Ali Nazar: [00:00:00] You’re listening to KALX, Berkeley, 90. 7 FM, University of California and community supported radio. And this is Berkeley Brainwaves, a 30 minute public affairs show dedicated to sharing stories from the Cal experience.
I’m your host, Ali Nazar, and today I’m here with Imran Khan from the Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics, or BCSP, we’ll just say for short. Thanks for coming in today, Imran. What’s the mission of BCSP?
Imran Khan: Sure, so the mission of the BCSP is to explore the potential of psychedelics, and we’re doing that in three main ways. Uh, one is through research, so you know, we know that psychedelics do work, but we don’t know how they work, so we’re trying to figure out what are they doing in the brain, what are they made of, how do they interact with society, uh, and with medicine and policy and law and all that kind of fun stuff.
Um, then we’re training psychedelic facilitators, so if you’ve [00:01:00] seen news in the headlines that say something like, psychedelics are being used to cure depression or cure PTSD. What’s actually often going on is it’s psychedelics alongside a form of talk therapy that’s helping treat those severe mental health conditions. So we’re training some of the people that will be able to do that kind of work in future.
Uh, and then lastly, we have a mission around public education. So we know that psychedelics are, you know, experiencing a huge resurgence right now in terms of public interest and interest in a whole range of sectors.
And a lot of the information out there isn’t really set up to kind of feed that demand for more information and thirst for knowledge. So so we run public education programs and support journalism to make sure that the public dialogue and the public conversation around psychedelics is really well supported by the best evidence and the most up to date and informative information about these important substances.
Ali Nazar: Okay, so if I was to paraphrase. It’s kind of like an academic view of psychedelics in modern society.
Imran Khan: Yeah, that’s a really good way to put it. So, you know, we recognize [00:02:00] that there’s all sorts of people and organizations, uh, doing really important work in psychedelics right now, whether that’s advocacy or treatment, um, or, you know, a whole range of other stuff.
Uh, but because we’re here at UC Berkeley, you know, we’re able to take advantage of the fact that we’re at one of the world’s foremost public universities, you know, it’s a research university with a really core public service mission. And we’re trying to make sure that in service of that public mandate, um, we’re making sure that we’re creating the knowledge about psychedelics, but we’re also sharing it in a really open way.
Ali Nazar: Okay, and how is it founded? Like, how does a new center get founded? It’s not that old, right?
Imran Khan: Correct. Yeah, it was founded basically during the pandemic. So, you know, listeners may know all about, um, the very famous book on this topic, How to Change Your Mind. So that came out a number of years ago. It was written by Michael Pollan, uh, who’s gone on to make a, you know, Netflix show of the same name.
So if you, if you want to learn more about that, do look up the show.
Ali Nazar: Berkeley resident Michael Pollan.
Imran Khan: Berkeley resident Michael Pollan, also faculty at Berkeley Journalism School. So, you know, he wrote that book and that [00:03:00] was just a game changer in terms of how society at large views and thinks about psychedelics.
I think it really opened up the conversation about these substances in a way that wasn’t really possible before. I think, you know, there’s probably still some lingering stigma, um, when people want to discuss psychedelics, but I think Michael’s book de-stigmatized psychedelics in a huge way. Um, and particularly in the Bay Area, you know, I feel like it was, uh, it led a lot of people to, you know, uh, do what we call, you know, coming out of the medicine cabinet in terms of how they’re prepared to talk about psychedelics and their own relationship with it.
Um, so there’s just a ton of interest in, in the field and, you know, my understanding is that questions were asked, well why isn’t Berkeley doing more work on this? And, you know, there’s such a hotbed of both current contemporary but also historical relationship with psychedelics. Um, it was kind of a no brainer that there should be a research and educational institution at Berkeley studying these.
So, um, so we were really lucky in terms of having some really generous philanthropic support for the mission. You know, a ton of people were excited about it and said, Yeah, we want to [00:04:00] invest to make this kind of stuff happen. We think there should be more legitimate, dedicated research into psychedelic substances at Berkeley.
And thus the center was founded about four or five years ago.
Ali Nazar: And what is the composition of the center right now? Like, what does the staff look like and what are the programs right now?
Imran Khan: Yes, we’ve got a small kind of core staff team of, um, four or five people, but really the, um, the most important part of the center is all of the, the different faculty and academic relationships we have.
So we have researchers who are at the neuroscience department. We’ve got people in molecular biology. Uh, we have folks in the journalism school that are thinking about how to kind of, you know, kind of critically inquire, interrogate what’s happening in the field. Um, we just launched a new program in arts and humanities.
So, you know, so much of the research that’s gone on in psychedelics in the last few years has been focused on kind of the scientific and the therapeutic questions about psychedelics, which are really important, you know, hence the inclusion on our name. But often people report that psychedelics help them understand, you know, what it is to be human, you know, well, what’s the meaning of life and what’s our role in society and in relation to each other.
And, [00:05:00] you know, these are questions of, you know, artistic and humanistic inquiry as much as scientific ones. So we’ve just launched a program to explore, um, scholarship into those fields as well. So it’s, it’s starting to become this really diverse set of academic collaborations, all focused on this question of what are psychedelics? How do we relate to them? What do they mean for society?
Ali Nazar: I’m curious, is there like a policy component? I mean, there’s all, there’s still a, you know, a legal question about many of these substances. Is that part of your purview?
Imran Khan: Correct. Yeah. You know, the kind of the federal status is that most psychedelics are still controlled, controlled substances.
And that means they’re still illegal for most people to take most of the time. There are some exceptions. So for instance, if you’re taking part in a study, uh, then that’s, that’s different. Um, but the landscape is changing, you know, starting to see different states change their legislation on psychedelics.
So Oregon, Colorado, I think there’s talk about California changing, uh, psychedelic legislation in the coming year or two. Um, and then separately the FDA, the U.S. Food and Drug [00:06:00] Administration. Um, there’s a lot of speculation that later this year they might, um, authorize, um, MDMA to be used as a treatment for PTSD, so the legal landscape is changing really quickly.
Um, we at Berkeley don’t have a kind of policy advocacy position. So, you know, I think the closest we would come is say we think there needs to be more research and research should be easier. There’s a ton of red tape when it comes to doing research around these substances, which, you know, just stymies really important knowledge.
Um, but we’re not going to come out here and say that either the U. S. government or California should change legislation, but we are interested in reporting on it and studying those changes as they happen. So we do, in fact, I think we’re just about to launch, um, a policy tracker on our website. So if you go to psychedelics.berkeley.edu, you can find information there on how to figure out what is the latest legal landscape.
Ali Nazar: Okay, great. Well, we’re talking to Imran Khan. He’s the Executive Director of the Berkeley Center for Science of Psychedelics, or BCSP, right here in the UC Berkeley campus. This is Berkeley Brainwaves, right here in KALX Berkeley, 90.7 FM. I’m your host, Ali Nazar.
[00:07:00] Imran tell us, how did you come to be interested in this field of research and lead the BCSP?
Imran Khan: Yeah, great question. Thank you. Um, so I got my, uh, bachelor’s degree in biology. Uh, this is back in the UK, as you can tell from my accent, uh, and I remember, you know, as a kind of, you know, 20 something undergraduate that the, the thing that fascinated me most about biology, the kind of topic that intrigued me most was this question of, you know, we’re all walking around with this, you know, two pound lump of jelly in our, skulls.
And somehow this, this blob manages to make us hallucinate this kind of vivid technicolor experience of kind of walking around the world and experiencing and interacting with things and being able to try and make sense of it. Um, and it always seemed like a mystery to me, how on earth that could be possible.
Like it just seems kind of beyond imagination. Um, and yet people are studying it and people are starting to figure out, uh, how, um, how the brain does create our lived experience of the world. Um, [00:08:00] so I remember doing some research back then on what was known at the time about how different parts of the brain, different, you know, neuronal structures create our lived experience of consciousness.
Um, and you know, I didn’t go into research. I ended up going into, um, science journalism and science policy and kind of helping create a better relationship between science and society. That was my career. But I always had this kind of lingering curiosity about, um, about the brain-mind connection and how it works.
Um, and of course, when later in life you start learning about psychedelics and the influence they play in changing how, um, you experience consciousness, uh, how, how the, the relationship with the brain and the mind work and can be manipulated in different ways. And it, it seemed like a really important, um, lens to view that question through, you know, particularly as, uh, again, research on psychedelics is now legitimate again, places like Berkeley are doing it.
Um, I feel like it really reopens that question of how do we understand ourselves and our minds and our brains better. Um, and, uh, [00:09:00] and, and yeah, we were also in this time when there’s immense public interest and, um, medical and therapeutic interest in psychedelics. Um, and they are touching almost every part of society, you know, we just talked about the kind of law and political angle, you know, you have sports stars like Aaron Rodgers talking about how it improves sports performance, um, there’s questions about how it’s going to change structures around religion, you know, how, um, you know, when people can experience, people report experiencing, kind of direct personal revelations through psychedelics, is that going to challenge kind of traditional, um, ways in which organized religion works. Um, and it just seems like this kind of enormous sea change of, uh, all across society.
Uh, and as someone that’s interested in society, interested in science, interested in how those things interact, it just seemed like too interesting a question not to, not to want to get involved in.
Ali Nazar: And I’m, I’m curious, you’ve, you mentioned the brain versus the mind a couple of times. They’re like, what is the difference? That’s, uh, I’m not sure I know the definition, so I thought I’d ask you.
Imran Khan: [00:10:00] Uh, that’s a great question. I’m not sure I know the difference either, uh, but I, so I think there’s clearly a relationship between the two. So the brain is a three dimensional object that you can touch, like you, you know, you can, uh, probably shouldn’t touch your own brain, but you can, uh, you know, uh, see what it’s like.
You can see pictures of it. You can, um, people dissect them, people do experiments in them. You can have brain surgery. You can have all these physical interactions with your brain. You can’t really do that with your mind. You know, the mind is, seems to be, most people would probably agree, a product of the brain.
Like you can’t have a mind if you don’t have your brain. Some people would disagree with that, but I think that’s probably the scientific consensus and social consensus. Um, and yet clearly the mind seems to be, um, something that can’t just be explained by, um, the physical stuff we know about the brain, right?
Just looking at a 3D object of the brain, you wouldn’t necessarily know that that brain is itself having an experience of being alive. And yet, [00:11:00] clearly, we all have that experience. Um, so the question of how it does that is one of the big unknowns, um, not just in psychedelics or neuroscience, but probably in all of science, it’s one of the biggest questions out there, along with how did the universe come to be?
Um, so yeah, you’re asking kind of probably one of the deepest, most fundamental questions that researchers anywhere are asking, how, how does the mind exist and why does it exist?
Ali Nazar: Especially in the age of AI with AGI and this idea that we’ll have computers that are equivalent to us, but like, that’s, I think, somewhat trying to unpack what the mind is and how it works, which is not an easy thing to unpack.
Imran Khan: Exactly. Exactly. Um, yeah, I think it’s, it’s a question that you can attack through science, through philosophy, through religion, through just kind of deep introspection and all of these will lead you to subtly different places. Um, but again, one of the things that’s exciting about having a psychedelics research center at Berkeley is that it is possible now to start to use psychedelics to try and unpick that relationship.
So one of the studies that we’re doing, it’s led by our, um, our faculty director, Professor [00:12:00] Michael Silver. So, uh, Professor Silver is a visual neuroscientist. So he studies how the bit of your brain that’s kind of at the back, so, you know, above your neck, around the back of your skull, um, that’s the visual cortex.
So when light hits your eye and hits the retina at the back of your eye, signals get transmitted from your eye to the visual cortex, and then something happens in the visual cortex that means that those signals can then be translated into a visual image that you perceive. of the world. Um, but how exactly that happens is still, you know, we start to understand a little bit of it, but we don’t know a ton.
Um, but one of the things we know about psychedelics is that they alter people’s visual experience of the world. You know, people report really interesting visual, um, uh, not quite necessarily hallucinations, but you know, affects and changes in how things like colors and shapes and lines all appear.
So it seems to be the case that there could be, um, a way of looking at how psychedelics are affecting the visual cortex and how that’s creating visual images and [00:13:00] potentially, um, thinking about what that means for the rest of the brain and how the brain constructs our visual, uh, our conscious experience.
Ali Nazar: Yeah, I was going to ask a little bit more about the science of psychedelics. That’s one example of, you know, a particular, um, type of research being done. What are some interesting other, are there clinical trials happening or what are some other things happening as this psychedelic renaissance is happening in America right now? Or is it worldwide, this phenomenon?
Imran Khan: Yeah, I mean, it’s, it’s definitely worldwide, uh, you know, there’s, there’s a ton of research going on, um, in various places across Europe, you know, in the UK, where I’m from. Um, Canada’s definitely, uh, kind of a pioneer in some of the research and also, um, the legislation.
