Wednesday Morning Politics With NJ Rep. Sherrill

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Well, obviously you've been hearing about what's going on on college campuses around the country, as you were just hearing on the BBC, and locally about the police involvement last night at Columbia and City College. Later this hour, our lead Eric Adams reporter Elizabeth Kim will be on as the mayor is out talking about it this morning.

Of course, it's not just in New York City where the pro-Palestinian protests or encampments and police responses have been taking place, in some cases, clashes with the police, in some cases, clashes between competing groups of protesters. In many cases, expressions of antisemitism accompany these events also, these developments, not just opposition to how the war in Gaza is being fought since the Hamas attack on October 7th.

In Montclair, New Jersey in March, a Gaza relief event called Palestine Lives was cancelled by Montclair State University, with the university president citing that an outside group had become the lead sponsor of the event, and according to University President Jonathan Koppell, published a mission statement that goes well beyond advocacy for the Palestinian people. Specifically, the president's statement said it contains an explicit call to "eliminate Zionism on our campuses and in our communities."

President Koppell says the declared purpose of this organization to rid the campus of any who oppose its views strikes at the very core of Montclair State University's mission and values, that a quote from the university presidents letter to the university community in March. Also in March, in Montclair, there were dueling ceasefire now and stand up to antisemitism events. The editor of the Jewish newspaper, The Forward, Jodi Rudoren, who lives in Montclair published an article called, When hate comes to your hometown.

It focused on a pro-Palestinian march that centered the chant, "We don't want no Zionists here," which Rudoren's article says struck her and many other Jewish resident's of Montclair as saying, "We don't want no Jews here." She said it was impossible to imagine a similar scenario in Montclair targeting any other religious or ethnic group. We'll talk more about that and more now with the member of Congress who represents Montclair.

The congresswoman has a new bill, that's Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, she has a new bill that would attempt to prevent judge shopping by anti-abortion groups, as she says happened in the mifepristone abortion medication case. She also questioned the Secretary of Defense in Congress yesterday, looking for ways to ensure that service women have protections and access to reproductive care, even if they are stationed in states like Texas with really stringent bans.

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill is a Democrat who represents New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, which overall includes parts of Morris, Essex and Passaic counties in North Jersey. Congresswoman Sherrill spent nearly 10 years on active duty in the Navy, served as a Russia policy officer in the US Attorney's Office in New Jersey. In Congress, she's on the House Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Strategic Competition with the Chinese Communist Party. Congresswoman, thanks for coming on today. We always appreciate it. Welcome back to WNYC.

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Well, thanks again for having me, Brian. I appreciate it.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start with the judge shopping bill. Can you explain what that's about?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Yes. What we've seen in some of the anti-abortion tactics is judge shopping, meaning that there are certain divisions within our judicial system that have only one judge. For example, if you bring a case to court in New Jersey, you don't know which judge you are going to get to hear your case. You could have a judge appointed by Biden or Obama, you could have a judge appointed by Trump or Bush, you don't know. There are multiple judges that might be picked to hear your case by the assigning judge.

However, in some of these divisions, especially in some more remote areas, there is only one judge, so that you know if you take your case to that court, you have one person that will hear it, and so that can ensure the outcome you want in certain cases, and certainly we saw that with a mifepristone case. What my bill does is say you have to have more than one judge if you are going to bring a case that will impact the rights of people nationwide. In that type of case with say a nationwide ban on something or impacting a nationwide law, that you have to bring your case to a division or a department that has more than one judge.

Brian Lehrer: Don't all sides in all cases judge shop if they can, and if so, how can a bill prevent it in ways that would advance what your policy preferences are or those who you want to protect without disadvantaging them in other situations?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: I think we have seen judge shopping in multiple areas, but when we are looking at an area that is going to enforce a nationwide ban, meaning the rights of people across the country are implicated, we want a more fair process. We don't want people to be able to game the system and go to some of the most conservative judges in the nation to determine the outcome. We want a more fair process. Certainly, they may draw a very conservative judge, but I think we want somebody to put forward a case where they are trying to make a very fair case, and can't game the system or determine the outcome based on where they bring that case.

