Latest news with #PANJWANI
New Indian Express
25-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Five years later, how the murder of George Floyd changed America
PANJWANI: I'm Haya Panjwani. On this episode of the Story Behind the AP Story we revisit the murder of George Floyd five years later. We'll hear from people who were on the ground in the days immediately after Floyd's death, the trial that followed and how that summer shaped sentiments around race. Noreen Nasir is a video journalist who was in Minneapolis covering the city's reaction to the death of George Floyd. Noreen Nasir, video journalist: Initially, I think there was a lot of anger, of course, and some of that anger then turned into, you know, the images of destruction that we then saw and then I think got a lot of focus and attention in the media. Sound from protests in Minneapolis in 2020: He can't breathe, he can't breathe, he can't breathe... NASIR: But I think what was also lost in some of that focus that was very palpable on the ground was a deep sense of like sadness that a lot of folks felt. There was a lot of grief, I remember, on the ground especially at the site of the memorial. Going there at various times in the days that followed, that memorial just sort of like grew and grew and grew. There were these you know reverberations around like what this meant for race and racism across the country, things that and themes that then I think people were really trying to point to in the days and months that followed. There was one night, you know, we were there, things that one of those early nights where things got really sort of tense and there were buildings that were broken into, there was looting that was happening. And I spoke to some of the business owners. A lot of them are also, you know, they're immigrants. A lot them were Somali Americans. They had come to this country. And for them, you know, I could see the sort of like conflicted feelings that they were having just in their own emotions and the way that they themselves were processing this thing. For them, they were saying, you we are Black. We are perceived as Black in this country, we are Black. And then at the same time, they're saying, we're also these business owners. We are grieving, and also, we want to protect our businesses, this is our livelihood. You would see a lot of on the boarded-up businesses, signs that said minority owned, almost as a way to say, "Hey, please don't target us, like we're in the same boat." PANJWANI: Amy Forliti was a crime and courts reporter during the time of George Floyd's killing in 2020. Amy Forliti, editor: The centerpiece was definitely the bystander video of George Floyd's final moments. Prosecutors played that footage really early in the case. They did it the first time during their opening statement and the prosecutor then told jurors to believe your eyes and that idea of believing your eyes or believing what you see on the video right before you was a theme that prosecutors came back to throughout the trial. The defense took a different approach with that whole idea of believing what you see, and said that everyone there had a different perspective and came from a different vantage point and interpreted the events of that day differently. And the defense said that Chauvin's perspective was one of a reasonable police officer. Many of the people who did testify said that they just felt helpless, that they couldn't do anything, and they saw Floyd's life being basically snuffed out, and they couldn't do anything. The teenager who recorded that video said that it seemed Chauvin just didn't care, and she testified that she stayed up at night apologizing to George Floyd because she didn't do more to help him. I also remember some very poignant words at closing arguments. When we talk about the cause of death, prosecutor Jerry Blackwell referred to how the defense was saying that this was a heart issue that killed Floyd and that he had an enlarged heart. And the prosecutor said, and I'm paraphrasing here, but he told jurors that George Floyd didn't die because his heart was too big, but because Derek Chauvin's heart was too small. In the end, a jury of six white people and six Black or multiracial people convicted Chauvin of three counts, including unintentional second-degree murder, which was the most serious count against him. After that verdict was read, a crowd gathered in the street and started cheering and rejoicing over that. He went on to later plead guilty to a federal count of violating George Floyd's civil rights.