Um, but, um, but yeah, you know, the, the US is probably one of the kind of the foremost countries where it’s taking place. Um, I think what, you know, the, the, your listeners probably will have heard most of is around the clinical trials. So the areas where this is most advanced is in, um, conditions like depression and PTSD.
Um, and you know, PTSD is a kind of, you know, [00:14:00] awful disorder where, you know, it really affects people’s quality of life, their relationships with the people, you know, the kind of incidence of death by suicide amongst people with PTSD is kind of extraordinarily high. You know, people experience trauma from all sorts of things like military service or sexual abuse or, you know, um, uh, lots of really tragic things. And then are unable to really recover from that and it really haunts them in a real way. Um, and one of the saddest things about PTSD is there basically aren’t any good treatments for it So, you know, you can have talk therapy, you know have an exposure therapy which can make a difference over time. But if your trauma is so deep that you can’t be exposed to your trauma even through a conversation with your therapist um, without basically shutting down, then there’s not much you can do.
You know, you can be given antidepressants to help cope with the symptoms of PTSD. Um, but unfortunately there’s a lot of people who are just very treatment resistant for PTSD. So, you know, people have known for a long time, both kind of in, um, in scientific [00:15:00] circles and in, you know, underground psychedelic practice, that one of the ways in which people can be helped is through using psychedelics, again, alongside, um, talk therapy, um, to potentially get past that barrier.
And one of the things, one of the studies that’s, um, furthest along is a study led by MAPS, which is the, um, Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, MAPS. And they’ve been running this really long series of trials looking at whether you can use MDMA, Um, you know, sometimes it’s called ecstasy, but MDMA is the kind of the, um, shorthand for the chemical name.
Um, and, uh, if you administer MDMA and while people are under the influence, MDMA, uh, also have them, um, sit with therapists and talk to them. And experience the therapy while they’re under the influence of the psychedelic. Does that lead to a different outcome? And the results are really staggering.
They’re kind of the, the, the levels of improvement amongst people in those, um, treatment groups are way, way, way above, um, what they would be for, for therapy alone. [00:16:00] Um, so that’s the studies that potentially we’re hoping gonna uh, you know, convince the FDA that people should be able to access this treatment.
Um, and then there’s various studies that are not too far behind. So, um, similarly, people are looking at using psilocybin, which is the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. Um, using psilocybin alongside therapy for treatment of depression. So whether that’s major depression or, you know, treatment that isn’t depression, people are starting to look at, um, substance use disorder.
So alcohol, opiates to, um, nicotine, you know, people who have a really hard time, um, disengaging from their, um, their reliance on their substances. It’s been found, again, this is earlier stage clinical trials. So definitely not been proven yet, but really promising results, suggesting that psychedelics alongside therapy there can help people, you know, reimagine that relationship with, with the substance.
Um, and the theory about what might be going on here is that one of the things that psychedelics do is basically, um, you know, if you imagine your, your brain is a snow globe, not literally, [00:17:00] but kind of metaphorically. One of the things that psychedelics do is kind of shake it all up and they allow, um, the snow to resettle in a way that allows you to not be stuck in old patterns and old grooves, but to kind of, um, create new ways of thinking about the world and new ways relating to, again, whether it’s relationships or substances or, or yourself.
Um, so again, all that is still very, um, tentative, you know, some of it’s further along than others, and we don’t understand the mechanisms yet, but the results are really promising.
Ali Nazar: Yeah, that’s really interesting the snow globe metaphor. I mean my experience of psychedelics is something along the lines of when truth reveals itself, it’s much clearer because maybe like the, the general buzz we have in our mind from the day to day life is just gone because you’re living on kind of like, that’s what they call it a trip because you’re like in a special place. You’re in a different place So when truth reveals itself, it’s a lot easier to accept it, understand it, and then it’s, it stays present in your brain long after the trip is over.
Imran Khan: One of the, um, the exciting things that’s [00:18:00] happening at Berkeley right now is we’ve just recruited, uh, this very cool, um, neuroscientist, uh, by the name of Gül Dölen.
Um, so she, uh, is kind of famous for having done, uh, work administering MDMA to octopuses. So she’s she’s found that just as with humans when octopuses are under the influence of MDMA They become really social. Um, and these are octopuses that spend most of their lives, basically not wanting to be near another octopus, they’re like, they only, they come together to mate and that’s it.
They don’t really like each other. But that changes when you give them MDMA. Um, so that’s one of the things she does. But the other thing that, um, she’s exploring is this concept called critical periods in the brain. So a critical period, um, is the idea that at certain times the brain is much more plastic, so you’re much more able to learn and adapt, than at others.
Um, classic examples of that are, for instance, it’s way easier to learn a new language when you’re a kid than when you’re, you know, our age. Um, the other example that people often talk about is immediately following a stroke. Um, [00:19:00] if you deliver, you know, rehab, um, in the, kind of the days and weeks following, um, a stroke, you’re much more likely to be able to recover the lost function than if you wait several months.
Um, so it seems to be that there’s, you know, these periods that are, um, important for learning and adaptation. Um, and you know, one of the questions that Gül asks is, well, you know, a lot of different drugs, um, induce plasticity in the brain. So the ability to change, you know, something like even cocaine induces plasticity.
So what’s different about, um, psychedelics? They therefore then have these, um, really different effects and potential healing effects. Uh, and one of the theories she’s looking at is that maybe what psychedelics are doing is reopening, critical periods in the brain. Um, so that whereas as adults, you know, our ability to, um, be kind of adaptable and, um, you know, learn new ways of relating is, is lower than it was when we were children.
One of the things that psychedelics are doing is kind of reopening that ability and maybe the experience of the trip is actually [00:20:00] the subjective experience of what it likes to have a critical period reopened. So, again, really fascinating lines of inquiry, and we’re just at the very beginning of, of this.
And, you know, if anything, it’s a shame we’ve not been able to ask these questions for, for so long.
Ali Nazar: Well, thankfully we can now.
Imran Khan: We can.
Ali Nazar: And, uh, you know, maybe it’ll be, an application will be learning languages, because, like, if you create, you introduce the plasticity, then I’m like a two year old again, and I can learn a language real quickly.
Imran Khan: That’s, that’s, that’s some of the questions that people have been asking. Yeah, I mean, one of the, one of the ways in which it’s come up most is, um, is actually around the question of substance use. So, um, you know, Gül’s shown that different psychedelics have different, um, uh, periods which they’re active for.
So, you know, something like, for instance, psilocybin, people would usually report, you know, a few hours, something like, um, uh, DMT would be, you know, potentially minutes. Um There’s a little known psychedelic called Ibogaine, It’s derived from the Iboga plant, um, and where, and there, the kind of the subjective experience lasts sometimes kind of over a [00:21:00] day.
Um, and, uh, Google’s been looking at how does the, the length of the subjective experience on psychedelics affect the potential validity for different treatments. And, you know, one of the lines of inquiry is that maybe, um, the, the length of the trip also indicates the length of the critical period reopening.
Um, and, uh, you know, this is a suggestion there that, uh, by administering psychedelics, you’re creating not just the period of the trip itself, but potentially days or weeks or even sometimes months afterwards, where your brain is more open to, again, re-imagining your relationship with something like an opioid.
Um, so yeah, there’s, there’s definitely direct, um, implications for, um, things like important medical conditions, but the questions are things like, you know, could we learn new schools and new languages? So I feel those, those are questions that hopefully write for future inquiry.
Ali Nazar: Interesting. Well, we’re talking to Imran Khan He’s Executive Director of Berkeley Center for Science of Psychedelics.
That’s a center right here in the UC Berkeley [00:22:00] campus This is Berkeley brainwaves, 30 minutes show on KALX Berkeley 90. 7 FM.
Um, I wanted to ask you a little bit about, you mentioned a lot of different psychedelics and many of them I think have a commonality where they’ve been used as sacraments for, you know, in ancient religions.
But MDMA is not that because it’s a man made as I understand it. So what’s the definition of a psychedelic?
Imran Khan: Great question. So, uh, uh, I think one of the interesting thing is there isn’t a kind of universally agreed on definition of psychedelics. Um, there is certainly some substances, which I think almost everyone would agree was a psychedelic.
So things like psilocybin, again, you know, magic mushrooms, um, LSD, um, uh, also substances like, you know, ayahuasca. Um, and then there’s others which, you know, some people would say are psychedelic. So things like MDMA, things like ketamine, um, and then there’s others where people would say, you know, some people would say they’re psychedelic, you know, even something like cannabis or marijuana.[00:23:00]
Um, and what that points to is a kind of a vague definition of what psychedelic is. So, if you look at where the term comes from, I think it’s from the Greek, Psyche, Delos, and it’s, um, mind manifesting or mind opening, which is not a chemical definition. It’s a kind of experience. It’s a subjective experience, right?
Ali Nazar: Yeah.
Imran Khan: Do you feel like your mind has been manifested or opened? Um, so that’s where the kind of the definition originally came from. Um, and, one of the things that people often talk about is the difference between what’s called the serotonergic psychedelics versus the non-serotonergic ones. So for instance something like again, psilocybin or LSD are the classic examples.
The way they work is that the, those specific molecules LSD, psilocybin. They bind to a serotonin receptor in your brain. So serotonin is a um, uh neurotransmitter that’s really important for brain signaling. Um, and it turns out that [00:24:00] those psychedelic compounds actually bind more strongly to a certain type of serotonin receptor than even serotonin does.
So they’re basically kind of, um, I don’t want to say hijacking. It sounds like a kind of almost pejorative term, but they’re, they’re, they’re really latching on in a very strong way to uh, a, a receptor in your brain that is um normally used for something else. Um, and a number of psychedelics basically operate on the same pathway.
So the chemical, the molecules are different, but they’re doing the same kind of thing on the same receptor. Um, and there’s a whole class of those psychedelics again, LSD, psilocybin, DMT, um, and then there’s other substances. which don’t operate on that pathway. So for instance, MDMA has its effect by stimulating the release of serotonin in your brain.
So it’s not that the MDMA is binding to your serotonin receptor, but it’s causing a flood of serotonin to be released. So, um, that’s the way that that has the effect. Ketamine is another example where that doesn’t really work in the serotonin [00:25:00] pathways for as far as we know, it’s a disassociative. It’s used for anesthetic, but at low doses, it has these kind of what people talk to, talk about as like psychedelic like effects.
Um, so there’s a real spectrum of different substances operating in, in different ways. Um, and you know, we, we talk about psychedelics as if they’re kind of one class of substances, but there’s really a lot of diversity. Um, and there’s also, you know, different benefits, but also different risks and, and, uh, and different things to be aware of.
Um, both in a kind of medical and a research setting.
Ali Nazar: Yeah, I did want to ask, before we wind up here, can you speak to the risks a little bit of, you know, you spoke to underground usage, which is like what’s been around for decades. Um, it’s getting easier to access some of this stuff now. What are some of the risks?
Imran Khan: Sure. Um, well, there’s, there’s two things I really want to highlight. One is that, again, the legal status of psychedelics is still that they are by and large controlled substances, um, often in their own schedule one. Um, so I think the most important thing for anyone to know is, is really the legal state of these substances.
[00:26:00] And even when, um, individual states or cities change legislation or decriminalize federally, that’s, this, they’re still illegal. Um, so the most important thing to know is, you know, uh, is that, that type of risk, kind of legal risk, and I’d encourage people to be fully aware of that. But then there’s also, you know, kind of different biopsychosocial risks too.
People often say that, um, psychedelics are not addictive and not habit forming. And, you know, by and large, that’s true. They don’t have the same habit forming potential as many other substances we regularly use. For instance, alcohol or caffeine or nicotine, um, other illegal substances like, you know, cocaine or heroin, um, they’re not quite as habit forming as those, but, you know, we’ve seen recently instances where ketamine, um, you know, it is habit forming, people develop really, you know, potentially harmful relationships with it.
There’s a high profile case recently with Matthew Perry that was very tragic. Um, so there’s definitely, uh, you know, [00:27:00] it’s not zero potential for, for, um, habit formation or addiction. Um, there’s also, as with any substance that is psychoactive or can, um, essentially lead you not to be sober, you can be in a really vulnerable state, you can be in a state where you take risks that you wouldn’t normally take.
Um, uh, so one of the things that we do at the BCSP is try and make sure that all this information about how you can, um, manage risks and kind of reduce risks is freely available and accessible. So if people go to our website, um, so that’s psychedelics dot berkeley dot edu. Um, you can find um, you know, views from experts on how people in, um, in different contexts have done their best to reduce those risks.
