All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2021 - Epoch Times
27:12
How Cancel Culture is Changing California | Melissa Melendez
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I just thought we need to make sure we have something in law that protects people from being discriminated against because of political affiliation.
Do you think adults right now are afraid of saying what they think?
People just think, you know, it's just not worth it.
I don't want to be the pariah of the office.
I don't want to lose my job.
I don't want to be excluded.
Do you think we're getting there that we want to cancel other people's ideas?
Have we gotten there already?
When we look at what's going on with just some of the people in the media who are being highlighted as being cancelled, I don't think we're there.
In fact, I think we're probably getting worse.
What is the culture of Sacramento and the legislative body?
It seems the government What can you guys do to change this direction that you see we're going?
I honestly think it would be very helpful if more people in politics Said some kind things about their colleagues on the other side of that because they're all people.
And I say that about Republicans and Democrats alike.
Stop dehumanizing the other side.
These are people.
Yes, you may not like their ideas and that's okay, but they are human beings and you can disagree without being horribly disagreeable.
As cancel culture rises in California and across the nation, employees and students are facing backlash for their personal beliefs.
My guest today is Melissa Melendez.
She's a California state senator representing California's 28th district.
Today she discusses the need to protect individuals from social and professional discrimination and how cancel culture is permeating into the legislative process.
Welcome to California Insider.
Melissa, it's great to have you on.
Welcome.
Thank you so much.
You just recently introduced a couple of bills on the cancel culture.
Can you explain to us what they are?
I can.
So I'm sure people have probably noticed there's a lot of canceling going on.
And I just thought we need to make sure we have something in law that protects people from being discriminated against because of political affiliation.
I think regardless of, you know, what side of the aisle you're on, I think everybody has noticed that there has been a shift where some people are being targeted because of their affiliation.
And I think, you know, you got to let people be who they are at work and not be afraid.
And we're not really seeing that, at least in California.
So I introduced two bills.
One that says you can't discriminate against someone when they're seeking employment because of their political affiliation.
And the other one deals with our school system, where you can't discriminate against students Because of their political affiliation.
I have five children of my own, two of whom had gone off to college, and they both experienced this sort of, you know, they didn't want to really say how they felt because they knew that the teacher felt a different way.
They didn't want their grades to suffer.
I even had a constituent who was kicked out of his class Well, if you can believe this, because he had a certain name on his moniker, you know, his online moniker for his class.
And the teacher said, I think that's a distraction, so you'll have to remove it.
And the student said, you know, I don't want to remove it, and we're not talking about it.
Nobody has complained about it.
And the teacher said, look, if you don't remove it, you're out.
And he kicked him out of class, simply for having, you know, a candidate's name on there that the teacher didn't agree with.
Okay.
So right now there's no law that protects people on this?
I'm very surprised with all the laws that we have.
Yeah, everybody's protected except for political affiliation.
And I found that interesting, too.
And I didn't know that.
You can't fire someone right now because of their political affiliation.
But the law is a little loose, I will say that.
But when someone is seeking employment or seeking to open a bank account or get a loan or get housing, that's kind of the gray area where you could discriminate against someone because of political affiliation.
And as you know now, It's kind of easy to determine, you know, which side of the aisle someone falls if you just do a quick search through, say, social media accounts or other online accounts.
And that's, you know, we really want to make sure people aren't able to discriminate in that way, much like they're not allowed to discriminate now if you're currently employed and they decide, well, I found out you're a libertarian and so you have to go.
Now, do you think this law will go through?
Well, you know, you never know in Sacramento.
I think it's going to have a hard time, for sure, because if you think about it, right now, in California anyway, it's really one group that's being discriminated against.
I think it's mostly conservatives and Republicans.
That's today, though.
In 10 years, it could be entirely different.
It could be perhaps Democrats or Libertarians or pick a party.
But of course, right now, Democrats are in control in California, and I think they don't see it as the problem that it is because it doesn't affect them.
And so do I think the bill will go through?
