JUSTUS with Jack & Gonzo

How did the phrase, “diversity, equity and inclusion”—DEI—which sounds like a positive thing, get such a bad rap? The answer lies in how the concept has often been introduced. Our guest, Dr. Melissa Crum, explains that most people aren’t reacting to the actual idea of DEI; they’re reacting to how the idea was introduced. Instead of hearing, “Let’s look at systems that create problems,” people hear, “Oh, I’m the problem?!” And once that happens, people shut down.Dr. Crum helps people separate themselves as individuals from the systems they live in. She’s not telling her listeners they’re bad people. She tells them there are larger patterns in which we all operate. When people hear that distinction, meaningful conversation happens. Dr. Crum reflects on power in everyday moments. Even something as simple as how you talk to server in a restaurant can reflect a power dynamic. It’s about being aware that not everyone you deal with has the same ability, or relative power, to respond or push back in those moments.Context matters. A word or phrase that feels harmless—or even friendly—to one person might carry a completely different meaning for someone else based on their experiences. Instead of assuming everyone hears things the same way, Dr. Crum encourages us to be a little more curious and flexible in how we communicate.Promoting inclusion doesn’t come with one training session. This is a marathon, not a sprint. You can’t expect people to completely rethink years—or decades—of assumptions in a couple hours. That’s part of why some of those past trainings backfired. People were overwhelmed, and nothing really stuck.Promoting DEI means examining how an organization actually functions. Just saying, “We value inclusion,” does nothing, but defining what inclusion means in real situations—like hiring, promotions, meetings, decision-making—brings meaningful change. And what does a business get in return? Employees who feel valued are engaged in their work. Turnover decreases, and productivity increases. DEI is good for business.

The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and both are under attack. These protections apply universally, ensuring that anyone can express themselves without prior restraint, though certain limitations exist through laws addressing harm or falsehoods.Professional journalists adhere to a clear ethical code: never knowingly publish false information. This principle is at the core of responsible journalism and shapes the profession’s commitment to truth. Intellectual honesty and a commitment to factual reporting are key.We talk with Marty Schladen, a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal, about the challenges the press faces.With the reduction of local news outlets and mainstream newspapers, a void has emerged, filled by individuals who lack professional training and oversight. This “fog machine” of misinformation makes it challenging for the public to distinguish reliable news from opinion or falsehoods.In today’s media landscape, anyone can reach a large audience, making it difficult to discern professional journalists from amateurs. The lack of a regulatory body means that the honor system and personal credibility are vital for maintaining standards in reporting. Journalists must rely on their reputation and adherence to ethical guidelines to build trust with the public.The Trump administration seeks to suppress or delegitimize the press, such as restricting access and publicly shaming specific journalists and outlets. Personal attacks and refusal to answer questions have created barriers to information, both at the national and state levels.Reporters regularly face personal attacks and efforts to undermine their credibility. Despite these challenges, maintaining professionalism and composure is key, so that journalists can keep politicians and businesses accountable.Efforts to restrict journalists’ access to government information, such as requiring loyalty pledges or excluding major news organizations, are particularly concerning. These actions undermine the press's role as a public watchdog and threaten the decentralized power structure that is fundamental to American democracy.

The New York Times Editorial Board published a piece on October 31, 2025, about a variety of indicators that should alarm everyone about the threat President Trump poses to our democracy.The first is Trump’s effort to stifle dissent, something we haven’t seen before with other presidents. The Associated Press has been denied access to the White House because the AP prefers the name “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.”To get access to the Pentagon, journalists have been told they must sign a pledge that limits their access to information. Even Fox refused to sign.Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, has been threatened with court martial for stating publicly that service members are not obligated to obey unlawful orders.Trump has usurped Congress’ right to tax by setting tariffs on just about everything. If you don’t think tariffs are taxes, ask yourself who pays tariffs in the end. Consumers do. All the while, Congress stays quiet; our senators and representatives are more concerned about keeping office then speaking out against Trump and getting primaried.Same thing for Trump directing the military to sink boats that supposedly running drugs in the Caribbean. What’s going on certainly looks like an act of war that only Congress can declare but, once again, Congress sits by and says nothing. Trump has turned the Department of Justice into his own personal law firm, something no former president ever did. And then there’s the matter of misinformation and disinformation that comes from the White House, and Trump always changing the narrative to suit his needs.  Trump has created a national police force of sorts—ICE agents—that conducts raids and wear masks and rounds up people without explanation simply because of skin color and accent. And there’s more that is equally frightening. Listen to the conversation.

If you’re like us, you’ve had your fill of people saying stupid stuff publicly. Some of it is just so stupid it bears repeating, if only as a reminder for the rest of us that saying stupid stuff accomplishes nothing—except providing a platform for outrage. As if we need more of that. Let’s begin with Cracker Barrell updating its logo. The C suite execs thought it would be a good idea to ditch the old guy who’s leaning on a barrel. You would have thought Cracker Barrell was promoting sorcery. People were in arms. No surprise that President Trump weighed in. It’s just a logo. Who cares?How about Sydney Sweeney, lying on the floor in a somewhat provocative pose, zipping up her American Eagle jeans and telling us that it’s our genes that give us our physical characteristics and then telling us her jeans (genes?) are blue. A cute play on words? Absolutely not! This is a reference to eugenics for which much criticism and bitterness are warranted! Bad Bunny will be doing the halftime show at the Super Bowl. You would have thought from some of the criticism that the NFL had invited Beelzebub himself to dance on stage. It’s just a 20 minute show. Everybody, relax! Apparently, the NFL wants to draw a younger crowd. Maybe next time the NFL will sign up a Lawrence Welk tribute band. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth doesn’t think our military has sufficient warrior “ethos.” How do you fix that? Simple, you change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War—all at the cost of millions of dollars. That ought to do it! Why didn’t somebody think of this earlier?!  By the way, who says our military doesn’t have a sufficient warrior ethos? The population of Dearborn, Michigan, is 39 percent Arab, and so the police and mayor—the mayor is of Arab descent and supported President Trump—thought it a good idea to include a brief Arab script on the shoulder patches police wear. You know what that means? Sharia Law is overtaking Dearborn. Just ask right wing and extremely vocal influencer Laura Loomer.Sometimes, it’s just better to be silent. None of this stuff matters, except to the conflict entrepreneurs who thrive on outrage.