Ali Nazar: That’s great. Great service for the community. Um, our last question. We have a couple minutes left. BCSP is a new center on campus. Um Really exciting area of research. Five years from now, like if everything went really, really great, what would it look like? What kind of impact is [00:28:00] BCSB making?
Imran Khan: Oh, I love that question.
Um, so in five years, I’d love it to be the case that we not only have a more nuanced understanding of what psychedelics are doing in the brain and the body and how they’re doing it, but also, um, the knock on changes for how that affects different elements of our society that they’re studied and considered carefully, you know, even the level of kind of health economics, like how, how is it going to be the case that we can ensure that people Hopefully when these treatments are available can access them in a safe and equitable and a way that feels really important.
Um, and then on the kind of the, you know, the social side, we really want it to be the case that we understand how to do psychedelic facilitation well. You know, it’s, it’s, it’s a really, um, nuanced skill. There’s, there’s, uh, instances of it being done really well in clinical settings. Uh, but we also know that there’s a kind of, um, a bit of a wild west that’s springing up in terms of people offering it in, um, unlicensed, unregulated context.
Ali Nazar: I’ve heard about in the business scenarios, people like executives [00:29:00] going to weird places where they, I don’t know if they’re licensed or not, these people.
Imran Khan: Exactly. And I’m sure in some cases there’s people gaining important benefits there. In other cases there’s people operating in a, in a, in a kind of sector that’s, again, just under the radar and you don’t have any recourse for, um, for help, um, if things go wrong.
So, helping shed light on that and helping train people to do that well. Um, and then the third thing, you know, I feel like, again, something I see is that because there’s such this, there’s such a huge demand for information, in some cases, that’s being met by misinformation and bad actors, you know, people really promoting, um, sometimes often quite dangerous ways to either obtain psychedelics or have psychedelic experiences or improper advice on how to use them.
You know, um, there’s so many things we don’t know. Like, you know, one of the things we didn’t talk about much is this question on micro-dosing, which some people really swear by, but there isn’t a lot of research in terms of what are the long-term implications of that, whether that’s in terms of, you know, potentially harmful effects in the brain or there’s some [00:30:00] evidence of cardiotoxicity.
So, you know, harmful effects on your heart from sustained use. Um, and yet there are people who are kind of, advocating for that in a really, um, un-nuanced way. So I hope that in five years time, um, the Berkeley Center has helped set the standard for what thoughtful, evidence-led communication around psychedelics looks like.
Ali Nazar: Well, it’ll be exciting to watch the journey. Thanks for coming in. We’ve been speaking to Imran Khan. He’s the Executive Director of the Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP). You can learn more about them at psychedelics.berkeley.edu. And this is Berkeley Brainwaves, a 30 minute show dedicated to telling stories from the Cal campus. I’m your host, Ali Nazar, and you’re listening to KALX Berkeley 90.7 FM. Thanks for listening, everybody.
Berkeley Brainwaves: Stories from Undergrad Women
This is the pilot episode of Berkeley Brainwaves, a show dedicated to telling tales from the Cal campus.
TRANSCRIPT
Val Dieter: [00:00:00] You’re listening to KALX Berkeley, 90. 7 FM, University of California and community supported radio. And this is Berkeley Brainwaves, a 30 minute public affairs show dedicated to sharing the stories from the Cal experience. I’m your host, Val Dieter, and welcome to our first ever Brainwaves episode, celebrating the remarkable women at UC Berkeley.
Tonight, we spotlight the extraordinary journeys of three undergraduate women whose stories embody resilience, ambition, and the transformative power of education. Our first speaker, Miriam, is a test ament to the remarkable versatility and determination that defines the spirit of UC Berkeley. As the head opinion editor of the Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s esteemed publication, she shapes the discourse on campus, challenging us to think critically and empathetically.
Next, we celebrate Divya. A young woman who stands at the intersection of technology and education. As a data science major, she not only [00:01:00] delves into the complexities of data, but also shares her knowledge and passions by teaching high school students. Finally, as a single mother, Rangsiri navigates the challenges of undergraduate studies with unyielding resolve.
Her journey is one of courage and tenacity, balancing the responsibilities of parenthood with the demands of academia. Together, these three remarkable women embody the diversity, excellence, and resilience of the UC Berkeley community. Their stories are a testament to the impact that dedicated women make, not just within the hallowed halls of academia, but in the broader world beyond.
As we listen to their journeys, let us be inspired to pursue our own paths with courage, to support one another in our endeavors, and to celebrate the incredible contributions women make to our society every day.
Katie Han: You’re listening to KALX, Berkeley. 90. 7 FM, University of California and community supported radio. And this, is Berkeley Brainwaves, a 30 minute public affairs show dedicated to sharing [00:02:00] stories from the Cal experience. I’m your host Katie Han, and I’m here today with Miriam Klachinska, a current second year of UC Berkeley studying economics with a minor in creative writing and public policy. A nd also a Head Opinion Editor at Berkeley Students Publication, The Daily Californian. Welcome to the show, Miriam.
Miriam Klaczynska: Thanks for having me.
Katie Han: Yeah. How are you feeling?
Miriam Klaczynska: I’m feeling pretty good. I’m excited to be here.
Katie Han: That’s awesome. Today, in honor of Women’s History Month, we will be having an open conversation about what it is like to be a woman at Cal right now, and share women’s experience from diverse perspectives across the university.
So Miriam, I have a question for you. What is it like to be a woman at Cal?
Katie Han: Um, you know, it’s definitely interesting. I feel like there’s a really great community of women here, but sometimes I feel like in certain classes, especially like more, um, STEM focused ones are more technical ones, uh, I definitely feel like a lot of those courses can be dominated by male perspectives or just like by male students in general.
Um, so I found like it really [00:03:00] valuable to have a, like a close group of female friends who I can always kind of like count on and, you know, just kind of talk about, um, experiences with, and that kind of makes me feel a lot like safer, more comfortable, and just sort of at home at Berkeley. So, yeah.
Katie Han: That’s awesome.
So you, you just explained that you have a support system in all those classes, any particular classes that you kind of find that sort of uh vibe?
Miriam Klaczynska: Definitely for econ classes. It’s, um, really, I find like I work best with, um, women in my econ classes. Um, I have a lot of funny stories from discussion sections where, um, I’ll be talked over sometimes by my like male colleagues. And then I’ll have like, um, a woman who’s also in like the discussion group with me, kind of back me up and circle back and be sort of like, Hey, so like, what were you saying? Cause I think you were cut off. So those are great experiences.
Katie Han: Okay. Yeah, that, that is pretty funny. Um, so, not only are you an economics major, you are also minoring in creative writing and public policy, which is an interesting background right there.
So, [00:04:00] I just mentioned that you are the head opinion editor at the Daily Californian. How would you say that being a student at Berkeley has affected your interest in writing?
Miriam Klaczynska: For sure. Um, I’ve always adored writing, but I think being at Berkeley has really motivated me to pursue writing as a potential career avenue, not just something that I do for fun.
Um, I took a novel writing class last semester as part of the creative writing minor. That was pretty incredible. It was also really nice to just, like, Um, be able to have those conversations and, um, I feel like being at Berkeley has really put me in spaces where I can have those conversations about writing and where I can be motivated and supported to pursue that writing.
Um, and the Daily Californian definitely has done that. I mean, I’ve been a part of the Daily Cal since my freshman year. Um, and I have done a number of positions. I was a hiring manager for a while. Um, I’ve edited for opinion both as the head as a head editor and also as a deputy I’ve written for the news department also and for the weekender department, which is like the creative writing department. Um, and I also [00:05:00] work in sales for the Daily Cal so I’ve done a lot, um, but the Daily Cal really is kind of like my home away from home. Uh being at the daily cal office, I mean I’m there every day, It’s a very special place to me and It’s very special to be able to go to this place where there are so many talented writers, and they have so much to share, and so much growth is able to happen there, and it’s also really rewarding being the head opinion editor, because I get to work with my columnists and the soapbox writers, um, to, you know, hone in their own writing abilities, and it’s this amazing way of giving back, where when I was a columnist, you know, I got so much support and growth from my editors, in, um, pushing past what I thought I could do and becoming a better writer, becoming a stronger writer, having better sentences, better flow, um, communicating my ideas a lot more clearly.
And now sort of being able to pass that on, um, is incredibly rewarding and it’s a beautiful experience.
Katie Han: I see. I see. So, yes, I read a few of your pieces in the Daily Californian. You wrote an article in the [00:06:00] “Sex On Tuesday” column, right? Um, the article: Re-entering a Dating World After a Long Term Relationship.
You wrote that alongside your co writers Amber X. Chen and Eric E. Forrester. Um, you also wrote The Lacquered Legacy of a Nailbiter. Uh, Maraki, The Labors of My Love. But one article that stuck out to me the most was Learning to Love Berkeley, because it’s directly tied to the Cal experience. Would you like to kind of go behind what you were thinking about when you were writing this article?
Miriam Klaczynska: For sure. Um, so, you know, I come from a, um, immigrant background. I grew up in Europe, um, in Poland, and because of that, I always kind of imagined myself either going to university in, um, somewhere in Europe, like in the UK, or even going back to Poland, um, or going to university on the East Coast, which is more kind of like similar cultural feel to Europe and kind of where I grew up, and that was sort of always my goal when it came to college, I really wanted to, I know I had this very, like, this idea of these like, um, brick buildings with like Ivy growing up on the sides and it was just going to be like a [00:07:00] cloudy kind of like East coast weather.
That was sort of how I imagined my college experience. Um, but coming to Berkeley, um, I mean, I didn’t even actually want to apply to Berkeley in the first place. My mom just wanted me to, since I was already filling out the UC app. Um, but I thought that Berkeley was, I’d known a lot about Berkeley’s very like competitive atmosphere, and that was something I was kind of concerned about. And then also I wasn’t really sure I wanted to stay in California.
So when I first came to Berkeley, I felt really hesitant about it. I wasn’t sure that this was the right place for me. Um, I had the transfer application loaded on my laptop as I was going to my first classes. I felt really unsure about my place here and, um, kind of like with time, I found myself falling in love with Berkeley and sort of seeing the beauty in Berkeley and meeting incredible people and making these strong communities, um, and that was sort of the point, and also like joining the Daily Californian.
Um, and then that was kind of the point when I found myself really starting to enjoy being at Berkeley and being really happy being here and being proud to be a Berkeley student. Um, and sort of taking [00:08:00] full advantage of the experiences that I have here and trying to make my time here as enriching as possible.
So, um, I then composed the article about learning to love Berkeley for the, um, Cal Day issue for 2023. For students, potentially like myself, who had gotten accepted to Berkeley, weren’t really sure if they wanted to attend Berkeley. Um, but, you know, we’re giving it a shot. We’re here for Cal Day. And, you know, I had the idea that maybe they’d pick up the article, read it, and think about giving Berkeley a shot, because I’m really glad that I did.
Katie Han: Sounds awesome, for sure, um, okay, you have so many interests. How do they all kind of tie together?
Miriam Klaczynska: Um, I mean, I have always been someone who has jumped back and forth on what I want to do with my future. But something that has always been able to ground me is writing.
And I know that no matter what I want to do, I want to do something with writing. And, you know, whether that be working in the publishing industry, maybe putting use to my economics degree and kind of working more so in, like, the finance side of that. Or being a writer, or even, um, [00:09:00] being a creative writing professor, which is something I’ve really been considering recently, or being a journalist.
No matter what it is, I want what I do to tie back into writing, because that, sort of as I wrote about in my article, like, Maraki Labors of Love, writing is my greatest passion, and it always has been, and it’s always been a very grounding force for me, something that allows me to explore the world. Um, the whole reason that I joined the Berkeley Economic Review is because when, um, I first was entering the Econ major, I didn’t really know how to explore Econ other than through writing because writing is my way of exploring the world.
It’s my way of internalizing things and processing things and you know, truly learning actually. And, um, I can’t imagine my life without writing and I know that, just that it’s been central to me in my development on Berkeley, it’s definitely going to be central to my development for the rest of my life, and hopefully my professional development, my career, all of that.
I just always want to be writing. [00:10:00] I’m currently working on a novel. I’m working on a bunch of short stories, um, Daily Cal articles. I’m gonna be writing Sex on Tuesday with my deputy editors, Amber and Erki, every week. So it’s great, it’s, I mean, there’s always, there are always things to write about. That’s the great thing about writing.
Katie Han: Actually, this leads me to my next question. You’re writing a novel currently. Um, would you like to tell us more about that? Like that novel or any new projects that you’ve been working on so far?
Miriam Klaczynska: Um, yeah, sure. So I actually started working on this novel last semester in, um, a novel writing class that I took, but, um, I decided to stick with it because I really fell in love with the project.