Brian Lehrer: The bill would explicitly do that how, and do you think you have enough support in the Republican House of Representatives to get that bill to the president's desk or to the Senate?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: The bill would specifically say that if you are trying to bring a case that would impact people nationwide, you have to bring it into a district or division that has more than one judge, so that you can't predetermine exactly the judge that is going to hear it. It's hard to say. We've had trouble in this Congress, I think, gaining enough support to get very noncontroversial things done. It's been very hard. In this Congress, trying to find that group of support will be difficult, but I think we've seen movement in the Senate.

Schumer introduced a similar bill, and I think that he's seen some bipartisan support there, so hopefully, we can build on that in the House because really, this is something that when we're talking about rights, that we want to protect in our courts. The very things that protect us against some very conservative justices could protect people against a very liberal justices or judges. I think this is an area where we could find wide bipartisan support in just trying to create a more fair justice system.

Brian Lehrer: The mifepristone case was an inspiration for this bill. I see you're also concerned about another Supreme Court case on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. What's that?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, called EMTALA often, is a case being heard before the court or just was heard before the court. We expect an upcoming decision. That is a case where Idaho had a trigger law, meaning that once Roe was overturned, that law would immediately go into effect, and it was one of the most Draconian laws regarding abortion care across the nation. You could basically only get as far as healthcare for women abortion in the case of, if you were seeing the death of a mother.

What EMTALA says and how that has been interpreted is to provide what is called stabilizing care. What that really means is, "Look, if you are in a medical situation, if you are suffering a medical problem with your pregnancy, abortion may be the way that the medical center can treat you." In cases such as placenta previa, hemorrhaging, other areas, it's really an important part of reproductive healthcare.

We're seeing in too many cases that when doctors wait until the actual life of the mother is at stake, not just the health of the mother, they're making decisions that will put the mother at risk of never being able to conceive again, of really impacting her reproductive organs, for example, in such a way that she'll never be able to have another baby.

That specifically was a question asked before the Supreme Court, under Idaho's Draconian laws, would you be able as a doctor to conduct an abortion if it would save the reproductive organs of a mother?

The answer was really very unclear because I think the answer is no under that law, and so healthcare providers are not protected in that case. In Idaho, you can be put in jail if the criminal system determines that you have inappropriately under their law, their Draconian law, given someone an abortion and in their reproductive organs.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. I see that you hosted a news conference last week on this with some emergency care physicians. Is this all up to the Supreme Court now or is there anything you can do about that to protect that legislatively?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: We're waiting for the outcome in the Supreme Court. I think that will determine how we move forward. Hopefully, the court will see women and women's healthcare and women's organs as something to protect and women having some rights here in this space and hopefully, they will protect the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and women's rights under that. If they do not, I think then Congress has to move forward and make sure that EMTALA is made clear and we'll see which areas the court finds unclear if that's the case, and how we can legislate to make it clear that women do have these rights.

Another area that's critically important to me is servicewomen because on military bases, the medical care system is controlled under something called Title 10. That's the title in US statute that controls the military and military rights and responsibilities on these bases. EMTALA is not in Title 10. In other words, servicewomen don't have these basic protections on our military bases.

That's important because we have women say from New Jersey, who are joining our military and may be stationed like I was in places like Florida and Texas that are really providing bottom-of-the-barrel reproductive healthcare for women. In fact, we're seeing in many of these states that are rolling back rights for women, OBGYNs, and physicians that care for pregnant women leaving the state because they don't want to face the threat of going to jail if they really, in line with their Hippocratic Oath, treat women appropriately.

Brian Lehrer: Do I see that that's what you questioned the defense Secretary about yesterday in a congressional hearing? Is that correct?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Yes. I brought up my concern. I said, "Look, we're seeing the Supreme Court weigh in on EMTALA but we know those protections don't even exist for military women on our bases. What can we do?" He agreed that that was a concern that we should look into and that's something I will be focusing on as we try to make sure that our servicewomen-- people sacrifice a lot to serve. They should not have to sacrifice their ability to get good reproductive healthcare or even their ability to make sure that when they go in to see a medical professional, they are going to get the best medical care they can.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, if you have any question relevant to Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill from the 11th Congressional District in Northern New Jersey, we can take a few phone calls at 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. Staying on the general topic of abortion rights, I see you reacting to something or some things that Donald Trump said about abortion rights in his new Time Magazine interview. A whole host of things that he said in that interview are getting attention for various reasons if he becomes president again but what caught your eye there with respect to abortion?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: I think the thing that caught my eye and the thing that was really upsetting was this idea that the states could check on women's pregnancy so that they can monitor them and determine that they aren't getting abortions. I don't know what that means but he seems to find it really appropriate that states would then be able to prosecute women in this area. I just, as I think about how in the aftermath of Roe being overturned, how constrained women across this country feel, it's really so threatening.