Some people don't believe the Holocaust actually happened or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. And some people don’t believe that 26 children and adults were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012. And the man best known for creating the Sandy Hook conspiracy is conflict entrepreneur and InfoWars star, Alex Jones, who called the massacre a “fake” and a “hoax.” Josh Koskoff, the lawyer for the families of the Sandy Hook victims, who obtained a $73 million settlement, also brought a successful legal action against Jones, who profited from the false narrative he created. Jones is a skilled communicator who knows how to communicate to a certain core of people who see him as the sole truth teller and everyone else as part of the deep state. Jones isn’t short on charisma, and he isn’t short on showmanship. The InfoWars stage is flashy and has a high tech look. If you didn’t know better, you would think you were looking at a legitimate major news broadcast system. Trial testimony showed that Jones relied on a business model that was based on building a belief system with his audience so that he could sell a variety of products—male enhancements, t-shirts and more. He’s a master at seducing people with his talk so that he can get them to buy his wares. Jones couldn’t stop talking about Sandy Hook because of the amount of traffic it drove to his store. Not surprising, Jones monetized the trial. After every day in court, Jones would be on InfoWars, making belittling comments about the court. Of course, those comments would be used in court against Jones the following day.Jones created harm beyond his lies. It wasn’t unusual for his listeners to accost the families of the victims in public and accuse them of pretending to have lost a child.

Is money the determining factor to school districts producing students who perform well? Surprisingly, the answer is no. If money alone were the key, a small town like Steubenville, Ohio, in Jefferson County on the Ohio River and part of the Rust Belt, would not perform as well as Upper Arlington, Ohio, an affluent community.No doubt, adequate funding is important, but other factors are equally important, such as whether a child’s basic needs in order to thrive and succeed in the classroom are met. Many children are part of families that live in a van or perhaps in abandoned buildings. Not all children have what many take for granted, like electricity, running water or heat. Some may not eat regularly and aren’t clothed properly. And then there’s the matter of social capital, that is, those community connections a family has. Steubenville provides a good example. Based on an audit of the Ohio Department of Education conducted by the state auditor, published in 2021, Steubenville ranks in the top 10 percent of all Ohio school districts in terms of performance. And it does so spending far less money per student than Upper Arlington.The reason Steubenville is able to spend less money on education and still achieve high performance scores is strong community fabric. When you have social capital and those close connections that exist when adults take an interest in the life of students and teachers, students perform well. One rural district has a practice of ensuring that all new teachers ride on the school bus to get a sense for how their students live. Think about what that level of understanding does for a teacher. Listen to our conversation with Tracy Nájera, Ph.D., and Howard Fleeter, Ph.D. Tracy has committed her professional career to improving the lives of children and their families, especially those most vulnerable in society. Her experience spans research, program management and implementation and public policy. For most of her career, Tracy has worked in education policy, tackling issues such as school funding, professional learning and human capital in education. Howard has worked extensively for more than 25 years with Ohio education policy-makers to improve the state's school funding system and is the owner of the state and local government finance and tax policy consulting firm Howard Fleeter & Associates. He serves as a research consultant on education finance and policy issues for the Ohio Education Policy Institute.

We continue our conversation with MAGA faithful Chuck Cordit about why he thinks Donald Trump's first 100 days in office have been successful.

In 1974, Ohio’s prison population was 8,400 Ohioan. By 2011, the number grew to 51,000. Are we any safer as a result? Do all these inmates need to remain behind bars? Are we just locking up people without adequate attention being paid to things like education, drug treatment, mental health treatment and cognitive therapy? Our guest, Gary Mohr, former Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, wanted to know, and so he called on the late Edward Latessa, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Criminal Justice to find out. Latessa spent three years visiting every prison in Ohio, collecting data and examining every program prisons offered to inmates. He concluded that an inmate’s pursuit of a GED, drug treatment and other self-help programs resulted in a statistically significant difference in terms of violence and recidivism. After Latessa completed his research, the Ohio legislature delved into revising the criminal code and created a panel of 23 individuals, consisting of legislators, defense attorneys, prosecutors and corrections staff. After a year and a half, several recommendations were made, all of which were endorsed by a legislative committee, and then—nothing. No legislation was introduced.   If Ohio’s prison population has increased from 8,400 to 51,000, while the general population has remained fairly stable, that means, Mohr explains, there’s either a staggering increase in crime, or we're not doing what we need to do to reduce criminality and the amount of time people spend in prison, or some combination.Crime didn’t increase significantly during Mohr’s tenure, but the criminal code increased, and sentencing changed. Now we have more mandatory sentencing, which is a disincentive for inmates to engage in those programs that Latessa proved were beneficial in reducing the prison population. Add to this that politically it’s popular to be tough on crime. Sentencing offenders to long jail time is more popular than pushing for rehabilitation. Listen to the conversation.