Um, it’s, uh, sort of like the general synopsis, it’s about, um, a woman who, um, she experiences the death of her childhood best friend and sort of gets propelled onto this like journey across Europe where she’s, on one hand trying to find her childhood best friend because she doesn’t believe that she’s actually dead. But on the other hand, she’s sort of just trying to find herself and figure out [00:11:00] like who she herself is.
And although like I wouldn’t say that my main character is a self insert, I think we are very distinct, like we are very different, a lot of sort of that journey that she’s going on is a journey that I think I myself have gone on sort of with like self discovery and with, being propelled to new locations and to just new places to kind of, make that self discovery happen faster.
Um, I think that if I’d stayed in Poland, I’d be a very different person. Um, and that’s sort of the train of thought that the book follows. It’s sort of like, how does where we are influence who we are and who we’re going to become? I’ve always just had this urge to write long form fiction. I feel like so much can be communicated through it.
And as much as I love writing short stories, I love growing with the characters and I love having these like really long character arcs where they transform so much over the course of the story and having distinct characters and having a lot of distinct characters, which, you know, in a short story, if you throw in too many characters, you’re going to confuse your reader, you have to sort of [00:12:00] either have like a lot of characters that are more one dimensional or a few characters that have more depth and nuance to them.
But with a novel. You can kind of do it all. You can throw in a bunch of two dimensional, two dimensional characters. You can throw in some one dimensional characters just to kind of have that mix, have that juxtaposition almost, um, and I just love it.
I find it so much fun and just such a great use of time and something that I’m just always thinking about. I mean, when I’m walking around campus going from class to class, when I’m listening to music, I’m like, oh, I need to write this song, like I need to write this like lyric from the song down because that’s so Neera, who’s one of my characters.
Or, oh, this like quote that I see like spray painted on, I don’t know, the wall, a wall on Telegraph, it’s something that would totally resonate with my character Tom or something. And it’s, it’s just cool how I see the world almost through my novel. Um, yeah.
Katie Han: That’s [00:13:00] so interesting to get a look into a writer’s brain right there.
Okay, well you know what? I’m excited to hear that you’re working on your novel. Is it kind of in the works still or is it nearing the end?
Miriam Klaczynska: I’m about at 50, 000 words with it right now. I’m aiming at like 80,000. Um, I’m hoping to finish it over the summer because, um, my uh, childhood best friend and I were actually planning on going on a road trip through the places that, um, my character is going to be going through.
Not all of them, we’re just kind of going to be driving around, um, since everything in Europe is pretty close to each other. So we’re going to be in Poland and just kind of, like, hop around to the different locations. A lot of it’s set in Germany, so we’re going to be there for a while. And I’m hoping to finish it while we’re doing that. That’s kind of my goal. That’s the plan, but we’ll see. We’ll see how it goes.
Katie Han: Thank you so much for coming on to the show and just sharing a little bit about yourself. Um, I feel like I just heard a lot of interesting stories so far, but. Yeah. Thank you so much again, Miriam.
Miriam Klaczynska: Thank you so much for having me, Katie.[00:14:00]
Paras Sajjan: You’re listening to KALX Berkeley, 90.7 FM, University of California and communitysupported radio, and this is Berkeley Brainwaves, a 30 minute public affairs show dedicated to sharing stories from the Cal experience. I’m your host, Paras, and I’m here today with Divya, a third year undergrad data science major at Cal. Welcome Divya.
Divya: Hello.
Paras Sajjan: So I just had some questions. As a first year myself, I have not been able to fully experience what Cal has to offer yet, but coming from a junior, I was wondering, are there any clubs, programs, or activities you’ve done that have really Made your experience here at Cal?
Divya: Yeah, definitely. Um, my sophomore year, I started getting into more activities and clubs around campus. I joined BDAB and Data Story and that was, it was very cool. The community is absolutely amazing. I feel like I get a lot of aspects of [00:15:00] my social life as well as like professional development from both my clubs and it’s been a really, really great experience.
But apart from more like data science clubs, I have also been a part of AFX. Last semester. I kind of just wanted to try it for fun, just like my junior year. I just wanted to try something new out of my comfort zone. So that was definitely an amazing experience. I’m not really like of a hip hop dancer, but um, it was just really cool to just try something new. So that was great.
Paras Sajjan: That sounds super exciting. I think you have a good range of different clubs you’ve been joining.
Other than, you know, AFX, moving to your uh major focused clubs, Big Data at Berkeley, do you have any like, fun memories or really impactful things that you learned during those clubs?
Divya: Yeah, so my experiences in both the clubs, um, are quite different.
So like in BDAB, I’m more involved in the education sector. So, um, We have a program called boot camp. We invite high [00:16:00] schoolers to come on to campus every weekend and we basically run through a data science boot camp for them. Which has been absolutely like, probably one of the most rewarding things to do at my time at Cal.
It’s just so amazing. Like, Teaching has always been a passion of mine, but to kind of put that into action and like, um, involve my major into it as well has been like a really great experience. And then, um, as far as DataStory, I’m more on the consulting end of DataStory, so that’s, I mostly do like, project management or like just working on consulting projects, uh, mostly with non profits I’d say has been my experience.
Currently we’re working with a company called the Education Trust and their mission is really cool because basically the project that we’re working on is for college affordability for out of state, in state, um, students. So it’s just been cool working on a project that is so closely related to college students.
Paras Sajjan: That sounds wonderful. Do you think you have to do a lot of like public speaking in both of those clubs? And how do you [00:17:00] prepare to like get yourself hyped up to talk to a bunch of people?
Divya: Yeah, I think like it’s definitely been a new experience. One, just like being on the leadership aspect of any of any of the clubs at Berkeley, I feel like you have to like up your public speaking skills, just hosting info sessions or workshops or whatever it is.
So it’s been really cool to just like learn about public speaking, but I feel like public speaking in the technical realm, like with your, with data science specifically or any other, um, technical skill is another task to tackle. Just because you really have to be like, well versed in your own subject in order to be able to teach it or like talk about it and be asked questions about it.
So um it’s been a really, really great experience. I think my audiences are a little different for both just because for BDAB it’s high school students or younger kids, whereas DataStory it’s older, like people that work at the company or um just like college students in general, I guess, too.
Paras Sajjan: So you’re getting a good range of how to talk to different age groups.
Divya: Yeah, [00:18:00] definitely.
Paras Sajjan: That sounds great. So, I guess another question I have for you is, you are in, you know, AFX, BDAB, DataStory, how do you balance your time with clubs, academics, and your social life?
Divya: Yeah, as far as balancing my time, I think, over my time at Cal, I, I feel like a lot of us, uh, struggled at the beginning with trying to balance classes, that are so hard.
But I think just prioritizing time to yourself, time to your friends, and like things that make you happy. And also just kind of, uh, these clubs have helped me force myself to like make time for them. So like, to get my work done earlier, quicker, just so I can make time for that like social responsibility in my club or whatever it is.
Paras Sajjan: That’s good. Getting a good balance I feel like is very important for the college experience. So, you said like, you have figured out how to maintain the balance between hanging out with friends and working on clubs and doing things that make you happy. What are some of the things that, you know, you enjoy [00:19:00] doing?
Divya: Yeah, um, I think like, everyone can say just like chilling at a friend’s house or like hanging out with friends. I think, um, last semester AFX was kind of like that getaway for me, like, just being able to like be required to dance for like six hours a week without thinking about anything else. Um, this semester, I, uh, I’m starting to get into rock climbing. So that’s been like super fun.
I, I try to go like as often as I can just to make some time, you know, Mostly because I paid for it so like I should, I should like, um, go utilize my time there. But it’s been really fun. So just always having something to like do outside of education is always good.
Paras Sajjan: Rock climbing is definitely outside of that realm.
Yeah, so I guess That’s just a final question. As a junior, you’re going to be going outside of Cal soon. How do you think Cal has helped find your identity and prepare you to enter that new, modern world?
Divya: Yeah, I feel like most people can agree when they say like their experience at [00:20:00] Cal is very work hard, play hard.
So I think I definitely, like that’s been a very useful and something that I had to learn. And I think it’s definitely important in the real world as well when it comes to like work life balance and like not overworking yourself and things like that. So I think like learning that early and like realizing that um It’s important to have your social life and your friends and like the people who genuinely just like make you happy around you. I really appreciate that about Cal
Paras Sajjan: That’s great. I’m glad that you’ve been able to talk about your experience and all of the new exciting things you’ve been doing. I’m very tempted to try rock climbing now. So,
Divya: Definitely, go for it. You can come with me.
Paras Sajjan: Oh, perfect!
So Divya, thank you so much for coming on and talking about your experience at Cal.
Divya: Thank you. Of course. Thank you for having me. It’s been so much fun.
Natalie Sumitra: You’re listening to KALX Berkley 90. 7 FM. University of California and [00:21:00] community supported radio and this is Berkley Brainwaves, a 30 minute public affairs show dedicated to sharing stories from the Cal experience. I’m your host Natalie Sumitra and I’m here with Rungsiri Upradit. Today we are going to be addressing Women’s History Month. And talking about Rungsiri’s personal experience here at Cal.
Rungsiri Upradit: Hi, thank you so much, um, for having me here. Coming to Cal has probably been, like, one of the best experiences of my entire life. Um, I know that sounds, like, cheesy, but It has honestly been just, I think, the best years of my life. I feel like I’m just like surrounded by people that, you know, care so much about like what they’re studying, but at the same time, they also want to help other people.
So yeah, just from my professors to all the friends that I’ve made here, I feel like they’re all going to be lifelong friends. So um, Yeah, I think [00:22:00] Cal has given me, like, the tools and resources, really, to think critically about issues and how I can help make an impact.
Natalie Sumitra: So, how long have you been here at Cal?
Rungsiri Upradit: Yeah, so, I’m a transfer student, um, I’m a fall 2021 admit. Um, so I’ve been here ever since and I am supposed to graduate in May. I’m looking forward to that.
Natalie Sumitra: Congrats.
Rungsiri Upradit: Thank you. Um, but, I, because I’m a student parent, I have a reduced course load. So I was able to be a part of fellowships. Um, also work. Um, and study while also raising my daughter.
So I’ve been here for three years and, um, yeah.
Natalie Sumitra: What do you most value in the time that you’ve been here?
Rungsiri Upradit: Yeah, I think definitely, um, being able to come back to school as, like, a re-entry student, someone who’s a little bit [00:23:00] older, um, also as a single mom, um, so I really value, like, that I was given this opportunity to um have an education because I’ve always loved school. I’ve always wanted to go to school. Um, Just, you know, my circumstances at the time just didn’t allow me to do that, but, um, so my journey coming here wasn’t super easy, but I’m really grateful for everything that happened.
I wouldn’t change anything, I think. Yes, I value my education here at Cal, but I think the most valuable thing to me is like really, um, just all the individual relationships that I’ve been able to, um, build here.
Like I said, um, or, you know, I’ve made lifelong friends here. I think, um, [00:24:00] that’s probably what I value the most.
Natalie Sumitra: What was it like being a student parent?
Rungsiri Upradit: Um, I think being a student parent definitely has a lot of challenges that comes with it, but particularly the anthropology department. Um, just I love all the professors there.
They’ve been just so supportive and caring. Um, I feel like, I’m an Anthro major, so I feel like the Anthropology department is like home to me, you know, there’s been times where, you know, uh, my daughter’s had like to be home from school, so she’s been able to come to like quite a few classes with me and like some of my professors, um, shout out to Professor Bill White.
Um, He will, like, interact with her and, like, you know, show her, like, different, um, the different technologies, like, used in class and stuff and [00:25:00] just really, like, kind of, I felt, like, went out of, like, his way to like interact, you know with a kid So I really appreciated that and just even things we did outside of class, um, still on class projects, but when we would meet up to do like pedestrian surveys and stuff like she was able to tag along and not only interact with my professors, but my classmates and so, I feel like that’s really special.
Um, and I hope, like, you know, she remembers it forever, and as she’s, like, learning, and, you know figuring out or like shaping her worldview right now. Like, I hope she takes these experiences with her.
Natalie Sumitra: So could you tell us about something that has been really influential to your experience and what inspires you as a woman?
Rungsiri Upradit: Yeah. So through the UC Berkeley Public Service [00:26:00] Center, um, I was able to be a part of College Corps, which I was in the very first cohort.
It’s a statewide program where they have, um, three different focuses. And one is food access, environmental justice, or, um, youth behavioral health. And I was in the environmental justice one. I worked, um, or I work at a nonprofit in San Francisco called Bright Line Defense. And, um, I’ve just met the greatest people there.
Um, It’s the women that I’ve met there, some of like the strongest, most like supportive women I’ve ever met in my entire life and like so smart, um, so thoughtful and just like, seeing them, you know, like being there with them, working in the community with them. Um, I feel so empowered, like definitely a special space for me.