Hindustan Times
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Five years later: How the murder of George Floyd changed America
WASHINGTON — The following episode of The Story Behind the Story contains sound and descriptions that some listeners may find graphic or violent. Listener discretion is advised. Haya Panjwani, host: In the summer of 2020, as the world was just beginning to grasp the COVID-19 pandemic, a video surfaced that would spark a movement like no other. Aaron Morrison, editor: So, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd, who was a Black man from Houston, Texas, was in Minneapolis where he'd moved to find job opportunities. PANJWANI: Aaron Morrison, the 's race and ethnicity editor. MORRISON: And on this day, in particular, a store clerk reported that Floyd had allegedly used a counterfeit $20 bill. He was restrained by at least a few officers, one in particular named Derek Chauvin, who's a white police officer, knelt on George Floyd's neck and back for over nine minutes. Floyd was handcuffed to the ground, and while a crowd of people had assembled, essentially demanding that George Floyd be released from the hold because as a now viral and famous video of the, of the encounter shows, George Floyd repeatedly said that he could not breathe. George Floyd, in a recorded video: I can't breathe! They gon' kill me, they gon' kill me, man. MORRISON: Before he took his last, last breath right there on the street. PANJWANI: I'm Haya Panjwani. On this episode of the Story Behind the Story we revisit the murder of George Floyd five years later. We'll hear from people who were on the ground in the days immediately after Floyd's death, the trial that followed and how that summer shaped sentiments around race. Noreen Nasir is a video journalist who was in Minneapolis covering the city's reaction to the death of George Floyd. Noreen Nasir, video journalist: Initially, I think there was a lot of anger, of course, and some of that anger then turned into, you know, the images of destruction that we then saw and then I think got a lot of focus and attention in the media. Sound from protests in Minneapolis in 2020: He can't breathe, he can't breathe, he can't breathe... NASIR: But I think what was also lost in some of that focus that was very palpable on the ground was a deep sense of like sadness that a lot of folks felt. There was a lot of grief, I remember, on the ground especially at the site of the memorial. Going there at various times in the days that followed, that memorial just sort of like grew and grew and grew. There were these you know reverberations around like what this meant for race and racism across the country, things that and themes that then I think people were really trying to point to in the days and months that followed. There was one night, you know, we were there, things that one of those early nights where things got really sort of tense and there were buildings that were broken into, there was looting that was happening. And I spoke to some of the business owners. A lot of them are also, you know, they're immigrants. A lot them were Somali Americans. They had come to this country. And for them, you know, I could see the sort of like conflicted feelings that they were having just in their own emotions and the way that they themselves were processing this thing. For them, they were saying, you we are Black. We are perceived as Black in this country, we are Black. And then at the same time, they're saying, we're also these business owners. We are grieving, and also, we want to protect our businesses, this is our livelihood. You would see a lot of on the boarded-up businesses, signs that said minority owned, almost as a way to say, 'Hey, please don't target us, like we're in the same boat.' PANJWANI: Amy Forliti was a crime and courts reporter during the time of George Floyd's killing in 2020. Amy Forliti, editor: The centerpiece was definitely the bystander video of George Floyd's final moments. Prosecutors played that footage really early in the case. They did it the first time during their opening statement and the prosecutor then told jurors to believe your eyes and that idea of believing your eyes or believing what you see on the video right before you was a theme that prosecutors came back to throughout the trial. The defense took a different approach with that whole idea of believing what you see, and said that everyone there had a different perspective and came from a different vantage point and interpreted the events of that day differently. And the defense said that Chauvin's perspective was one of a reasonable police officer. Many of the people who did testify said that they just felt helpless, that they couldn't do anything, and they saw Floyd's life being basically snuffed out, and they couldn't do anything. The teenager who recorded that video said that it seemed Chauvin just didn't care, and she testified that she stayed up at night apologizing to George Floyd because she didn't do more to help him. I also remember some very poignant words at closing arguments. When we talk about the cause of death, prosecutor Jerry Blackwell referred to how the defense was saying that this was a heart issue that killed Floyd and that he had an enlarged heart. And the prosecutor said, and I'm paraphrasing here, but he told jurors that George Floyd didn't die because his heart was too big, but because Derek Chauvin's heart was too small. In the end, a jury of six white people and six Black or multiracial people convicted Chauvin of three counts, including unintentional second-degree murder, which was the most serious count against him. After that verdict was read, a crowd gathered in the street and started cheering and rejoicing over that. He went on to later plead guilty to a federal count of violating George Floyd's civil rights. PANJWANI: Some right-wing politicians and social media personalities have called for Chauvin to be pardoned by President Donald Trump. FORLITI: But if he does, it's really important to note that this won't impact Chauvin's state murder conviction at all. He will still have to serve out the remainder of his state sentence on the murder charge. So, he's not going to walk out of a Texas prison and be free. He would likely have to come back to