Podcasts

Announcer:
The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production. You’re watching “Here & Now” 2024 election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:
The fits and starts of negotiations between UW-Madison protesters and the administration and yet another presidential campaign visit to Wisconsin. This week from Joe Biden, courting Black voters and announcing Microsoft’s next plans for Mount Pleasant.

Brad Smith:
Between now and the end of 2026, we will invest and spend $3.3 billion right here.

Frederica Freyberg:
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” campus protesters and UW-Madison administration reach accord. We look at the long-term impacts of the protesters’ message. The Ho-Chunk Nation votes to decriminalize marijuana. We speak with their attorney general. How services for survivors of domestic and sexual violence will undergo deep funding cuts and the lethal consequences behind the diagnosis of “excited delirium” while in police custody. It’s “Here & Now” for May 10.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
The tents on the UW-Madison campus are coming down. Students for Justice in Palestine agreed to clear the protest encampment, not disrupt graduation ceremonies this weekend and not set up tents again in an agreement with UW-Madison administration. For its part, the administration will set up a meeting between protesters, the UW Foundation and Alumni Association to discuss how the university’s endowment is invested. One of the protesters’ demands was for the university to divest of investments with Israel.

Protester:
We want justice. I’ll say how. UW. Divest now.

Frederica Freyberg:
When negotiations broke down between protesters and the university mid-week, about 200 people rallied and voiced their disappointment over the chancellor saying she lacked authority to divest of investments with Israel. But in following days, talks resumed with the university eager to end the encampment which was agreed to Friday just ahead of graduation ceremonies. What are the implications of these protests at the university campus and campuses across the country? UW-Madison journalism professor, Douglas McLeod, is an expert on social protests and media coverage of it. He joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Douglas McLeod:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
So you’ve written that media produce messages that support the status quo when covering social protests. Is coverage of these protests across the country and here supporting the status quo?

Douglas McLeod:
For the most part, yes. Most of the research that we’ve been doing over 35 years has looked at sort of mainstream media coverage in newspapers and then sort of the three-minute news packages that are produced to cover social protests and we found just a very common pattern of coverage that sort of typifies a lot of different kinds of protests. We’ve looked at left wing protesters, right wing protesters. We’ve looked at all sorts of different kinds of antiwar, anti-globalization protests, Black Lives Matter protests, and so we’ve discovered there’s a sort of common pattern when it comes to sort of mainstream news reports.

Frederica Freyberg:
So in this case, what even is the status quo potentially being hewed to?

Douglas McLeod:
Generally speaking, the status quo would refer to the policies and procedures of the institutions of power, government or corporations who are often the chosen target of protesters, but as part of this protest paradigm coverage, their chosen enemy is often ignored and instead the focus is on the actions of the protests and it’s framed kind of police versus protesters. And in that sense, the coverage tends to insulate the institutions like government or corporations from — from critical coverage of some of their policies and positions that the protesters would like to raise.

Frederica Freyberg:
And so in your mind, as an expert researcher in this field, what is the danger to kind of civic understanding if it’s really kind of one-sided?

Douglas McLeod:
I think to some degree, you can kind of see some of the dangers right now in the current protests. There’s been a lot of attention on police actions on campuses around the country. A lot of attention to encampments being removed. A lot of attention to clashes between protesters and counter-protesters, but not much mainstream news coverage that’s really explaining, hey, what’s this protest all about? What’s going on in Gaza and how are the protesters trying to effect change when it comes to that particular issue?

Frederica Freyberg:
Speaking of kind of the police movements around these protesters, as a faculty member on this campus, what was your reaction when the police moved in on the UW-Madison encampment?

Douglas McLeod:
The concerns are that some of their actions against faculty and students are sometimes more aggressive than they might need to be, and I’ve heard some charges, and I don’t know whether they’re validated or not, that on this campus and elsewhere, some of the more sort of aggressive measures taken by police officers are often directed at minorities — students and international students.

Frederica Freyberg:
How complicated is this pro-Palestinian protest when some Jewish students express feeling marginalized or worse and others feel they’re experiencing islamophobia? How complicated when passions around enduring conflict and bloodshed in the Middle East come to campus?

Douglas McLeod:
Yeah. I mean this is about as complicated as you get in terms of protests. First you start with the issue in Gaza and it’s not a simple solution. It’s not a case of this side being right and this side being wrong. It’s very, very complicated, number one. Number two, the protests are taking place right here and they’re sort of directed more at things like university investments, that’s kind of a complicated issue. They’re more indirectly connected, in some cases, to the protest defense going on in the Middle East and to some degree in the coverage of the protests, that sort of connection to these issues to some degree gets lost.

Frederica Freyberg:
So do you think the student protests move presidential policy on Israel?

