energy to civic discourse — this feels more like a teach-down. Democracy needs dialogue, not lectures. And if we’re truly concerned about the “rule of law,” let’s apply that principle across the board, not just when it suits our politics.
Kudos to Civil Beat? Maybe. But cheerleading a partisan “teach-in” feels less like journalism and more like joining the club. Senator Rhoads has every right to use his bully pulpit — but when it becomes a moral pulpit aimed only at one side, it alienates more than it enlightens. The original teach-ins challenged power broadly and sparked genuine civic debate. This feels more like a sermon to the faithful. If we’re going to invoke the “rule of law,” let’s remember it applies to everyone — not just political opponents. Civil Beat should highlight diverse views, not just amplify the ones it agrees with.
We get enough diverse views from Trump and his dumb followers bent on destroying our nation.
Jane, I respect your right to feel strongly, but thoughtful dialogue shouldn’t end where disagreement begins. Labeling millions of Americans as “dumb” doesn’t advance the conversation — it shuts it down. Many of us are trying to understand why the country is so divided and to find some common ground, even when it’s uncomfortable. We may differ in our views, but I believe we all benefit from more listening, not less.
I agree. There needs to be civil discourse if we are to find common ground anywhere. It’s exhausting and frankly, sometimes I just plain don’t want to hear it! But I force myself (as much as I can) because I believe it’s important to try to understand another’s position. I’m not always successful and sometimes I struggle mightily because so much of what goes on is way, way over my head!
I think you might be referred to as Exhibit A?
I don’t see “moralize and scold.” I see a discussion of the concept, the rule of law. I know this is something you believe in, so why are you so hostile to it in this context?
Ian, thanks for engaging. I’m not at all hostile to the concept or the context — I care deeply about the rule of law, as you noted. My concern is tone. When public forums feel aimed only at those who already agree, they risk sounding more like moralizing than dialogue. That can unintentionally alienate people who might otherwise listen. I support civil discussion and efforts to inform — I just believe it’s stronger when it invites a wider range of views.
Some non-profit grants are foolish. Maybe just a small percentage, but those are the ones used to justify blowing up the system. Do you think some introspection might help when the pendulum swings back so everything doesn’t blow up again?