I don't know.
I think it's going to be a challenge, but I think it's a challenge worth considering.
Taking on just on behalf of the millions of people who feel they can't speak freely, you know, about their own personal viewpoints with respect to politics.
So your colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how do they think about something like this?
Because they should be pro, you know, usually Democrats are pro giving rights to their employees, right?
Usually, yeah.
If your political viewpoint thinks that My ideas and values are completely off base and completely wrong and just reprehensible.
Then you're probably going to want to do whatever you can to keep my ideas from being put out there, right?
Because you're seeing this as I'm a threat that I could somehow poison the minds of others out there who are maybe on the fence or who are searching.
It's kind of like the book burning of the old days, right?
You don't want people to have access to that information.
So they see it, I think, as it's a good thing that they are on the moral high ground, and my ideas or someone else's ideas just should not be heard.
And I can tell you, I see this infiltrating our schools as well, just from, again, my own kids' experience, or colleges who disinvite speakers.
Because a group on the campus says, you know, we don't agree with that person's viewpoints, so they protest, and then they get that person disinvited.
So somehow we've gotten to this point where if you don't like a person's ideas, you shouldn't have to listen to them, nor should you allow anyone else to listen to them either, even if they are genuinely curious.
And I think that's the danger zone that we've gotten in.
So The bills that I'm proposing, I don't expect will be received with open arms, but I hope that at least there's a core group that can see it for what it is.
It's not about Republicans because it doesn't specify Republicans or conservatives.
It's about political affiliation and the ability to have the freedom to express your viewpoint without harassment or being discriminated against or being afraid.
Feeling like you can, you know, share your ideas with someone without being harmed because of it.
Because that's, I mean, that's what makes our country great is that you can have all these different ideas swirling around and, you know, sometimes you actually see the other person's point of view.
Do you think we're getting there that we want to cancel other people's ideas?
Have we gotten there already?
No.
I mean, I think when we look at what's going on with just some of the people in the media who are being highlighted as being canceled, I don't think we're there.
In fact, I think we're probably getting worse.
When you see people canceled for things that they said when they were teenagers...
Um, my goodness.
I mean, God help me if anybody is able to go back in time and find something dumb that I said in fifth grade, because I'm sure there are plenty of things as we all have.
So, but that's where we are now.
We have grown adults who are seeking employment or who currently have a job and are doing well.
Someone goes back into their past and says, well, he or she said this and it's offensive and we don't care that they said it when they were 16 years old and still immature.
We're going to apply today's morals and standards to their past life and we're going to punish them for it.
And that's just incredibly dangerous.
And it doesn't even make sense.
I mean, we all change and mature as we get older and everybody deserves the ability to do that, to be a kid and say some dumb things sometimes and then move on and grow up and live a fulfilling life without someone reaching into your past and punishing you for it.
So you mentioned that people see there's dangers to this cancelling.
And some people may have, but on the other hand, some people when you look at it and say, okay, some people may have really, really bad ideas, or I don't want to hear them.
What are your thoughts on that?
Well, again, I think free speech is about all speech, not just the speech with which you agree, right?
Isn't that the beauty of our country, that you can say something that is incredibly offensive, but you can still say it.
You're not going to get thrown in jail because of it.
You're not going to, you know, be harangued or physically harmed because of it.
That's not legal.
Right.
It doesn't mean that people are going to agree with you.
It doesn't mean that people aren't going to tell you how wrong and offensive they think your ideas are.
But you're free to express them.
I mean, that's what makes our country different from many other countries is that we do have that freedom of speech.
And do you think adults right now are afraid of saying what they think or afraid of talking or they have to really be thinking about what they say all the time?
Is that...
Yeah, I do.
I think...
I mean, and I base this on the emails that I get from people I represent who are from, you know, all different political stripes who say they just...
Especially if they're in teaching, they definitely feel like they can't really say how they feel if they're in education.
And, you know, that's...
I mean, you can say something that's maybe...