Minnesota to serve the rest of his sentence. MORRISON: Folks who maybe did not understand or support such a reckoning have increasingly dismissed everything that happened in 2020 as wokeness, so-called wokeness, gone or run amok. They are hoping and advocating for Derek Chauvin to be pardoned because, in their view, this wasn't true justice. NASIR: This happened at a time where it was, of course, it was the middle of the pandemic, and we were all in lockdown and we were all just at home. And frustration, I think, in different ways had been building up for a while for a lot of people. And so when this happened, it really just touched a nerve and then it sort of lit it all on fire. Everyone was watching this because no one was going anywhere. There was nothing to distract anyone. And a lot of people were joining protests for the first time. Particularly when it came to the issue of racism in the U.S. And then, of course, in the months also that followed his initial death, Black Lives Matter as a movement sort of really spread. And the movement itself had started years earlier after the death of Trayvon Martin, but in 2020, it really took off across the country in a way that I think we had not seen before. And then it took off around the world where then folks were looking at their own interactions with police in their countries and looking at the way that racism played out in policing interactions. PANJWANI: This has been The Story Behind the Story. For more on 's race and ethnicity coverage, visit
Washington Post
21-02-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Details about Trump's executive orders around DEI are causing confusion
WASHINGTON — HAYA PANJWANI, host: In front of a large crowd in Washington, Donald Trump, shortly after being sworn into office for his second presidential term, signed a slew of executive orders. Those orders were what he calls 'Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity' and 'Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.' That executive order prompted companies around the United States to roll back their own diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. But the details of Trump's order and what it's actually implementing are still murky. I'm Haya Panjwani. On this episode of The Story Behind the AP Story, we speak with deputy global business editor Pia Sarkar and reporter Alexandra Olson. Firstly, Alexandra, what is DEI or diversity, equity and inclusion? ALEXANDRA OLSON, reporter: It's not a specific policy. It is an idea that you want to make your workplace or your school or any number of institutions inclusive and diverse and welcoming to a diverse population. I think companies over time have evolved to become more deliberate in these efforts. Some of the first waves of what people think of as modern-day DEI initiatives started in the wake of the civil rights movement. Part of the Civil Rights Act is ensuring that your workplace is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate. Some of the policies that companies had to institute involved compliance with those laws. And over time, you saw some prominent companies also institute an employment resource group for black employees or LGBTQ employees. Some of these companies started these groups in the '80s, even. PANJWANI: The Trump administration's executive order moved to end affirmative action in federal contracting and directed that all federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff be put on paid leave and eventually laid off. Some businesses reacted. OLSON: Businesses have been rolling back their DEI initiatives or at least evaluating their DEI practices for many months now in response to conservative-led lawsuits that target some of these policies that they claim are discriminatory. But this review has taken on more urgency in response to the election of President Trump, and even more recently, his executive orders aimed at ending DEI-related policies both in the federal and private sectors. PIA SARKAR, editor: And businesses are also rolling back DEI initiatives. PANJWANI: That's Pia Sarkar, deputy global business editor. You saw a lot more of them starting to join the movement of sorts. First, it started off with a handful of companies like Tractor Supply and John Deere. They were kind of smaller companies, but still name brands. But then suddenly you started to see much bigger companies also jumping in, including Walmart and McDonald's. And those are much bigger employers. And their rollback of some of these policies are much more impactful and may influence even bar companies to do the same. OLSON: Trump's executive orders were both very aggressive and at the same time not specific about what constitutes what the government is calling illegal or discriminatory. The orders did lay out the intention to harness the enforcement power of the federal government of the day against these policies. And that's what has gotten a lot of people's attention. For example, the executive order threatens to impose financial sanctions on federal contractors deemed to have illegal DEI programs under new contracts. Federal contractors have to have a clause stating that they do not engage in discriminatory DEI programs. If they are found to be in violation of that, they could be subject to massive damages under the 1863 False Claims Act. PANJWANI: What's being rolled back at companies varies. OLSON: Very few companies have gotten rid of everything that falls under their DEI buckets. What they're trying to do is figure out which DEI practices or programs or policies could eventually be deemed illegal by a court responding to a lawsuit or by the federal government under these new Trump executive orders. One practice that has been prominently challenged is tying executive compensation to promoting diversity. What the argument is from the conservative side is that this kind of practice can pressure hiring managers to make decisions on who to hire and who to promote and who even to let go based on race. So it's important to note that it is illegal under Title VII of the civil rights law to take race into account in hiring or promotion decisions. And prominent companies that have long promoted their DEI efforts say they do not do that. SARKAR: And some of the other DEI practices