I have pregnant women in New Jersey who their office headquarters is in Dallas, and they refuse to take business trips there while they're pregnant because they know that would be dangerous. I have women who are in law school who are saying they feel they can only take jobs after they graduate in certain areas of the country because they may be starting a family in the next few years so they can't live in certain areas of the country because the healthcare is so abysmal.

My own daughter is contemplating going into the military and should she do so, she is not going to be able to say to them, she's not going to have the freedom like some of the women I just discussed to say that she won't go to Texas or she won't go to Florida. She is going to be given orders to go to where the military needs her to go and that may be a place where any type of pregnancy puts her at risk of severe health complications.

I think this is really a dangerous, dangerous time. I think Trump's statements make it seem as if he gets into the White House, and I believe it will be more dangerous for women across the country. I think as we see him talk more and more about his views on women and women's rights, it becomes more and more concerning to contemplate what might happen should he ever get back into the White House.

Brian Lehrer: Trump is responsible for the Dobbs decision no doubt because of his appointments to the Supreme Court, but he has also said recently that he'd leave abortion rights up to the States, wouldn't sign a federal ban of any kind. He has criticized the Arizona law for going too far and also previously the Florida six-week ban that takes effect today. Is he not a further threat to abortion rights in the presidency?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: I think what we see from Trump is always making decisions based on what's good for Trump. I don't think we can believe for a moment that he would not back a nationwide ban. I think he's saying what he can now to try to become the next president but I'll tell you, if he really wanted to protect women, he would weigh in on what the court's doing on the EMTALA decision and he would give his thoughts there on how important it is that women are given stabilizing care or care to ensure that their health when it's at stake, that they get good reproductive healthcare.

He would enunciate a nationwide policy on when abortion care is appropriate. He's never stated that. Simply saying he is not going to implement a nationwide band, that threat is already taking place now in our courts and with the Republicans in Congress. I think Trump doesn't sound credible to me when he says that, especially as someone who has already done such an incredible amount of damage to reproductive freedom.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a question from a listener in a text message, related to that EMTALA case you were talking about to the right of doctors to give women the emergency care that in their judgment they need and if that includes an abortion. Listener writes, "Why doesn't the AMA, the American Medical Association, which of course represents doctors, why doesn't the AMA sue for doctors being required to contradict their Hippocratic Oath?"

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: I would love for the AMA to explore that. I think they've weighed in in certain areas here but certainly, I think that's why you see doctors fleeing these states because they are at risk and many, I think have in many cases violated their Hippocratic oath. If you are a doctor and you see a woman hemorrhaging and you are being told, "Wait until she's at the point of death until you give her the care she needs," that to me is a violation of your Hippocratic Oath. I would love for the AMA to explore that very thing.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call from your district. Dana, in Montclair, you're on WNYC with Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill. Hello, Dana.

Dana: Hello. Good morning, Congresswoman. Along these lines of where things potentially could be headed, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether there could be travel restrictions on women, especially given rules such as women not being able to get a divorce from their husbands in certain states if they're pregnant. Thoughts on that?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Sure. I'll be frank here. When Roe was overturned, people were saying at that time, "Look, they could start to go after contraception. They could start to go after IVF." I thought that sounded a little unlikely. I thought basic access to contraception or access to IVF was so widespread and seen to me as so necessary for reproductive health and for families, people deciding to create their families. I just didn't see a world where these attacks would actually occur.

Yet so quickly, we are seeing attacks on that. I think while you may say if you're in Montclair, New Jersey, wow, nobody's going to restrict my travel to make sure I don't go have an abortion. We are already seeing those suggestions in places like Texas. Lizzie Fletcher, a colleague of mine from Texas, who has long worked on reproductive rights has put forth a piece of legislation to protect women's rights to travel because she was seeing just that by State Republican legislators trying to implement bans that you couldn't use, say, a county road if you were going to use it to go seek an abortion, criminalizing that behavior.