Disagreeable to someone, it doesn't mean it has to turn into an argument or a fight.
You can debate it for sure, but it seems like we're getting away from that now where people just think, you know, it's just not worth it.
I don't want to be the pariah of the office.
I don't want to lose my job.
I don't want to be excluded.
I don't want to miss out on a training opportunity or, you know, a variety of things.
And I do.
They just, they feel like it's not worth it.
And that's You know, that's a shame because, again, that's what makes our country great.
We can all say what we think and share ideas.
And maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, but you're free to say it.
Now, as a politician and your colleagues in Sacramento, which are politicians, isn't everybody afraid of this, you know, the canceling coming to them?
Because...
Yeah, it's funny because I've had conversations with my colleagues across the aisle about doing town halls.
You know, as a politician, it's very helpful to do town halls because you hear directly from your constituents.
It's wonderful.
And I do them all the time.
I do two a month.
And I asked one of my Democrat colleagues if he did town halls, and he kind of laughed and said, no, I, no, why would I do that?
And I said, well, you know, how do you, I mean, how do you hear directly from your constituents on these different issues?
And he said, listen, and he's a Democrat, you know, and he's pretty far to the left.
And he said, if I do a town hall, what happens is the extreme part of my party comes out against me and says, I'm not liberal enough.
And then I have the other side of my party, maybe the more moderate side, that says, you're not moderate enough.
And then I just get beat up on the whole time.
So I just don't do them.
And I thought, well, it must be tough to represent people when you have no idea how they feel, or you're too afraid to talk to them.
But that's kind of where we are.
What is the culture of Sacramento and the legislative body?
Well, it has changed quite a bit since I've been there.
You know, when I first got there, and I've been in the legislature nine years now, I started in the Assembly and I'm now in the Senate.
And when I first got there, it was more collegial, I think.
Democrats and Republicans very frequently would go out to lunch, out to dinner, socialize, speak, you know, in committee hearing rooms about different bills and share kind of, you know, different viewpoints.
And it was You know, it was fine.
And when we had the last presidential election in 2016, that's when things changed.
And I saw, like personally, I saw a shift in my relationships with my colleagues across the aisle.
I saw them sort of, you know, retreat a bit and try to distance themselves from Republicans.
And then it became very, very tribal, more so than you would think politics already is.
And I don't think it's changed much since then.
In fact, I think it's probably gotten worse.
Why do you think that happened?
Well, I think the most vocal parts of each party have really taken the center stage.
And I think when you are a Democrat and the most vocal part of your party is extremely to the left, and that's what the media is reporting on, then you start to think, Well, that's how everyone in my party feels, or at least that's how the majority in my party feels.
And so you start to second guess.
your positions on different issues.
And then maybe you start to alter your viewpoints on these issues and you kind of go along with the crowd or what you think is the crowd, when the reality is that, you know, the fringe elements of any party are very small in number.
But if they're getting the most attention, if they're making the most noise, that's really what has the influence.
Now, do you think with your colleagues in Sacramento, do you think you guys are setting the culture there or do you think you're following the culture that the media is creating?
Well, I think following, you know, certainly to a certain extent, we had, I'll give you an example.
We have a legislator in the Assembly who introduced a bill that says any member, current member of Congress from California, who used to be a member of the State Assembly, if you voted against the electoral votes for President Biden, or you voted in favor of what President Trump was trying to do, then you are no longer welcome to I mean, that's a bill that somebody actually introduced.
Because you voted in a way that doesn't align with how I think, I'm going to tell you you are no longer allowed in the people's house.
And that's not for any politician to say.
It's not my place to say who can come to Sacramento and come onto the floor.
It's the people's house.
And that's really another place I see this shift is where it seems the government...
You know, has all the power and the authority and the people are left to ask if they can have some of it.
And it's supposed to be the other way run.
It's supposed to be the politicians who are, you know, are afraid of the people, not what's going on right now.
So based on what you see, the culture of Sacramento, where are things going?