[00:27:00] And It was through UC Berkeley Public Service Center.
Natalie Sumitra: That’s so cool.
Rungsiri Upradit: Yeah, that I was able to like meet them. And you know, I was there as a fellow for a whole year and now I’m a part time, um, uh, I’m a part time program liaison there and It’s been a really special time, so I feel like, I don’t know, for me, like, being surrounded by women who just, I don’t know, have the same kind of, like, goals and, like, wanting to make the world kind of, like, a better place is really important to me and I don’t really know, like, what work I’m going to for sure go into in the future, but whatever I do go into, um, I don’t know. I always want to make sure that I’m, I want to be, like, approachable, and I want to be, like, the woman that I needed when I was younger.
I definitely feel [00:28:00] like There’s a lot of uncertainty in just, you know, having a whole career before this and then, you know, transferring here at a much later age, like, there is definitely a lot of uncertainty in like, uh, okay, is it too late? Or like, what am I gonna do now? And people ask me all the time, like, oh, like, what are you gonna do? And I think sometimes it’s okay to say like, I don’t know.
Because I feel like I’m, you know, I’m trusting, like, I’m trusting the decisions that I’m, that I’m making and I feel like every single decision that I’ve made has led me to just a really good place and, like, I feel, like, really happy with my circumstances today.
Like, I, yeah, so, I think it’s, you know, I took a risk, but I trusted [00:29:00] that coming here I was gonna, even though I didn’t quite know what I was gonna exactly do, like, but along the way I’ve just met so many people that have just guided me to just, a really good place and I feel like I’ve learned a lot from them. Like I’ve met a lot of mentors and just very supportive people here.
Natalie Sumitra: That’s beautiful.
Gursachi Sikka: Thank you for joining us in this celebration of achievement, resilience, and the unwavering spirit of women at UC Berkeley. Let their stories inspire us to strive for excellence, to challenge the status quo, and to make the world a better place for all.
I’m your co host, Gursachi Sikka. To all our listeners, Happy Women’s History Month. This has been Berkeley Brainwaves on KALX Berkeley 90. 7 FM, University of California and community supported radio.
Fiat Lux Redux: Ezra Klein and Amy Lerman
This is an edited version of a talk that occurred on October 5, 2023 on the Cal campus. You can listen to the full, 90 minute Ezra Klein and Amy Lerman interview on the Berkeley Talks website here.
TRANSCRIPT
Ezra Klein: [00:00:00] I’m Mr. Klein, and you’re listening to KALX Berkeley.
Tim Lynch: Welcome to Fiat Lux Redux, a collection of edited lectures and conversations that took place on the campus of uc, Berkeley. It’s called From segments of Material available online at uc, Berkeley’s mini websites, podcast programs, and streaming channels.
Today’s edition of Fiat Lux Redux starts now.
Lisa Katovitch: Today’s episode of Fiat Lux Redux features New York Times journalist and podcast host Ezra Klein with UC Berkeley public policy and political science professor Amy Lerman in a talk entitled A Liberalism That Builds. The talk took place on October 5th, 2023 at Zellerbach Hall on the UC Berkeley campus.
Amy Lerman: I want to start with like a really basic question, which is, what do you mean by supply side progressivism? Why is it progressivism and not just supply side policy? How [00:01:00] are you thinking about this as a distinctly liberal either problem or set of solutions?
Ezra Klein: I care about this yoked to liberal values, which are the values I share. Enough of the things we need to make real the world I want. A world where we’re not cooking the planet. A world where a firefighter who works to keep San Francisco from burning down can live in the city. A world where there is access to the medical care and medications that people need. I care about working backwards from the world I want to the things we need to get there.
And so simply opening up the supply side, well, you get into this question of supply of what? Right? Conservatism had its own supply side economics, you might remember it. It was a lot of tax cuts for rich people. The values, the, the, the rooting this in a vision of not just the present, but of the future, right? A sense of what kind of future we want to get to. That’s the reason all this matters, right? You only need directions if you have a place you actually want to go.
Amy Lerman: That brings up [00:02:00] this question of how we make trade offs. So I wonder whether the liberal version of supply side is just inherently more complicated because we’re trying to make trade offs between things like environmental protection and construction, or we’re trying to make tradeoffs between engaging with communities and avoiding NIMBY problems. Is that necessarily a feature of supply side progressivism that we, that we need to contend with?
Ezra Klein: Yeah, in many ways this is all about trade offs. Yeah, so, the problem with conservative supply side economics was it was stupid. And it ended up becoming wrapped around the axle, this idea that you could cut taxes and unleash the animal spirits of the nation’s John Galtz and that would lead to the economy growing and everybody getting more and, you know, and then they kept trying it and you kept not raising taxes and blowing up the budget and so it kind of gave the whole thing a bad name.
There’s a great piece about, um, green triage. And what it basically says is that liberals have been focused for a very long time on climate denial. Correctly, right? People who deny the reality of climate [00:03:00] change. But that the liberal version of that affliction is trade off denial. People who deny the reality of the trade offs that are going to be required to build renewable energy infrastructure, green infrastructure, at the pace and at the scale we need.
And that’s one reason I keep focusing very tightly on individual projects. I’m not trying to talk at 30, 000 feet about, Oh, America doesn’t build anymore. Right. You know, so there was a very viral essay by the venture capitalist Mark Andreessen about, you know, it’s time to build. We don’t build enough.
Everybody should build more. If you don’t like what I’m building, build your own thing. And it struck a chord and for a reason, but my criticism then as now of that kind of rhetoric is that it’s disengaged with the why. The, what is it that we’re not building and why has it become hard to build it? So when I focus in on high speed rail or congestion pricing in New York City or the Tahanan affordable housing complex in San Francisco Or how it looks to build affordable housing in Los Angeles, like the thing I’m trying to get people to look at [00:04:00] is the very specific trade offs that we will either make differently or not.
So, take the affordable housing I looked at in San Francisco. You know, when you break down why it is so lengthy and costly. So, I’ll give a quick bit of background. I wrote this piece called, uh, about everything bagel liberalism. Um, which has been a little bit misinterpreted because the point is that everything bagels are good.
And the best kind of bagel. Which I don’t actually believe. I believe a salt bagel is the best kind of bagel. But thank you, my first applause line of the night. But what’s bad is you layer too much on the everything bagel. And if you saw the movie Everything Everywhere All at Once, you develop a nihilistic black hole that sucks in everything into its molten core.
Um, and you don’t want that kind of bagel. There is a tendency in liberalism to layer too many objectives onto a single project, such as the project begins to collapse under its own weight. And one of the things I was looking at was this affordable housing complex I became aware of in San Francisco that got built in half the time for half the cost as [00:05:00] normal.
So it’s about 400, 000 bucks a unit, about three and a half years. Routinely twice set to do this kind of work. What happened? Well, Charles and Helen Schwab, who you might’ve heard of, they gave 50 million to this group, the housing, something accelerator, housing innovation accelerator, and they said, if you can build this fast, you can use this money.
And what happened is it by using private money, that group didn’t trigger a series of mandates and requirements and process loops that using public money does require. So the act of taking a public dollar, for instance, means you have to go by what’s called the 14B subcontracting rules. In San Francisco, they used to be a preference for minority based contracting, but then there was a proposition that passed, and a Supreme Court case, and then you couldn’t do that anymore.
So it became a small business subcontracting rule, so you can’t hire, or you have to prefer not to hire, a contractor who makes more than 7 Like maybe the reason that the [00:06:00] contractor begins to make more than 7 million a year is that they’re good at what they do and can do things fast. So anyway, there are not that many of these small subcontractors doing this kind of building.
So you have to wait for the one that comes up. So it adds millions of dollars in months and months onto cost. It’s a very literal question. Should affordable housing, which is an unbelievably acute need in San Francisco, where people are living in tents on the street. I’m not saying it’s not good to preference small subcontractors.
Is it good to do it here? Given the trade off, given the cost. And what’s frustrating about this work, is that there’s not one thing I can point to. It’s not one bill. Like, when I do national politics, I’m just like, Get rid of the filibuster and everything will be fine. It probably wouldn’t be. But it would be better.
Here, it’s a million little things in a million places, and it requires a lens where you’re looking for these problems and trying to solve them, or at least trying to ask about them. But that’s sort of not how liberalism has evolved, I think, in recent decades. I think it’s become very hard, in the rooms where these [00:07:00] decisions are made and these bills are crafted, to say, we shouldn’t do that thing even though it sounds good.
Even though it is good, because we cannot afford the extra time and the extra cost. Because this really just might fail.
Amy Lerman: And these are really hard decisions to make, because as you point out, it isn’t that any of these things aren’t good in and of themselves, right? Sort of how do we think about processes that can help us make those trade offs in responsible ways?
Ezra Klein: I think you have to start in not overly privileging the status quo. So something that is true right now is that to do anything requires a lot of justification. To do nothing does not. You can keep coal fired power plants running. Without running an environmental impact assessment on them. But you cannot build a new solar array without doing potentially a multi year environmental impact report.
We can have cars choking their way across the I-5. Nobody needs to file a new report to do that. But you can’t build high speed rail so people don’t need to drive. [00:08:00] So one thing is that we often have processes, which though you sometimes for good reason, maybe even often for good reason, net net, we’re not getting good outcomes.
And so one thing I am struggling with and thinking about is how to be less process focused and more outcomes focused. I don’t think the environmental assessment process should be outcome neutral. It currently is. Fun lawsuit happening right now. Joe Biden is trying to get rid of part of Donald Trump’s border wall.
So a series of groups are suing the U. S. government in court because they have not done an environmental impact assessment on the environmental consequences of getting rid of the border wall. Unless we fully understand what that might do to the environment, because people will come over the border and they might leave some trash and annoy some ranchers, it’s ridiculous.
And the reason it can happen is that the question that process is asking is not, is this good for the environment? It’s have you fully considered every possible effect, good or bad, such that nobody can sue you and say that you didn’t. Because if they can sue you and say that you [00:09:00] didn’t, not that it will be bad, just that you didn’t, they can stop you.
Which is what happened to Berkeley. The court did not say it is bad to add more students. You cannot do it without doing a multi year assessment of what it will mean for trash. But of course those students are somewhere now. Adding them to Berkeley doesn’t make them and their cars appear out of thin air.
They exist. They go to school somewhere or don’t. So we’ve gotten procedural as opposed to outcome focused, right? I would like to see something a little bit more like there is a body that makes an assessment relatively quickly as to whether a project can be expected to be good for the environment. And if it does, then it has fast track clearance.
And if it doesn’t, then it is held to a higher level of scrutiny. Categorical exemptions from process, built around the question of what you are actually attempting to do. Congestion pricing in New York City. Charging cars to drive into Manhattan so fewer of them do it. And the ones that do do it, give you money that you [00:10:00] spend on public transit.
You should not spend four years on an environmental impact report to get fewer cars to drive in Manhattan and have more, like you just shouldn’t. It’s true that having local input in planning decisions can sometimes stop bad things from being done in poor communities, but we know where big housing developments are done and they’re done in poor communities.
And why are they done that way? Because rich people know how to get lawyers to work processes in their favor. So the question of whether or not the current processes are actually preventing the things we want them to prevent is important. Are these processes serving that world? And then if they’re not, do our best to think of new ones, recognizing that they will not be perfect.
Recognizing that we may solve a problem now, as these processes did. Only to become the problem later. But, we need to solve the problem now.
Amy Lerman: Do we have to have this optimistic vision? And is that a hard thing to imagine cultivating in our current politics?
Ezra Klein: Yeah, I do think you want to have an optimistic vision of the future. I think [00:11:00] there’s a lot of doomy politics out there right now, and there shouldn’t be. Or at least it should not be as dominant as it is. We can imagine slightly better and worse versions of the present. But I mean, it’s why I write pieces about true energy abundance, right? What would it mean? Uh, there’s a great paper of like, what if everybody just had access to the same amount of energy as people in Iceland do?
Because Iceland’s functionally just a volcano. And so the geothermal energy there is very abundant. Like, what could we do with that? How far could we go? How fast could we fly? We could have vertical greenhouses that are growing food. Something like a third of all arable land is given over to, uh, raising livestock for human beings to torture and then kill.
What if you didn’t have to do that, and you could let that land rewild? And the meat was cheaper, and everybody could have it. It’s why the other side of this vision is not just building the things we know how to build like housing and solar panels but it’s also inventing things that we don’t have yet but need.
Most liberals can tell you the [00:12:00] three or four or five social insurance programs they would like to see created, right? Pre K and single payer health care and you know, everybody can think of their set but they can’t always say what are the five inventions they would like to see? What five technological advances do they want to see the federal government put its money and muscle into solving such that we can have things exist that don’t exist now?