Douglas McLeod:
Well, with all the different factors that are trying to shift presidential policy, it’s hard to trace it to what exactly is driving what. We know that protests can have a big impact. We don’t have to go far back into our own history to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and ’60s to see the profound impact that that kind of social protest and demonstrations had on affecting public policy. We know that is the case there. I think history is going to have to take a look at this particular case to see to what extent the protesters themselves has had an impact.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Professor McLeod, thanks very much.

Douglas McLeod:
Thank you very much.

Frederica Freyberg:
Ho-Chunk Nation’s Legislature moved to decriminalize cannabis on its tribal lands. It’s a move, they say, that doesn’t fully legalize marijuana. Still, it raises legal questions as the drug is still illegal federally and in Wisconsin. Joining us to address these questions is the Ho-Chunk Nation Attorney General William Gardner. Thanks very much for being here.

William Gardner:
Thanks for inviting me.

Frederica Freyberg:
Tell me, why did the Ho-Chunk vote to decriminalize cannabis?

William Gardner:
It has been in the process of consideration by the Ho-chunk Nation since 2015. In 2015, the general council got together and made a request that the legislature consider and research moving into the marijuana field in the sense of what can they do for economic expansion. At that point in time, there was a start of a process and then the commitment was made that they would continue to do the research and in an effort to put the nation in the best possible position once and if any form of legalization occurred. They move forward with that effort, which has been continuing over the years, with decriminalizing marijuana within the Ho-Chunk Nation statutes, more than likely to begin preparing for the potential of change of the marijuana rules under the Controlled Substance Act from a schedule 1 to a schedule 3 drug. So it’s all been positioning and this is, for the most part, groundwork.

Frederica Freyberg:
How does decriminalizing cannabis on tribal lands square with state and federal law under which it remains illegal?

William Gardner:
The decriminalization, as you may know or as others may not know, basically removes the potential for a crime violation or a conviction of a crime from somebody who may be arrested or charged with a crime under the current codes. All of the illegalities of using marijuana are still in effect throughout the state of Wisconsin, as well as through the Ho-Chunk lands. But if the tribal member is in possession of an amount of marijuana on tribal lands, the decriminalization affects that individual by the tribal police not filing a criminal charge against that individual and they wouldn’t have to look — look forward to is the wrong word, but they wouldn’t have to worry about getting a criminal record that might affect education or housing applications or things of the sort. So that’s something that we see as a benefit to tribal members. But it’s not in any way bumping shoulders against legality. We’re fully aware that marijuana is still illegal.

Frederica Freyberg:
Do you expect the Ho-Chunk vote to decriminalize will kind of help prod the state of Wisconsin to move in the same direction?

William Gardner:
I know that there are some tribes that are getting themselves together to lobby in order to move forward, but I think that it’s going to be a continuing effort to try and get something done, perhaps in the medical marijuana field, but I’m not certain it’s just that.

Frederica Freyberg:
Is it the sense among the tribal nation that decriminalizing cannabis could potentially help reduce opioid use, the abuse of which is a problem statewide and for tribal nations?

William Gardner:
I think there’s a sense generally across the nation perhaps, I won’t speak for other tribes, but there has been discussion here regarding reports that those states that have opened up with legalization of marijuana are beginning to find that the opioid use that they had had at the start of their opening up is reducing and dropping down. There’s also some additional studies that are beginning to surface dealing with the effects of medicinal marijuana and dealing with various health aspects, which also include opioid addiction and things of that nature. So we’re watching it. It’s too early to tell. There are not a lot of studies because, as you may know, there are not a lot of people who can do studies in this area, considering the illegality across the nation.

Frederica Freyberg:
Well, we leave it there and we will watch this as it progresses. Attorney General William Gardner, thanks very much.

William Gardner:
Good. Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
A 70% drop in federal funding to states to help victims of crime has advocates warning of dire consequences. The grants to states for victim services are funded through federal fines and fees paid by people convicted of a crime, but the federal fund has sharply declined, leaving Wisconsin’s annual funding expected to go for more than $44 million to roughly $13 million. The Wausau organization called The Women’s Community, whose services help thousands of victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault and human trafficking, fears the loss of services. Its executive director, Jane Graham Jennings, is here. Thanks very much for being here.

Jane Graham Jennings:
Thank you. I’m happy to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what is the expectation about how the drop in grant funds will affect your services?

Jane Graham Jennings:
Well, you know, the thing about serving victims of abuse is it’s not just one community. So the drop in funds will definitely impact Marathon County, which is where we serve and the Wausau community, but it will impact every community in our state, because all of the programs that are currently funded will see a significant decrease statewide. So for The Women’s Community in particular, and the other thing that is — makes a little bit difficult for us to plan is we won’t actually know the total decrease that we get until August or September, just the way the grant process works. So we won’t really know. In the best-case scenario, we will be losing about $234,000, and that’s just for The Women’s Community.

Frederica Freyberg:
How do you even weather such a loss?