I think if we continue on the path that we're on, then it's probably going to get worse than what we see right now.
And I hate to say that.
I wish that weren't true.
But I don't see a shift in attitude.
I see everybody kind of separating into their own corners.
And staying there and not looking outside of them.
And that's not the best way, certainly, to come up with public policy that affects 40 million Californians.
But it's also just not a great way to interact with human beings.
I mean, you can't act like that in your home.
If I decided when I went home, by gosh, it's my way or the highway, the House would revolt.
And it should be the same way in politics and in Sacramento or in D.C. or wherever you are, that you have to come together and hear one another out.
If you won't even listen to the other side, then why are you even in the room?
Now, is there some consensus among people in the California legislative body that this is a problem or people are just ignoring it?
You know, it's funny because there are some of my colleagues across the aisle who agree with me, who see what's going on and say, you know, this is only going to get worse and eventually it's going to affect everyone, not just one particular party.
The problem is they're a little afraid to say so publicly.
And that's the issue here.
And again, it goes back to the elements of their party who are very vocal and who are very persistent in their demands.
And we see politicians, whether it's city councils or board of supervisors or those in the state legislature, who cave to those demands.
And so they're afraid.
They're just afraid to say anything.
And a lot of them need this job.
I mean, they need this job.
And so they don't want to do anything that might jeopardize their reelection.
What do you mean, they need this job?
You know, we have people in Sacramento who came from the private sector like I did.
And then you have people who either worked for a legislator prior to getting to Sacramento themselves.
They were a staffer or they worked for a union or, you know, they just weren't in the private sector.
They didn't start their own business.
They didn't work for a private company.
And so when you're a legislator, you get treated pretty well.
I will tell you, I mean, they've got...
People, you know, driving them to and from where they need to go.
We have people, you know, staff members who can tend to whatever it is is needed, whether it's bill-related issues or other things.
You have a lot of help.
And this is the pinnacle.
You know, for them.
They've never had that before.
And they're probably not going to have it again once they leave office.
And thank goodness for term limits in California.
But they're going to have to go back out there, you know, into the wild and see what it's like to live under the laws that they have created.
And I just I'm not sure how some of them are going to survive.
So how could they lose their job or how could they lose their position by voicing their views?
If you think that the majority of people in your party feel that everyone should wear a purple shirt on Friday, and you go against that, they're going to toss you out of office and find someone who agrees, or at least who makes the promise, yes, I will make sure everyone wears a purple shirt on Fridays.
They will just find someone else to replace you.
And they tell you that.
I mean, I've seen the union bosses will flat out say to a legislator or a candidate, We put you here and we can take you out.
From what you're mentioning, it seems like the parties decide who the elected official will be.
How does that work?
To a certain extent, you have your candidates and if the party is familiar with that candidate and unfamiliar with someone else, I mean, I think it's kind of human instinct a lot of times to go with what you know, go with what you're comfortable with as opposed to the unknown.
So yes, a lot of times the party will get behind the person that they know or the person they think has the most likely chance of winning and of course the person who they think, you know, vision aligns with theirs.
So if I'm an elected official in Sacramento and I'm a Democrat, I'm in the middle, I don't like what's going on with the far left, and I stand up on it, the party will not endorse me anymore.
Is that something that could happen?
Possibly.
I have seen people go against what their party leadership wanted them to do on a certain vote.
And then I've seen them get whacked for it.
Not necessarily get run out of office, but I've seen them...
I have committees, committee assignments taken away from them.
I've seen them get kicked out of their offices.
I've seen a lot of things.
In fact, before I got to Sacramento, the person I replaced was telling me this story about there was a woman who wouldn't vote for the budget, I believe it was.
She was a Democrat.
And she would not vote for the budget, and her party leadership was very upset.
And so they kicked her out of her office, but of course they didn't tell her.
So when she, after floor session, went back to her office, she found she was locked out of her own office.
So it can be brutal.
It can be vicious sometimes.
There are ways to encourage people to do what you want.