Yes, I think that is not only something that we have heard people talk about, but that is actually something that legislators are trying to implement. I would also say that we are already seeing attempts as well in the military space. If you remember Senator Tuberville withheld all flag, which is your admiral and your general rank in the military, withheld all flag promotions because he was trying to force the Secretary of Defense to backtrack on his protections of service women's right to travel for abortions and right to receive leave to do just that and the protection's there.

Brian Lehrer: Right, and he finally lost that filibuster, that hold up, right?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: He finally lost it. Yes, but it took way too long and there were far too few Republicans really speaking forcefully up against that and forcing him to back down.

Brian Lehrer: I think the caller Dana was going even further than that. I think Dana, you were suggesting that there be travel restrictions, just general warnings, really, travel warnings to people in a legal state like New Jersey against traveling to Texas and other states like that to at least know what they're potentially getting into. Dana, am I understanding your call correctly?

Dana: No, the congressman understood my call.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, good.

Dana: Certainly, I think women in general are going to have to consider these things. I also think in general, businesses are going to have to consider these things as women travel to different states on behalf of their companies, and what is that going to look like?

Brian Lehrer: Dana, thank you very much. Obviously, more to come on that as these laws evolve around the country and specifically to your point that Servicewomen should have the ability to travel to legal states to get reproductive care if they're stationed in a restrictive state. I think Sky in Brooklyn has a question. Sky, you're on WNYC with Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, hello.

Sky: Hi. Thank you. Just in my mind, it seems like we're talking about something that is like a fundamental human right. In America, maybe access to healthcare is less so, but to contextualize this as service women deserve these protections and we're making a hullabaloo to ensure that it seems to leave out the rest of the population. I think this is a strange argument to me because it seems it should be a fundamental right, not one secured for someone who's willing to go to war.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I don't think the congresswoman is suggesting that it be restricted to those servicewomen, but Congresswoman, you can explain in your own words.

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Sure. No, I think Sky is exactly right. I think this is a fundamental right that is being attacked. We are trying to find ways forward to protect these rights in every way we can. Do I wish that Trump had not had as his goal to pack a court with people who would overturn Roe? Yes. Did I even think the Roe protections were enough? No, but I thought we needed those baseline protections. Are we seeing horrible, horrible outcomes for women all over this country that none of them should have to endure? 1,000%?

I totally agree with that, but right now, with the makeup of the court and with the makeup of the legislatures and the governors in some states, they are rolling back. The court has thrown these decisions into the states, and these states are rolling back these protections at an incredibly alarming rate. We have people in New Jersey that can decide, "Look, I'm not going to go to these states." What I'm saying is we have servicewomen who cannot say that, who can't say, "Oh, I'm not going to go to this state because it doesn't offer good reproductive health."

They are deserving, I think, of what protections we can offer, because as a nation, we are forcing them to go to those states. Now, do I think that it's fair what's going on in many states, Idaho, Texas, for example? I think it's horrific, the rollback in protections, and I'm fighting very hard. In fact, I just had Colin Allred in my district the other day because I think he really needs to become the next senator from Texas to start to fight for among many other things, women's rights in that state. I think it's really important. I agree with the caller that this is a fundamental right and that we need to do everything for people across this country that we can't.

Brian Lehrer: Going on to another issue, I see that you have introduced something called the GUARD Act, Guarding the United States against Reckless Disclosures Act to restrict access to classified information for certain people. Can you explain?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Yes. As you mentioned, Brian, I'm a former military member, I'm a veteran, I'm on some national security committees, things like the House Armed Services Committee and the Committee for Strategic Competition with the Chinese Communist Party. I've long held different security clearances while I was in the military, while I was at the US Attorney's Office, and now in Congress.

I've had access to very sensitive information, and I understand deeply that much of this information and the sources from which we derive this information are and need to be very protected because people's lives are at stake. Not just American lives overseas, but some of the people that are striving to gain support for democratic movements, for example, in their own countries, and give information to Americans at the embassies that will help us support them, their lives are at stake.