We did just have an example of this. I mean, Operation Warp Speed led to the fastest major vaccine development in history by a lot. Millions of lives saved. And it distributed that advance more equitably, not perfectly, but more equitably than any medical advance anybody can think of in history. You didn’t get iPhones based on need, but you did get vaccines based on need, at least for a while.
That was remarkable. Why don’t we have 15 Operation Warp Speeds going right now? The Republicans turned against their own program because they stopped liking vaccines, and the Democrats don’t want to give credit to it. Like, it’s crazy. But it also reflects a lack of a politics of [00:13:00] technology. And technology is how the human race advances.
Growth is a function of change, not stasis. I hate, I hate the metaphor growing the pie. The worst metaphor in economics. If you grow a pie, and pies also don’t grow, that’s the first problem. It’s not how pies work. If you grow a pie, what you get is more pie. When you grow an economy, what you get is change.
The difference between 4 percentage points year on year growth in an economy over 20 or 30 years, and 1 percentage point year on year growth, is stagnation versus the Jetsons. Things become different. We should care about what that difference is. But we should want difference. Sometimes it feels like the only things that we imagine now are a slightly better present, or a return to a much worse past, or a much worse future.
A lot of American politics, I think, in recent years has been about the past. And not wrongly. Those interpretations matter. The past echoes into the present, like the injustices compound. But you can’t stop there. You have to imagine a future.
Amy Lerman: Yeah, no, [00:14:00] absolutely. And, you know, if we’re thinking about this idea of sort of technology and innovation, and we’re thinking also about sort of government being in some ways the problem, right?
Sort of overly processed. Is there sort of a public private partnership component to this? Or do you see government getting out of the way of private industry? Or, incentivizing certain kinds of production. What is the interrelationship there? And how do you see it functioning in a, in a better model?
Ezra Klein: Oh, it’s such a good question. What a shame Elon Musk went so nuts. What a walking advertisement for the power of public private partnership. He now sort of denies it. The government repeatedly rescued and made Tesla possible. And as such, Tesla made a rapid transition to electric vehicles possible. No government, no Tesla, no Tesla, no California law banning internal combustion vehicles in whatever it is, 2035 or 2050.
That California law, which is incredibly ambitious and which is attempting to radically accelerate the EV transition is not [00:15:00] possible if electric cars did not get as good and as desirable as they now are. Now, the government can’t make amazing electric cars. Nobody, no government. is currently a electric car leader, but they can make great electric cars possible.
That’s true on a lot of things. I mean, the history of invention is thick with both advances, scientifically made by the government, often made by defense departments, right? Think about the internet and other things, but also just the funding, the financing, the advanced market commitments to de risk huge projects.
I mean, that’s what the Inflation Reduction Act is. A functionally unlimited pot of tax credits for solar, for wind, more limited but still gigantic for things like green hydrogen, that’s going to have to be done largely by private companies. You know, not everything does have to be done by private companies, and not everything even should be.
But then you have to take seriously, if you don’t want it done by private companies, then you need to take seriously what it means when the government does these things itself. One answer I have seen from people I respect. [00:16:00] Who, I think, want to say it is bad that we’re not building enough housing in the places people need to live but also want to say housing developers are bad.
And so want, like a, like an answer that doesn’t deny the problem, but aesthetically puts them to my left. Is it, well the problem is we just don’t have enough public housing provision. But again, like, this is why it’s important to look at the details of how this stuff gets built.
In a lot of places, SF being one, but LA is another, when you trigger public money, you trigger a series of mandates and requirements that make it much more expensive to build a home. So you actually don’t have the money to have this run through the public process, unless you change the process. Whether it is public development or private development using public money, we have simply said that if you are building housing, not in your interest, but in the public interest, we are going to make it more expensive and slower.
And I think that if we are going to build housing to meet important public needs, we should make it easier and [00:17:00] faster. You can do that with public housing. There’s beautiful public housing out there. Like, go to Singapore. We have great public housing in America, too. But public private, that line, it doesn’t do the work people want it to do.
They, they happen in partnership even when they don’t mean to be in partnership. When the California Environmental Quality Act was passed, nobody thought it applied to private builds. The idea was that it is something that the state of California, when it builds something, would have to do to think about environmental impact.
Then, a couple years later, there was a developer who wanted to build six mixed use condo and commercial buildings in Mammoth, where you can ski. And a series of wealthy vacation homeowners in Mammoth, friends of Mammoth, they were called, sued. And they sued under this bill. That was pretty new, a year or two old, but they sued and they said the government had this needed environmental impact assessment and mitigation measures and the developer was like, the hell are you talking about?
I’m a private developer, I’m not the state of California. The first court [00:18:00] said, what the hell are you talking about? This guy’s a private developer, not the state of California. But it got appealed up. to the 9th Circuit, and they said no, this applies to any project that requires a public permit. A Sierra Club lobbyist then said, now it applies to anybody who rubs two sticks together for commercial reasons in California.
So everything then became a public private partnership. Because in a way, everything is, like, in a way that’s not wrong. But then you have to take what that means seriously, which we often don’t.
Amy Lerman: I wonder why it’s always friends of, friends of Mammoth, friends of Berkeley. These people are not my friends. It’s easy to mock the NIMBY instinct, right? But one of the things that we know is, right, people are protective about their, you know, the value of their house or the quality of their neighborhood. How do we balance these sort of broader public needs? With the private interests or the, the sort of local, um, hyper local, in some cases, interests of communities that, that may be concerned about things like having a, you know, a garbage or recycling plant put [00:19:00] in their low income neighborhood that is already struggling with a lot of the same kinds of installations over the years. So, I guess it’s back to the trade off question, right, which is the, the devil in the details.
Ezra Klein: Yeah, there’s never going to be an escape from the trade off question. And I agree with you. I mean, the instinct to preserve your neighborhood is very deep. I have a different standard. I don’t think the most economically valuable cities, and this is like chapter one of my book, those are not for the people who live in them.
Those are of national and even international importance. They have forever acted as engines, not just of innovation, much more innovation happens in cities than anywhere else. You move somebody to a city and become 50 percent more productive, even controlling for income, for education, for IQ, for anything.
But they’re also engines of opportunity. Over much of the 20th century, the income converged regionally. Across the US year on year in this unbelievably steady fashion 1.8 percent across the states year by year we [00:20:00] became over space more equal year after year after year after year after year and they showed this process Was responsible for fully a third or about a third of the entire reduction in income inequality in the back half of the 20th century. So that period we talked about the Great Compression the thing we always want to get back to when you look at those like charts of like wealth going like that a third of that was people moving from poor areas to richer areas the most highly rewarded jobs in the economy are creating things that get traded internationally. The iPhone, that kind of thing. But most jobs are local service sector jobs Make an iPhone that can serve a billion people, but you can’t cut the hair of a billion people. But if you cut the hair near the guy who made the iPhone you make more money as a hair cutter. Research on this, much of it from your own Enrico Moretti, whose work is fantastic.
Anyway, this paper, Ganong and Hsieh, what they show is that somewhere around the 90s, 2000s, that process slowed [00:21:00] down and then went to reverse. And what happened is that instead of everybody moving from poorer to richer areas, richer people kept moving to richer areas. Poor people stopped. It went the other way.
And the reason it went the other way was that housing began to eat up so much of their money that they would actually make less money. Moving from the South to the North as a janitor used to be a leg up, and then your children were richer, and they did better, and now it wasn’t, because housing ate up more money than wages added.
So we took one of the central engines of equality in this country and threw it into reverse, and the people who did that were in blue cities. Cities should not have the same rules. The questions of them are not just for the city. San Francisco plays a role, and the Bay Area in general, that is of strategic national importance to the American economy and to the global economy.
And the decisions about it should not just be made at that level. At the very least, I think they should be made at the, kind of, state level. I don’t think the fact that you happened to buy into SF in [00:22:00] 1985 makes you so much more worthy of political voice than somebody whose parents immigrated to the country in 2003.
I just don’t. Then you get into other questions about suburbs and other places and you know, there are things I would do and things I would change and you’re, you’re dealing with a lot of little tweaks and a lot of differences. But the big one I’m worried about first, when we think about NIMBYism or Neighborhood Defenders is cities.
I basically think at a certain level of income, which implies a certain level of productivity, you can think of some measure of this income plus density or something. I think something else should trigger, and new rules should be employed. Tokyo is the biggest city in the world, and it has kept housing costs down, despite being very, very, very rich.
Because they build an insane amount of housing, and they have awesome trains. Why has this happened in Tokyo? There are a bunch of reasons, including that Tokyo has been burnt down many times, and so there’s a kind of culture of building and rebuilding, and obviously that has a tragic past. But also, zoning policy is made nationally.
The government of Japan does [00:23:00] not see Tokyo as a question for the people who simply happen to live in Tokyo. Tokyo is the engine of Japan’s entire economy. It like needs to work for the country. So when it comes to cities, which is sort of my first set of concerns here, I lean in that direction.
Amy Lerman: Liberals talk a lot, particularly recently, about existential crises, the existential crisis of climate or of democracy or, uh, you know, of COVID. And I wonder if the Abundance Agenda has a particular moment right now because so much of what you’re talking about is the need to move faster, to invest more deeply in some of these things, to make trade offs with this feeling like we need to solve these problems and we need to solve them now. And that’s a logic that can push this agenda forward.
Ezra Klein: I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. I don’t think I’d be here doing this if I wasn’t thinking, I mean, my path to this came through decarbonization. We just need to build so much so fast to make that work that the question is like, can we? And when the answer is clear, no, then the question became, well, how do we, what do we need to do?[00:24:00]
There are a lot of people who speak about this as existential, but don’t feel to me like they are acting with an existential level of concern. I, I don’t remember if it was Minnesota or Minneapolis, but they passed a ban on single family zoning. And then the state chapter of the National Audubon Society sued under the argument that it required an environmental review because mixed family housing would be bad for birds.
This triggered a kind of fight within the Audubon Society and like those people seemed to have resigned and eventually, like they took themselves outta the suit. But the suit worked and the judge put an injunction on the single family housing ban. And this is to be fair, a fight happening in a lot of, uh, in much of the environmental movement.
The environmental movement was built on a conservation ethos, and now it has to pivot, or at least large parts of it have to pivot to build fast enough to conserve the climate. Which is not the same as [00:25:00] conserving land as it currently exists, and in fact is the exact opposite of it. We need to build a quantity, uh, a length of transmission lines that are multiples beyond the interstate highway build.
We need to build so many wind turbines, they’ll be visible from the combined landmass of like five states. The numbers here are astonishing, and it’s really hard to retool yourself like that. There are people in this who are real heroes here. Bill McKibben has been doing extraordinary work on this, and has been a leader in this fight forever.
Like, long before I ever got anywhere near it. These organizations weren’t built to do this. But, if you believe it’s existential, then you have to be willing to go into, to triage. If it’s that bad, and it is that bad, then yeah, we might not be able to preserve everything we wanted to preserve. If we believe it is that bad, then we need a World War II scale mobilization.
World War II was not chill. The government just nationalized the factories, it just took the factories away. And if you didn’t do what they [00:26:00] wanted to do, they took your factory too. And they built a bunch of factories. I mean, what we did there, what the environmental movement was calling for, I don’t think people actually faced up to.
What that’s going to require is really at odds with their intuitive commitments to land that they love. If it really is existential, then you have to swallow really hard and make the choices. And if not, then you have to say why we’re not. And what we’re going to do instead, the really dangerous thing is to say it’s existential and then implicitly make choices that rely on waiting.
Because like, that’s what we can’t do is wait.
Amy Lerman: Thank you. And just to be clear, you don’t have to worry about getting in trouble here. Friends of Ezra Klein, uh, here. How do we get there, given the, the fact that we, right now it seems like we can’t actually get anywhere.
Ezra Klein: Remarkable things have been happening. I think the Inflation Reduction Act is a remarkable piece of legislation [00:27:00] to have passed in as narrowly divided a Congress as it did. One good thing is that other states are looking at California and passing really great YIMBY legislation, because, like, we don’t want that to happen to us. The fact that solar, wind, and battery are now competitive with fossil fuels is the only reason we have any chance.
The only reason we have any chance at avoiding planetary catastrophe. And so a lot of good things have really happened. The move in climate to realizing that we would need to build our way out of this, it predates any of my work on this. If you look across a bunch of domains, you can see something new emerging.
Supply side progressivism. It’s not mine. I am trying to write about it, and trying to help shape it. But it is happening. I’ve reported on policy for a very long time, and one of my conclusions is we never, ever, under any circumstances, simply solve a problem. We always muddle through. It’s always messy, but we often do muddle through, you know, maybe some technological stuff breaks our way quicker than we are than we’re realizing.