that are worth noting are a little bit more open-ended. If a company was sponsoring a pride event, for instance, some have pulled back on how much sponsorship they're going to give. Some of those events, I think, Walmart, for instance, said that it was not going to renew its equity racial center that it set up in 2020 after the killing of George Floyd. And that was a five-year commitment, and it is not renewing it. PANJWANI: Consumers are reacting differently than they have in the past. SARKAR: So some are reacting to the rollback of the initiative initiatives a little bit more, at least from what I could see, in a more muted way than some of the protests that you saw, like, after George Floyd there was a huge demand for these kind of programs in 2020 and afterwards, in terms of people boycotting these companies because they're rolling back the initiatives, you don't see as much of that. There was a boycott that had been planned against, I believe, Target. There was a lot of pressure on social media, specifically from conservative activist Robby Starbuck, going after companies that were promoting DEI. And so that had raised a lot of social media backlash and calls for boycotts. Those boycotts never seem to have taken place, but the companies reacted to the threat of a boycott, in some cases by rolling back their DEI initiatives. And those rollbacks of the DEI initiatives haven't really led to more boycotts. It seems like because so many companies have gone in this direction, it almost is starting to feel like it's becoming more the norm than the exception. You're only hearing about the companies that are rolling back their DEI policies, right? We're not hearing from companies who are keeping them in place except for Apple and Costco and Microsoft. But there could be a lot more that just aren't saying anything at all. PANJWANI: Now what exactly is the confusion? OLSON: The confusion is what is illegal. What is illegal discrimination or preference? The trouble is that DEI can constitute such a wide range, a wide range of programs, that nobody is quite sure whether their policies and practices and programs that they've had in place in some cases for many years, in some cases maybe even decades. Whether these are in fact illegal or not. There's been a few hints of, of backlash or of people protesting that some of this anti-gay effort has gone too far. So we saw that, for example, when some government institutions or museums decided to stop celebrating Black History Month or Holocaust Remembrance Day. There's some indication that the government is trying to clarify that that is not what they're after. That speaks to the confusion, because these executive orders are so wide-ranging that nobody knows exactly what they are trying to target and what they are not. But it also speaks to a certain sensitivity that the anti-drag campaign might also go too far. I think there's also a danger for these companies. They want to make sure that they don't go so far as to dismantle policies that are geared towards ensuring that they comply with anti-discrimination laws. SARKAR: And I think there is also some caution around letting this issue go up to the Supreme Court, considering that it's a conservative Supreme Court right now in terms of whether or not there will be the pendulum swing back. It is worth noting that a lot of these companies that are rolling back their DEI programs are also making it a point to say, we still care about these issues. We're not pulling back completely. So it kind of feels like they want to keep one foot in the door still. And I don't know if that's because the pendulum might swing back. So kind of playing it both ways might be the best way to approach it right now, just in case it does go the other way. But right now, it doesn't look like that's going to happen in the foreseeable future. PANJWANI: This has been The Story Behind the AP Story. For more information on AP's DEI coverage, visit
Associated Press
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Details about Trump's executive orders around DEI are causing confusion
WASHINGTON (AP) — HAYA PANJWANI, host: In front of a large crowd in Washington, Donald Trump, shortly after being sworn into office for his second presidential term, signed a slew of executive orders. Those orders were what he calls 'Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity' and 'Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.' That executive order prompted companies around the United States to roll back their own diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. But the details of Trump's order and what it's actually implementing are still murky. I'm Haya Panjwani. On this episode of The Story Behind the AP Story, we speak with deputy global business editor Pia Sarkar and reporter Alexandra Olson. Firstly, Alexandra, what is DEI or diversity, equity and inclusion? ALEXANDRA OLSON, reporter: It's not a specific policy. It is an idea that you want to make your workplace or your school or any number of institutions inclusive and diverse and welcoming to a diverse population. I think companies over time have evolved to become more deliberate in these efforts. Some of the first waves of what people think of as modern-day DEI initiatives started in the wake of the civil rights movement. Part of the Civil Rights Act is ensuring that your workplace is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate. Some of the policies that companies had to institute involved compliance with those laws. And over time, you saw some prominent companies also institute an employment resource group for black employees or LGBTQ employees. Some of these companies started these groups in the '80s, even. PANJWANI: The Trump administration's executive order moved to end affirmative action in federal contracting and directed that all federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff be put on paid leave and eventually laid off. Some businesses reacted. OLSON: Businesses have been rolling back their DEI initiatives or at least evaluating their DEI practices for many months now in response to conservative-led lawsuits that target some of these policies that they claim are discriminatory. But this review has taken on more urgency in response to the election