This is really a sensitive, sensitive topic, a very personal topic for me. When I saw that my senior senator was charged with giving away state secrets to a foreign government and yet was still receiving secure briefings in the United States Senate. That was very upsetting. Then when I heard that as we've done by tradition, not by statute, it was the time in the election cycle when Trump might start to receive secret briefings.

When we know that he has given away intelligence to our foreign adversaries, when we know that he has mistreated classified information and even talked about it after he was president at Mar-a-Lago with people who then reported it to foreign countries, I felt very strongly he should not be given access to secure information when he didn't have to be. That's why I put the GUARD Act together so that we could ensure that people who have been indicted on certain things and for certain crimes don't have that intelligence information.

Brian Lehrer: Changing topics, again, the campus protests and US Gaza policy and antisemitism. I mentioned in the intro, the two situations in Montclair, in your district, did you have a position on Montclair State canceling that benefit for Gazans, because of the the statement of the president, which I can summarize again if need be?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: This is a difficult struggle because I have served all over the world and taken multiple oaths to protect the freedoms in our constitution, and I believe really deeply in those values. I know as I've read statements, as I've read letters, as I've spoken directly to presidents of universities, there is this understanding that we have to protect the freedom of discourse and free speech.

I can tell you what I've done in this area, in the aftermath of reports of antisemitism on campuses, when I've seen in my own community the horrible rise in antisemitism and I'm talking about things, Brian, in Montclair, New Jersey, which I have always regarded as a very welcoming community, students being called dirty Jews on text chains while other students had Hitler mustaches and pictures of that on there, horrible things. One of the temples in my district, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at it. There are really awful things taking place.

We know in other parts of the country, we've seen attacks on Muslim people, a six-year-old killed and his mother attacked because he was Muslim. These are horrible things that are so contrary to our values. As you're weighing in, as we see our university presidents trying to weigh in on these difficult issues, what I did in the aftermath of some of these events is write to all of them, and the aftermath of the testimony by university presidents which seemed so tone deaf to me and asking all of the university presidents across New Jersey what they were doing to make sure that students felt safe and felt free from antisemitism and Islamophobia and what that looked like on their campuses.

I have to say I think we've really received some incredibly thoughtful replies. First, there were structurally the things that the presidents were thinking about to keep students safe and plans and implementations to put in place on their campuses in the event that there were different protests or different incidents of antisemitism or Islamophobia and how they were going to deal with that.

Then they also enunciated I think their thinking on how to weigh this. One president wrote that their college worked continuously to promote a culture that encourages mutual respect and free inquiry and that the initial orientation includes modules on both free speech and diversity and that it emphasizes the broad protections of academic freedoms and debate, but also the responsibility of community members to listen carefully and speak respectfully. I thought that was a great framing of it.

I think in a country like ours which so values the freedom of expression and free speech, and I think when you look at other countries like Russia and you see what happens to someone like Navalny who speaks out against the government and ends up dying for that you realize why these protections are important. At the same time, you can't let civil disobedience turn into civil unrest. When violence is occurring, when you see buildings being taken over, when you see student protests ending the ability of the university itself to conduct its purpose, to hold exams, and to have students-- The very place that this discourse should take place is being shut down in some cases by the protest.

I think these are really difficult things to weigh. I think we all have watched. Some people said they watched it with horror. Many people said they watched it with a great deal of sadness. I think that we've seen these decisions to determine that the schools now with the violence innocent students were being made unsafe. The universities have not been able to conduct the learning atmosphere and the very free expression that we want to protect was actually shutting down other students' ability to express themselves. These are the things that many of my university presidents are weighing. I've continued to be in touch with them so that they can continue to determine where the lines are, how you really do. Yes.

Brian Lehrer: I thought it was interesting, congresswoman. I'm sorry, I think the mic picked up something I was saying to my producer. I apologize to you and to all the listeners for a little intercom glitch there. The line that the Montclair State President drew I thought was an interesting one because he didn't say you can't be anti-Zionist at Montclair State. He said that this group, which besides being an outside group that had taken over sponsorship of this Gazan relief event that was planned for March, he cited their language in their mission statement as calling to "eliminate Zionism on our campuses, in our communities."

That's different than taking your own anti-Zionist position, I think is what the president is saying. He said, "To rid the campus of any who oppose its views strikes at the very core of Montclair State University's missions and values." I thought that was a very specific and interesting place to draw the line.