Maybe some other stuff happens.[00:28:00]
Amy Lerman: I’m going to ask you one last question. And, uh, it’s a predictable question. Anybody who wants to ask it along with me.
All
Ezra Klein: right. Three books I would recommend to the audience. So one is Ed Glazer’s A Triumph of the City. It’s a great book. Um, great book about cities, will make you think about cities and see them a little bit differently.
Really fascinating work. Uh, another, it’s really important, Conor Dougherty’s Golden Gates. Um, if you live here specifically, it’s really important and it’s important to read things about the place in which you live. Um, and then the last one, a book that’s become really important in my own thinking is this book called People of Plenty by Potter. David Potter. Thank you. David Potter. The subtitle I think is Economic Abundance in the American Character. And it’s really helped me think about the ways in which what it means to be an American was braided with what were the possibilities in America. That book has become very foundational for me in my thinking and has helped me kind of see a lineage in these ideas that I can [00:29:00] connect back to.
But if you want to be like way ahead of where I am in my work, you should read that book. It wasn’t Amy Lerman great…
Amy Lerman: Ezra Klein.
Lisa Katovitch: You’ve been listening to New York Times journalist and podcast host Ezra Klein and uc, Berkeley. Professor Amy Lerman on the topic, A liberalism that builds a co-presentation of Cal Performances and uc, Berkeley graduate lectures. As part of the Jefferson Memorial Lecture Series, this program was edited by Lisa Katowicz.
Tim Lynch: You’ve been listening to Fiat Lux Redux, a public affairs show at KALX that features edited lectures and conversations that took place on the campus of UC Berkeley. The source material is culled from things available online at UC Berkeley’s many websites, podcast programs, and streaming channels, often in a longer form.
Our theme music is from New Monsoon. This is KALX, Berkeley.[00:30:00]
Northgate Radio: Repairing Harm to the Ohlone People
TRANSCRIPT:
Bria Suggs: [00:00:00] You’re listening to Northgate Radio. I’m Bria Suggs. In any big city, there are people who have moved here from elsewhere, like me, who moved here from Atlanta to Berkeley in July. And in any place with transplants, there’s a sense of pride among the born and raised locals. Here in the Bay, There’s a lot of talk about Bay Area natives, but we don’t hear as much about the true Bay Area natives, the Ohlone people, whose ancestors were here long before the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge or UC Berkeley.
And if we do, it’s often only in a historical context. The Ohlone, whose ancestral lands stretch from Contra Costa County to Santa Cruz. Representatives of the city of Oakland recently passed a resolution to return five acres of land to the Ohlone.
Oakland Mayor: Council Member Fife.
Council Member Fife: Aye.
Oakland Mayor: Council Member Gallo.
Council Member Gallo: Aye.
Oakland Mayor: Council Member Cobb.
Council Member Cobb: Aye.
Bria Suggs: Reporting for Northgate Radio, five journalists unpack Oakland’s [00:01:00] legislation, along with other ways institutions here are trying to repair harm to local Indigenous people. We start with reporter Laura Fitzgerald, who tells us how Oakland became the first city in the country to give back parkland to a tribe without federal recognition.
Laura Fitzgerald: It was Karina Gould, a member of the Confederated Villages of Leshon, who decided that the five acres at Sequoia Point in Joaquin Miller Park would be best suited for the proposal.
Karina Gould: No matter who you are in the Bay, if you end up at this spot now called Sequoia Point up in Joaquin Miller Park, begin to imagine what it would have looked like for thousands of years prior to anyone building here.
Laura Fitzgerald: Gould’s also co director of the Segovia Tay Land Trust, which will be the primary recipient and sole steward of the land. But the city of Oakland will still own the land, so the proposal doesn’t exactly look like what many would expect when they hear the term land back, which is a movement to return stolen land to indigenous communities and, in some cases, [00:02:00] reestablish indigenous sovereignty.
Oakland Mayor: Well, it is incredibly difficult to give back stolen land. You’d think it would be very easy, but we have made it understandably hard to not gift.
Laura Fitzgerald: Mayor Libby Schaaf says officials had to get creative. After negotiating with Karina Gould, the city settled on what they call a cultural conservation easement.
Oakland Mayor: Now a conservation easement is not a complete sale or gift. It’s not a complete transfer of ownership. But what is exciting about it is it really effectively transfers all the rights of ownership. and privileges without going through the incredibly bureaucratic morass of steps that would need to be taken through a sale.
Laura Fitzgerald: The bureaucratic morass includes an environmental review process and surplus land laws. Processes that would have taken much longer than the four years it took to [00:03:00] develop and vote on the current proposal. Part of the slowdown and complications involve federal recognition.
Oakland Mayor: The fact that our Ohlone people are not federally recognized here in Oakland definitely took certain tools off the table.
Laura Fitzgerald: So, this unique approach, a cultural conservation easement, may not seem like a true land backed proposal to some. After all, the Sogorea Te Land Trust and the Greater Ohlone Community will not actually own the land once the transfer is finalized. But that’s okay, according to Karina Gould. By retaining property rights, the Land Trust will be able to lead native habitat restoration, host outdoor education programs, and work on what the Land Trust calls rematriation.
Karina Gould: Rematriation is about bringing balance to the world again as Indigenous women’s work. Not to leave men out, but to realize that through colonization that our sacred responsibilities have been taken away. And to come back to those sacred ways of living, to take care of the land and the waters that we’re [00:04:00] from.
Laura Fitzgerald: Since the City of Oakland will retain ownership, it will still be responsible for fire and emergency management. Local city and state laws will also still apply. Other than that, Mayor Schaaf insists that the land will functionally belong to the Land Trust.
Oakland Mayor: I mean, really, the only restriction are the values that they set forth. They wanted to be clear that this land has to be used for the purposes of natural resource conservation and cultural conservation. They didn’t want to allow The McDonald’s to be built on the site one day, you know, or, you know, stereotypically people would say a casino.
Laura Fitzgerald: Not all in the Bay Area’s Indigenous community approve of how the proposal was developed. Gabriel Duncan with the Alameda Native Art Project gave public comment during Oakland’s City Council meeting on November 1st.
Gabriel Duncan: Exclusive land rights are being granted, to only one tribal group, uh, without actually consulting any of the other [00:05:00] tribal groups.
Laura Fitzgerald: Despite Sogorea Te Land Trust being the sole steward of the land at Sequoia Point, Karina Gould views the proposal as a homecoming for the greater Indigenous community in the Bay Area.
Karina Gould: Imagine that in these last 250 years, the tribe has been homeless in our own homelands. And so that means that we have not had access to actually growing our own medicines or collecting the foods that our ancestors have for thousands of years without asking from permission. This gives us the opportunity to engage in our land in a different kind of a way.
Laura Fitzgerald: Gould thinks this land back proposal could serve as a model for reparation in urban areas where there are other federally unrecognized tribes. For Northgate Radio, I’m Laura Fitzgerald.
Bria Suggs: Where is Sequoia Point anyway? Reporter Laura Isaza takes us on a journey to the five acre parcel in the Oakland Hills.[00:06:00]
Laura Isaza: To see Sequoia Point, you have to get there first. And depending on your situation, getting there is no small feat. So I’m going to take the orange line. The 39 bus. To the intersection of Joaquin Miller Road and Crockett Place. 0. 4 miles to Sequoia Point. In most cases, driving is the fastest option. But not everyone has access to a car.
According to the National Equity Atlas, 12 percent of households in the San Francisco metro area don’t own one. So to see how long it would take, I timed this trip to Sequoia Point on public transit. We’re reporting from UC Berkeley, so I started at the downtown Berkeley BART at 9am. And that was the sound of me missing my train.
How many people actually take public transit to Joaquin Miller Park? Nonprofit Friends of Joaquin Miller Park asked that very question in a survey launched in March of 2022. So far, it found that fewer than 1 percent take a bus. Julie Mills, the [00:07:00] development chair, said this makes sense.
Julie Mills: There is a bus that goes, but it only goes there once an hour, so…
Laura Isaza: I learned that the hard way. Oh, shoot. Okay. The 39 bus departed early 15 minutes ago. So, is this right? The next one is at 1020? It’s, it’s almost 9:30, that’s in a long time. And so, I waited, and waited, and waited. And finally, oh the 39, it’s here! It’s early. Morale had returned. Good, how are you? 25 stops later, I’m ready to hike up the half mile trail to Sequoia Point.
There used to be another bus line, the 339. that went much closer to Sequoia Point, but it was discontinued in 2020 due to falling ridership. AC Transit declined an interview to help us learn more about why. It’s nice to be surrounded by trees, breathing [00:08:00] air that smells like pine and eucalyptus. After about 15 minutes of hiking uphill over tree roots and rocks, I’ve made it.
It is now 10:52 am so nearly two hours later. At the end of my track, I reach a flat. Open area scattered with orange leaves, bottle caps, and the remnants of a fire encircled by stone walls that are graffitied and falling away in places.
Dale Risden: And this is a difficult spot because it does tend to get a lot of trash because it’s flat and we have a culture now, right now, of dumping.
Laura Isaza: That’s Dale Risden, Chair of Friends of Joaquin Miller Park. Several times a month, Dale joins a group of volunteers to pick up trash in the park. And after every clean up day, Dale says, the trash is back. And litter isn’t the only issue.
Dale Risden: One of the biggest problems is invasive species. Um, we just planted the wrong trees.
We’re seeing [00:09:00] lots of change. We’re seeing lots of the pine trees die. They’re just not making it through the drought. Um, probably within Joaquin Miller Park, 20 percent of the forest is dead.
Laura Isaza: Sequoia Point didn’t always look like this. Thousands of years ago, this area of the park would have been teeming with redwoods, some towering over 300 feet high and stretching out more than 30 feet in diameter.
Sunlight flickering through pine needles, branches catching incoming fog from the bay. Water rolling down to the roots below to a subterranean ecosystem even older than the trees themselves.
Karina Gould: Really cut down all the redwood trees that were upped and upped on hills.
Laura Isaza: That’s Karina Gould again, the co director of the Segorea Te Land Trust, speaking at an Oakland Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting in September.
The Land Trust has a vision to turn Sequoia Point into a vibrant, thriving area. They want to bring back native plants, remove the litter, and have people from [00:10:00] Oakland and all over the Bay come together to celebrate Indigenous cultures. Karina Gould is hoping to construct a ceremonial structure on the site, inspired by a traditional Ohlone basket design.
Karina Gould: What we hope to do as the Sogorea Te Land Trust, um, is to re engage, um, not just the tribe and not just Indigenous people, to really talk about how do we, uh, take care and steward the lands that we have set aside.
Laura Isaza: There’s still a long road ahead. invasive species, ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the trash dumping problem, not to mention, it’ll take at least six to nine months to rezone the site for any construction to take place, according to Mayor Libby Schaaf’s policy staff.
After years of talks with the city of Oakland, there’s still one final uphill push. As for me, I’m glad someone’s picking me up and saving me the bus ride back. For [00:11:00] Northgate Radio, I’m Laura Isaza.
Bria Suggs: So now that we’ve ventured out to Sequoia Point, we’re going to take a look at who makes up the group of people so often referred to as Ohlone.
Desiree Munoz: I’m Desiree Munoz, I’m a member of the ……
Bria Suggs: Desiree Munoz gave the land acknowledgement at Berkeley’s Indigenous People’s Day this year.
This Who are the Ohlone? Before white settlers came to California, there were over 17, 000 indigenous people living in the Bay. Despite a past of colonization and genocide, their descendants are still here, fighting for visibility and recognition. [00:12:00] Although Ohlone is the most common name used to refer to the indigenous people of the Bay, it’s a fluid term.
That’s according to Abel Gomez. He’s an assistant professor of Native American and indigenous spiritual traditions at Texas Christian University.
Abel Gomez: So it’s really important that when we talk about Ohlone peoples, we understand that we’re really talking about complex and diverse groups of people.
Bria Suggs: Gomez says there were once 58 distinct tribes in this region.
Abel Gomez: There was never a single unified Ohlone tribe or Ohlone nation in the past, and that is true to this day as well. Some identify with the term Ohlone broadly, others may identify more specifically with their linguistic territory. So Chicheno Ohlone in the East Bay, for example.
Bria Suggs: Gomez says others may identify with their tribal government, like members of the Amo Mutsun tribal band, or with their ancestral village sites like the confederated villages of Leshan.
California was home to more than one [00:13:00] million Native Americans before Spanish settlers arrived in 1769. By the 1920s, it’s estimated that fewer than 20, 000 were alive. This significant loss of life occurred during three waves of colonization. Spanish, Mexican, and American.
Abel Gomez: In the 18th and 19th century, the Spanish established the California mission system along the California coast. And the mission system had two related goals. First, to settle and claim land.