of President Trump, and even more recently, his executive orders aimed at ending DEI-related policies both in the federal and private sectors. PIA SARKAR, editor: And businesses are also rolling back DEI initiatives. PANJWANI: That's Pia Sarkar, deputy global business editor. You saw a lot more of them starting to join the movement of sorts. First, it started off with a handful of companies like Tractor Supply and John Deere. They were kind of smaller companies, but still name brands. But then suddenly you started to see much bigger companies also jumping in, including Walmart and McDonald's. And those are much bigger employers. And their rollback of some of these policies are much more impactful and may influence even bar companies to do the same. OLSON: Trump's executive orders were both very aggressive and at the same time not specific about what constitutes what the government is calling illegal or discriminatory. The orders did lay out the intention to harness the enforcement power of the federal government of the day against these policies. And that's what has gotten a lot of people's attention. For example, the executive order threatens to impose financial sanctions on federal contractors deemed to have illegal DEI programs under new contracts. Federal contractors have to have a clause stating that they do not engage in discriminatory DEI programs. If they are found to be in violation of that, they could be subject to massive damages under the 1863 False Claims Act. PANJWANI: What's being rolled back at companies varies. OLSON: Very few companies have gotten rid of everything that falls under their DEI buckets. What they're trying to do is figure out which DEI practices or programs or policies could eventually be deemed illegal by a court responding to a lawsuit or by the federal government under these new Trump executive orders. One practice that has been prominently challenged is tying executive compensation to promoting diversity. What the argument is from the conservative side is that this kind of practice can pressure hiring managers to make decisions on who to hire and who to promote and who even to let go based on race. So it's important to note that it is illegal under Title VII of the civil rights law to take race into account in hiring or promotion decisions. And prominent companies that have long promoted their DEI efforts say they do not do that. SARKAR: And some of the other DEI practices that are worth noting are a little bit more open-ended. If a company was sponsoring a pride event, for instance, some have pulled back on how much sponsorship they're going to give. Some of those events, I think, Walmart, for instance, said that it was not going to renew its equity racial center that it set up in 2020 after the killing of George Floyd. And that was a five-year commitment, and it is not renewing it. PANJWANI: Consumers are reacting differently than they have in the past. SARKAR: So some are reacting to the rollback of the initiative initiatives a little bit more, at least from what I could see, in a more muted way than some of the protests that you saw, like, after George Floyd there was a huge demand for these kind of programs in 2020 and afterwards, in terms of people boycotting these companies because they're rolling back the initiatives, you don't see as much of that. There was a boycott that had been planned against, I believe, Target. There was a lot of pressure on social media, specifically from conservative activist Robby Starbuck, going after companies that were promoting DEI. And so that had raised a lot of social media backlash and calls for boycotts. Those boycotts never seem to have taken place, but the companies reacted to the threat of a boycott, in some cases by rolling back their DEI initiatives. And those rollbacks of the DEI initiatives haven't really led to more boycotts. It seems like because so many companies have gone in this direction, it almost is starting to feel like it's becoming more the norm than the exception. You're only hearing about the companies that are rolling back their DEI policies, right? We're not hearing from companies who are keeping them in place except for Apple and Costco and Microsoft. But there could be a lot more that just aren't saying anything at all. PANJWANI: Now what exactly is the confusion? OLSON: The confusion is what is illegal. What is illegal discrimination or preference? The trouble is that DEI can constitute such a wide range, a wide range of programs, that nobody is quite sure whether their policies and practices and programs that they've had in place in some cases for many years, in some cases maybe even decades. Whether these are in fact illegal or not. There's been a few hints of, of backlash or of people protesting that some of this anti-gay effort has gone too far. So we saw that, for example, when some government institutions or museums decided to stop celebrating Black History Month or Holocaust Remembrance Day. There's some indication that the government is trying to clarify that that is not what they're after. That speaks to the confusion, because these executive orders are so wide-ranging that nobody knows exactly what they are trying to target and what they are not. But it also speaks to a certain sensitivity that the anti-drag campaign might also go too far. I think there's also a danger for these companies. They want to make sure that they don't go so far as to dismantle policies that are geared towards ensuring that they comply with anti-discrimination laws. SARKAR: And I think there is also some caution around letting this issue go up to the Supreme Court, considering that it's a conservative Supreme Court right now in terms of whether or not there will be the pendulum swing back. It is worth noting that a lot of these companies that are rolling back their DEI programs are also making it a point to say, we still care about these issues. We're not pulling back completely. So it kind of feels like they want to keep one foot in the door still. And I don't know if that's because the pendulum might swing back. So kind of playing it both ways might be the best way to approach it right now, just in case it does go the other way. But right now, it doesn't look like that's going to happen in the foreseeable future.