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: I think that's a thoughtful place to draw the line because I think when we're saying that our values are such that as one president said not for Montclair State that encourages mutual respect and free inquiry, that very value of free inquiry is not protected if there is a group trying to shut down any other voices. I think that's a critical point there.

Brian Lehrer: One more thought on the campuses and where the line should be there. I think so many people are so torn and as I've said a million times, we're trying to take all serious points of view seriously on this show. We're trying to address the horrors that are taking place in Gaza but at the same time address the antisemitism that seems to be breaking out since October 7th in this country and elsewhere and at the same time address the Islamophobia that it's ever-present in this country.

You mentioned the killing of the six-year-old and there was also the shootings of those Brown University students when they were up at The University of Vermont, Palestinian Americans and so all of it but there is a tendency, I think, if you're concerned about Gaza, to dismiss antisemitism and sometimes vice versa and et cetera and focus on your particular group's grievance. The antisemitism is real.

Some people I think want to minimize that so that it doesn't get weaponized as they say but I think we can be opposed to weaponizing antisemitism against a cause that may be somebody else's cause but at the same time not deny it or minimize it which as Jodi Rudoren of The Forward said in her article about that other march and chant in Montclair that it was impossible to imagine a similar scenario in Montclair targeting any religious or ethnic group saying we don't want fill in the blank here. In that case, it was we don't want no Zionists here so again, we don't even want you here nevermind we disagree with you. Right?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Right. I think that's what's I think so troubling about what's going on and why it becomes so difficult to navigate because that desire to shut down anyone who disagrees with you is so contrary to the values of this nation. We don't protect free speech because we think we are going to hear things that we agree with so we want to make sure that we hear that.

We protect free speech because we know we are going to hear points of view that we disagree with but we protect it because we want the ability when we are being shut down personally to enter into the marketplace of ideas and forcefully advocate for our ideals without being thrown in jail or without being shut down or without our voices being silenced.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I think that was an admirable part of that article by Jodi Rudoren because she pointed out that she had also taken part in advocating for the freedom of those protestors to say that thing that she found chilling. Again, it's can we hold two thoughts in our mind at the same time? Can you say, yes, they should have the right to say this thing and speak up as in her case, a journalist, and defend that right and at the same time find it kind of frightening when a group of your neighbors says, people who might hold a view that you hold shouldn't even exist here?

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Right. I think she was so thoughtful there because I think what they said was something I didn't want to hear on the streets of Montclair because I think what they were doing was saying there were certain people that held certain views in our town that weren't welcomed in our town. I fully disagree that that was what I wanted to be suggested by people in our town.

I certainly think that there were a lot of people that would hear that as just saying, "We don't want Jewish people in our town," and that's offensive. That's certainly not true. I think that would be hurtful. I think at a time when we're seeing a huge rise in antisemitism, that becomes even more threatening in this atmosphere. At the same time, we want to hold true to our values of as she said, advocating for the right of people to say that because God forbid, one day we find ourselves feeling very threatened, and need that marketplace of ideas, and need to be able to speak strongly.

I can't help but think that in every autocracy and in every travesty that we see that really goes on across the world where there is an autocratic government that is violently trying to implement their will, we start to see very, at the beginning, the shutdown of the freedom of speech. The shutdown of the ability to advocate for your values. It is a really tough thing. I don't want to hear those things in Montclair.

This is why it's so difficult. How do you balance that? In this country, we largely come down on the line of the freedom of people to do that. At the same time, there are lines, and that's what I think we're seeing is when it becomes violent, when you start vandalizing buildings, when you start overtaking buildings. When you shut down the ability of other people to exercise their freedoms or the mission of the academic institutions to conduct testing, for example.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, and I know you got to go, but people will say, "Oh, saying you're against Zionism isn't the same as saying you're against Jews," which in many cases is fair, but then still chanting, "We don't want no Zionists here." It's still trying to say people with different points of view are not welcome in the community. Again, these are complex layers of criticism and reaction and statements of intolerance, and we try to paint the complex picture and understand where the line should be and yet not deny what people are going through on any of these sides. Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill from the 11th District in Northern New Jersey, thank you very much.

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill: Thank you. I really appreciate it, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.