Our weekly round table breaks down this morning's remarks from FBI Director James Comey recommending no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton; lawyers debate whether or not charges should still be filed; a new study finds compulsory diversity programs can actually hinder diversity in firms; and Los Angeles Magazine's chief restaurant critic Patric Kuh is in-studio talking about the origins of the "artisanal" food movement and his new book, "Finding the Flavors We Lost"
AirTalk’s Weekly Politics Update: Clinton won’t face charges over emails
FBI Director James Comey announced this morning his Bureau won't recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. This announcement comes in spite of the long investigation determining 113 then-classified emails traveled through her personal server.
The much debated investigation found that eight emails contained top secret contents, which contradicts Clinton's claim that she neither sent nor received material that was classified at the time.
Comey said it's also possible foreign governments spied on the contents, given that Clinton sent classified material through her server while traveling in countries known to actively hack into U.S. servers.
So what’s the bottom line? Comey called Clinton's handling of classified material "extremely careless," but not criminal.
He said in such cases, administrative action would typically follow. However, it's unlikely a candidate for President would have her security clearance revoked, as other government employees likely would.
What do you think of the FBI’s decision not recommend criminal charges?
Guests:
Julian Hattem, reporter with The Hill; he was at FBI director James Comey’s press conference this morning. He tweets
Renee Van Vechten, associate professor of government and political science at University of Redlands
Pete Peterson, dean of the School of Public Policy and executive director of The Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University
Forced diversity in the workplace isn’t working, study says
Diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity in the workplace — in fact, they might just be a liability to achieving that end. So says Frank Dobbin, a sociology professor at Harvard University, and Alexandra Kalev, an associate professor of sociology at Tel Aviv University, in an in-depth article published in this month’s Harvard Business Review.
The most popular programs — mandatory trainings sold to companies by outside consultants — are backfiring, making the attendees feel resentful towards the very people they are being asked to embrace, according to the study.
The study analyzed 30 years of data from more than 800 U.S. firms, interviewing hundreds of line managers and executives and determining that by not strong-arming managers to increase diversity in their workforces, results are better.
Kalev said that to ramp up numbers of women, blacks, Asians, Latinos and other minorities, the most effective methods are “inexpensive, in-house solutions.”
“To really increase diversity, you need to engage managers ... and increase their on-the-job contact with ... underrepresented workers,” Kalev said. “You do this with programs such as diversity task forces, mentoring programs, and targeted recruitment efforts … and by giving managers opportunities to simply work — collaborate — side-by-side with women and minorities as peers.”
Ideas about diversity in the workplace often differ on generational and geographical grounds, Kalev said. Experiences of integrated education can be central to reducing biases in the workplace.
Wade, an AirTalk listener who works as a pastor of two churches in the Inland Empire — one predominantly black, the other predominantly white — called in and said that he’s observed this firsthand while attempting to combine his congregations.
“The millennials ask the question, ‘Why not,’ and those who are baby boomers and above are asking, ‘Why should we?’”
Guest:
Alexandra Kalev, associate professor of sociology at Tel Aviv University
This story has been updated.
Lawyers debate whether Clinton should still be charged over emails
After concluding its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, FBI director James Comey recommended criminal charges not be brought against the former Secretary of State.
But the Justice Department will make that final call. We debate whether any charges should still be brought against Secretary Clinton and what would have risen to the level of criminal prosecution.
Guests:
Edwin Smith, Professor of Law, International Relations and Political Science, University of Southern California; He also served as special counsel for foreign policy to United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation that promotes transparency and accountability in government, politics and law. It has filed an amicus brief supporting the rights of states to not recognize same-sex marriages
The big breakup: why some are calling for the end of tech industry giants
Often called the “four horsemen” of the tech industry, Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon have a combined market valuation of well over $1.5 trillion.
They’re massive, and they’re everywhere.
From cars to wristwatches, their reach expands well beyond the typical confines of tech. This ubiquity is appreciated by many, but others think that these companies are stifling their would-be competitors. This isn’t just bad news for the tech industry’s minor players, it might also harm technological innovation.
A recent LA Times op-ed suggested that breaking up these “new Robber Barons” would foster competition and creative development.
According to the article, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon benefit from large upfront costs, low marginal costs, and network effects -- all characteristics typically associated with monopolies.
Is Mark Zuckerberg the new John D. Rockefeller? Is Amazon the new US Steel? Should we break up these tech giants?
Guest:
Steven Strauss, a visiting professor at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
LA Magazine food critic details 3 requirements for actual 'artisanal' food: Time, heritage and skill
Terms like “artisanal” and “farm-to-table” are used widely in our food-obsessed culture. But what do those terms really mean? Where do they come from?
Los Angeles Magazine’s award-winning restaurant critic Patric Kuh explores the origins of these movements, and profiles the mavericks and outliers who learned to make foods like cheese, bread, or beer from scratch as a way to stick it to Big Food.
Interview Highlights
What does artisanal mean?
Patric Kuh: For me, there are a few aspects to it.
- The first is time. Is the person allowing the time necessary for that flavor to really develop. Of course, with different foods, it’s different amounts of time — for bread it may twenty-four hours, for cheese it may be 8 months. Time is the one thing that can be penciled out very easily by people who want to use the term, but do not want to literally put in the time required for that flavor development.
- Does it speak to something in our heritage? This is really one of the most powerful aspects of this movement. We’re reclaiming something that already exists, so there's a real effort to reclaim what homogenized flavor, what industrialized food and what massive scale took away.
- This word artisanal is such a peculiar word. Twenty-five years ago, unless you were selling hand-punched belts in craft fairs, that was an idea of an artisan. Underneath it all, there’s an idea of the skilled human hand, the hand that has learned something that a machine can’t reproduce. And I don’t make the argument that machines play no role in this, technology is a fascinating sub-argument in the artisanal movement, but with the skilled human hand –whether it’s a cheese maker, coffee roaster, a chef—is a form of intelligence that is really inspiring to see.
What is the role for technology, if over time, machines are created that can delicately handle ingredients?
Kuh: What is technology? I became fascinated by how technology went from something positive and necessary to something we consider to be the enemy of taste.
The efficiency of technology took away from the flavor and the speed with which goods could be transported. And big manufacturers started to convince the American public that they needed this idea of food produced in mass quantity–if you really cared for your family, you went for the branded, sealed box.
Playing prophet here, what do you see as the future of artisanal? Where are we going with the trend?
Kuh: Well, this fascination with small will continue, the whole vocabulary of artisanal, if you pay attention, is really centered around the idea of scale. There are single-batch, microbreweries and nanobreweries, but I think we’ve come a long way, and scale is the future.
Guest:
Patric Kuh, author of the book, “Finding the Flavors We Lost: From Bread to Bourbon, How Artisans Reclaimed American Food” (Ecco, 2016), and food critic at Los Angeles Magazine