And I've seen people who stick to their guns and say, nope, I'm not doing that.
And I've seen others cave like that.
I've seen them circle, you know, a member on the floor when they needed a vote for something and it just, we couldn't get the bill out.
You needed maybe two more votes and you had a And the other members just physically encircle that person on the floor to try to convince them.
And I would say 99.9% of the time they relented and gave them the vote that they wanted.
It's some high-stakes pressure that takes place in there.
So people have to vote a certain way, right?
This type of pressure from parties, is it across both parties?
Have you seen that on your side?
Somewhat.
Less so, I think, than the Democratic Party.
And largely that's because we aren't the party in control, right?
So we don't have the majority of votes.
You know, we have less influence over some of these bills passing than, say, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do.
But have I seen situations where there has been a push for Republicans to vote a certain way on a particular bill?
I have.
And, you know, a lot of times there are Republicans who, I mean, it's much like the Democratic Party where you have Republicans who are very conservative and then you have some who are a little more in the middle because of the district that they represent.
And they can't always vote the way that a conservative will vote or a moderate will vote.
So sometimes there is some pressure for there to be unity on a particular bill, but definitely not as much as I see from the Democratic Party.
So the people and the voters don't have much say in that, based on what you've seen?
The voters have a say, but you know, you don't have a say if you don't vote.
And you don't have much of a say if you're not really researching the candidate that you're contemplating voting for.
And that's part of the problem is I think people are swayed too heavily by voting.
Whatever media source it is that they are following.
So if CNN tells them this candidate is terrible for this issue, they don't research it.
They don't ask the candidate.
They don't look at their record.
They just go by whatever news source is feeding them.
And that's dangerous because we know there are plenty of media sources out there who aren't telling the truth or who are spinning it or leaving key elements of the truth out of the story in order for you or I to make a decision based on our own opinion.
And what do you say to the voters that see the California legislative body and, you know, they see problems and they want to do something about it?
Well, I always tell people, if you've never run for office and you've considered it, consider it a little more.
Because we do have term limits in California.
For the legislature, it's 12 years.
And I think if you really care about your state and your community and the people in it, and you're willing to listen to other people, consider running for office.
But aside from that...
You know, you can email your state senator, your state assembly member at any time that you want.
And I want people to know that they should do that because when we have certain bills we're working on and about to vote on, if I don't hear from my constituents what they want me to do, I'm left to guess what they want, and that's not how it's supposed to be.
So if there's an issue you care about, make sure your legislator knows.
I know people think that maybe from a particular office they might get a standard form letter kind of response, and some offices do that, but not every office does that.
I answer all of my own emails, and that's because I want to know What they're thinking.
I can't know that.
I can't know how to vote unless I know what my folks want me to do.
So yes, some offices you'll get a canned form letter response and other offices you won't, but you have to let them know because that's representative government.
We can't as voters take a pass on engaging our elected officials and then get angry when they don't do what we want them to do.
So what do you recommend to your colleagues in the California legislative body?
What can you guys do to change this direction that you see we're going?
People are watching their elected officials and looking at their example.
So if their example is to encourage people to cancel others because of their viewpoints, or if their example is to shun people because of their viewpoints, that's kind of, you know, what people think is okay to do.
It's like children and their parents or teachers and their students where you see what they're doing and You try to emulate that.
So I honestly think it would be very helpful if more people in politics said some kind things about their colleagues on the other side of the aisle because they're all people, right?
They're all their moms and dads and sisters and daughters and and they're trying to most of them are just trying to do the right thing and they're not you know maybe Nine of their bills are terrible, but one of them is good.
I mean, not everything is bad, and I just think it's helpful if we stop dehumanizing the other side.
And I say that about Republicans and Democrats alike.
Stop dehumanizing the other side.
These are people, yes, you may not like their ideas, and that's okay, but they are human beings, and you can disagree without being horribly disagreeable.
I think that's the example that I would like to see.
Well, thank you.
▲
Export Selection