Bria Suggs: And second, to convert the indigenous people to Catholicism. This was done with force. Indigenous people were whipped if they spoke their languages. If they fled the missions, they were hunted down and returned by Spanish soldiers. They were stripped of their cultural identities and called Castaños. Spanish for people from the coast. White anthropologists later morphed that into Costanoan. And nothing improved when California became the 31st state in 1850.
Abel Gomez: With that [00:14:00] came a wave of state sanctioned genocide. The historian Benjamin Madley estimates 9, 000 to upwards of 16, 000 killings by U. S. soldiers, volunteer militias, and vigilante groups, for which the federal and state government paid $1.5 million.
Bria Suggs: The state was trying to erase the existence of Indigenous Californians in a number of ways. Some of the ancestors of today’s Ohlone, the Verona Band of Alameda County, were once federally recognized.
The name Verona came from a train station in the area. The tribe was stripped of its federal recognition in 1927. And when that happened, it was like they no longer existed to the local, State and federal government.
Abel Gomez: The particular histories, as I mentioned of genocide have made it really challenging for survivors of the California mission system in particular to regain recognition status.
Alexii Sagona: I remember being told I [00:15:00] was Ohlone from a young age. Later in my teens, I learned more about Amah Mutsun.
Bria Suggs: The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Ohlone has been fighting for decades to regain its federal recognition. 24 year old Alexii Sagona is a member. His ancestors were survivors of Mission Santa Cruz.
Alexii Sagona: Amah Mutsun is a politically reorganized community that really came together in the 20th century following us not being recognized.
Bria Suggs: He’s currently a PhD student at UC Berkeley studying indigenous land access and co management.
Alexii Sagona: I became aware of my tribal identity and what the community was working on when I was about 18 or 19 years old.
I then reached out to tribal leadership who informed me about some amazing programs that our community was doing through this organization called the Amah Mutsun Land Trust, which is our non profit. And so in the summer of 2018, I [00:16:00] was a native steward, which meant I was on the land near Año Nuevo State Park in Quito State Valley in Pescadero, California, learning ethnobotany and learning language.
So it was sort of a holistic immersion into culture that was really impactful for me and made me want to pursue, you know, a graduate degree looking at these sorts of programs.
Bria Suggs: The concept of identity can be a tricky subject for Indigenous Americans. Being openly Native wasn’t always safe. For some, it was easier to pass for another race or ethnicity than to be themselves.
Alexii Sagona: What I’ve heard from my grandparents generation is that they were always told to never say that they were Indian and always say they were Mexican. And so that sort of suppression of identity, uh, meant us making tamales on Christmas Eve and other things like that, and speaking more Spanish. So, my traditions are just mixed, generally.
Bria Suggs: As you [00:17:00] heard, the people native to the Bay refer to themselves by many names. But, if they’re going to use one identifier to be grouped under, that label is Ohlone. The exact origins of the term are in dispute, but what isn’t is that its roots are from an indigenous language, not the language of settler colonialists.
Reporter Max Harrison Caldwell brings us another story about names, and what things should or should not be called.
Max Harrison Caldwell: What is this building called?
Student 1: The Art Practice and Anthropology Building or the Anthropology and Art Practice Building. The Arts and Anthropology Building. Uh. The anthro building? I always call it anthro.
Bria Suggs: Max stopped students on a recent Monday afternoon outside a cream colored building on the south side of Berkeley’s campus.
Student 2: I believe it’s named after the anthropologist, the gross anthropologist.
Bria Suggs: That anthropologist is Alfred Kroeber, the founder of UC Berkeley’s anthropology department. He [00:18:00] spent most of his career studying the indigenous people of California.
The building in question was once named after him, but not since January 2021. Here’s Max.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Alfred Kroeber was particularly interested in Native American languages. Here’s a recording he made of a Yahi man named Ishi.
Kroeber housed Ishi in a San Francisco museum. And when Ishi died, Kroeber sent his preserved brain to the Smithsonian Institution, where it remained until the year 2000. Berkeley linguistics professor Andrew Garrett, who’s writing a book about Kroeber, says Ishii didn’t have any agency in the decision to go to San Francisco.
Andrew Garrett: And it’s pretty clear that he was taken there for research reasons. For the first seven months of his almost five years there, he did participate in weekly, um, cultural demonstrations of flintknapping and maybe arrow making and bow making. For the rest of his time, he was just a kind of regular employee.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Who [00:19:00] lived at the museum. UC Berkeley’s Building Name Review Committee weighed this relationship and nearly 600 public comments in making its decision to hammer Kroeber’s name off of the Anthropology building in January 2021. Public comments described Kroeber as a symbol of colonialism, imperialism, and white supremacy.
Andrew Garrett: He’s the most prominent Californianist anthropologist, and anthropology and indigenous people have had this really… negative relationship based on many damaging things that anthropology in general has done.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Many of those same public comments mention the damage Kroeber did to the Muwekma Ohlone when he declared them extinct in a 1925 book.
University of New Mexico anthropology professor Les Field says that statement had enormous consequences. There was an explosion of construction and development following the Second World War.
Les Field: Major highways and expansion of highways throughout the Bay Area. Housing developments, [00:20:00] shopping centers, and malls.
So this enormous expansion. And the archaeologists the developers hired took Kroeber’s word as law. In the process of doing all that construction, a great many remains are uncovered of the Ohlone ancestors by cultural resource management companies. And because of Kroeber’s statement, that enables their behavior to either destroy those remains, cover them up, sell them, or in many, many ways, neglect to fulfill any responsibility to the descendants.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Both Field and Garrett backed the unnaming of Kroeber Hall. And say Kroeber’s legacy is complicated. Garrett says Kroeber was much more active in supporting indigenous rights than other anthropologists of the time. In 1952, for example, he went to federal court to support the land rights of indigenous Californians.
Back on [00:21:00] campus, it was a struggle to figure out who was responsible for renaming buildings.
Charles Hirschkind: I, uh, I am not in touch with them and actually I do not know who they are.
Max Harrison Caldwell: That’s Charles Hirschkind, the chair of the anthropology department. I spoke with him in his office, in the building currently referred to as the Anthropology and Art Practice Building.
Charles Hirschkind: My worry is that we’ll become the Wells Fargo Building, you know, or the Chase Bank Building, when I do think a Native American name would probably be much more, a much better name.
Max Harrison Caldwell: It turned out the committee that decided to unname the building is also not involved in renaming. But after navigating several more layers of bureaucracy, I found James Ford, Chief of Staff at the University’s Division of Academic Planning.
James Ford: So with Kroeber, that process has not officially… Begun.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Ford explained that, when the building was unnamed, the committees involved decided that the campus community should take about two years just to ruminate on a potential new name. After that, the school would send out a [00:22:00] request for renaming proposals.
Well, it’s been about two years, but
James Ford: My understanding is that we’ll revisit the conversation at the beginning of the academic year next year.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Ford says the two year plan was just a guess, but that renaming the anthropology building is definitely on the agenda for a planned meeting next fall with university leadership.
One crucial question, what do Native American students on Berkeley’s campus think?
Alexii Sagona: I would rather look at what anthropology is doing for indigenous peoples more than what their names are.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Graduate student Alexi Sigona, who we heard from earlier, belongs to the Amah Mutsun Ohlone tribe.
Alexii Sagona: If they’re pushing for rematriation, repatriation, and doing really good work with indigenous peoples, then I think that can speak for itself.
Max Harrison Caldwell: He mentioned one anthro professor who he said was doing just that, saying he’s changed the way archaeologists work with tribal nations.
Alexii Sagona: I can speak personally that I have great relations with uh, Professor Lightfoot and his whole team. They really helped [00:23:00] us revitalize our culture. Unfortunately, you know, I wish it didn’t have to be like that, that we had to rely on collaborative archaeology to bring our knowledge systems back. But, here we are today. We want to return to the land and we want to learn our past traditional stewardship practices.
Max Harrison Caldwell: Sagona is wary of naming buildings after people in general.
Alexii Sagona: I feel like every time you name it after a person, five years later you realize that person was, you know, really problematic or something.
Max Harrison Caldwell: But he says the interim name doesn’t quite roll off the tongue either.
Alexii Sagona: Anthropology and Art Practice Building is a mouthful.
Max Harrison Caldwell: For Northgate Radio, I’m Max Harrison Caldwell.
Bria Suggs: The UC campus isn’t the only place in Berkeley that’s seeking to repair harm. While Oakland may be the first city in California to give land back to an indigenous community, neighboring Berkeley was the first city in the country to change Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.
Andy Kelly: The city of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in.
Bria Suggs: Reporting on the city of Berkeley’s newest effort to repair damage done to the native people of the Bay Area is Jenna Harns.
Andy Kelly: [00:24:00] Speaking Ohlone people.
Jenna Harns: It’s a land acknowledgement statement. The newest addition to the Berkeley City Council meetings.
You’re listening to the first recitation from November 3rd, 2022.
Andy Kelly: As we begin our city counseling tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5, 000 year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay.
Jenna Harns: While a land back agreement may seem new, many are familiar with a land acknowledgement statement where institutions work alongside tribes to bring awareness to the original stewards of the land. Andy Kelly is the current Berkeley City Council Commissioner. That was him reading Berkeley’s new land acknowledgement statement.
Andy Kelly: These things are secret, right? I mean, at the county, we do the Pledge of Allegiance. At the city, we haven’t historically done that, but we now do the land acknowledgement. And as you’re sitting there as an elected official thinking about how the property that we regulate, the land that we live on is historically the home of the Ohlone people [00:25:00] and we need to do better to acknowledge and recognize that. That’s a very meaningful thing. It brings that consciousness should those issues come up.
Jenna Harns: Berkeley Councilwoman Sophie Hahn wrote the land acknowledgement proposal with Andy Kelly.
Sophie Hahn: A lot of people do not think on a daily basis about the fact that we are on stolen land. And I’m hopeful that that is a stepping stone to a greater awareness of the fact that we live on this land as a result of of a genocidal set of policies that sought and almost did wipe out a culture and a people.
McKalee Steen: Um, I think it’s also important with land acknowledgement statements to not just frame it in the past.
Jenna Harns: McKalee Steen is a Berkeley grad student and a part of the Native American student division on campus.
McKalee Steen: But to also acknowledge the present and future of tribal sovereignty, um, [00:26:00] and then I think more and more. It’s great to also see a call to action with land acknowledgements, to not just stop at acknowledging the land, but seeing how you can partner with, or work with, or support the local tribal community.
Jenna Harns: McKaylee has experience developing land acknowledgement statements and is aware of the critique that they’re performative and don’t go far enough to repair the damage done to Indigenous communities.
McKalee Steen: I think people really want to be able to just like check a box, like, okay, I did that. I’m my conscience is clear. And I hope that’s not what people take it as. I think that land acknowledgements are important. If you can’t acknowledge the land that you’re on and who were the stewards or are the stewards of this land, then we really have no hope for all of the other goals we want to achieve.
So I definitely. agree that they can be performative, but hope that people will take those extra steps so that they aren’t.
Andy Kelly: Trying to even figure out something that’s meaningful [00:27:00] is not impossible, but is of itself just a really big challenge and a really big thing to grasp your head around.
Jenna Harns: That’s Andy Kelly again. He’s definitely looking at Oakland’s land back agreement for inspiration.
Andy Kelly: It’s a really important step in a direction. But I think many of us would like to take. And so we are definitely looking very closely at how Oakland was able to structure their program and how our city might be able to copy that.
The Ohlone people are present members of
Jenna Harns: until then, Berkeley’s new land acknowledgement statement will be read at each meeting.
Andy Kelly: The city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the John tribe and other Ohlone tribes. and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
Thank you. So we’ll now proceed to the next order.
Jenna Harns: For Northgate Radio, I’m Jenna Hards.
Bria Suggs: So what comes next? What else will the city of Oakland do to keep repairing the harms done to the indigenous people [00:28:00] here? And will other cities like Berkeley adopt Oakland’s model as a blueprint? No one knows, but the East Bay does have a history of influencing national discourse. Small as the five acres in Sequoia Point may be, the land trust can now start restoring indigenous plants and practices.
Maybe planting a few seeds doesn’t seem like much, but the park’s ecology depends on it. And just as every redwood begins as a sprout, small scale ideas can grow into nationwide movements.
This show was produced by Laura Fitzgerald, Jenna Hards, Max Harrison Caldwell, Laura Isaza, and me, Bria Suggs. Supervising editors are Shereen Marisol Muraji, [00:29:00] Ethan Tovin Lindsey, and Catherine Stier Martinez. Special thanks to our Northgate Radio colleagues, Holly Burns, Annetta Felix, Maggie Fuller, Quagga Ghani, Maria Zuffer, and Jean Zamora.
Thanks for listening, and once again, I’m your host, Bria Suggs.