Jane Graham Jennings:
We’ve been trying to plan for it for a while. The state administrators have been exceptional in trying to keep us informed and planning for a while. This problem would have happened a few years ago except there were some ARPA dollars that the state was able to put in to plug the gap. So that kept us operating and being able to keep our services operational for an additional two years, but that money is going away, so now we’re going to see those cuts. So our board has been planning. We’ve been talking about it. We have some funds for a rainy day and then we just search for other dollars. But again, we don’t know exactly how much that is going to be. So as soon as we know, then we’re going to be rolling out all of our plans.

Frederica Freyberg:
How important are victim services and what are some examples of what community of women offers?

Jane Graham Jennings:
So we work with anyone who has been a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking. Adults, children, men, women, anyone who has been impacted. Services include a number of things. One thing that people are most familiar with is our shelter service, and that’s a place where people who are in violent situations, trying to flee, to move into safe housing can stay with us for a short time in an emergency shelter. That’s going to be impacted drastically by the funding cuts. We provide ongoing supportive advocacy, because when people have been harmed by someone they love, which is most often what’s happening in sexual assault, and is the case of what’s happening in domestic violence, it’s really a traumatic experience and people are trying to figure out how to survive and how to rebuild their lives. No one wants to come to services like The Women’s Community because if you need our services, something really bad has happened to you or someone you love. So people come to us as a last resort and we want to be there to help rebuild them. They come to us feeling broken and ashamed and judged and that no one believes them or supports them, and we want to help them rebuild that spirit. Really, their soul has been crushed by the trauma that they’ve experienced and we just try to help rebuild that. We often use the analogy of a butterfly. People come to us and they feel like they’re the squishy, ugly caterpillar that people just want to step on and then they go into their cocoon and in a short time, they emerge beautiful and free and that’s the process we get to see when people come to us broken and they leave us strong at the broken places.

Frederica Freyberg:
Is domestic and sexual violence against women on the rise?

Jane Graham Jennings:
Unfortunately, it is. The most recent — in the state of Wisconsin, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin does a domestic violence-related homicide report. And the last one that was complete was in 2022 and 96 people in Wisconsin lost their lives due to domestic violence. Unfortunately, we are one of the top 10 states in the nation that has the highest level of domestic-related homicides in the country. So this is not something that we are proud of and we’re working really hard to figure out how we can make an impact, but there’s still so much blaming that is done. Victims are still blamed for so much of it. People ask questions about victims’ behavior. Why do victims stay in abusive relationships, instead of really asking the question, why does someone who claims to love harm the person they claim to love? There’s just not an incentive for people to behave better. We need people to stop being harmful.

Frederica Freyberg:
We have many more questions but we leave it there. Jane Graham Jennings, thank you very much. Thanks for your work.

Jane Graham Jennings:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
An investigation by the AP and PBS Frontline revealed police and medics using injected sedatives to deescalate people who have been deemed to have something called “excited delirium.”

Eric Jaeger:
We’ve now come to understand that “excited delirium” is a deeply flawed concept. In many cases, the definition of “excited delirium” was built on racial stereotypes, and probably more fundamentally, “excited delirium” was a concept that, in many of these cases, served to shift the focus from the actions of the first responders, restraint or chemical sedation by the police or by EMS to the individual for using methamphetamine, for engaging in criminal activity, for – in some cases – suffering from mental health emergencies.

Frederica Freyberg:
The use of medications is part of an “excited delirium” protocol in some departments to render the person compliant. This is often in combination with stun guns and pinning subjects face down, but the combination can be fatal. It happened to a man in Eau Claire County as described in the investigative reporting. “Excited delirium” purportedly marked by high pain tolerance and superhuman strength is a controversial and disputed diagnosis and should not be used to justify use of force and medication. That’s according to our next guest, psychiatrist Dr. Julie Owen from the Medical College of Wisconsin. Doctor, thanks for joining us.

Julie Owen:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
Why do you say that “excited delirium” is a disputed diagnosis?

Julie Owen:
“Excited delirium” first came to be described in the 1980s, and that was in conjunction with a rise in cocaine use. There are very few professional medical organizations that actually recognize “excited delirium” as a diagnosis, and without that recognition and without that consensus of the medical community, there’s been a lack of true diagnostic criteria that folks agree on when using this term, which has called its use into dispute.

Frederica Freyberg:
So if it’s not “excited delirium,” what are police and first responders and medics responding to in the field that then have them using these injected sedatives?

Julie Owen:
So, oftentimes, an individual who might be described as displaying the features of what has been come to be known as “excited delirium,” they will look extremely agitated. They will potentially be behaving in a bizarre manner. The literature that has looked at this syndrome has described things like increased pain tolerance, the individual looking sweaty, the individual breathing rapidly, an individual who looks like they don’t really get tired despite a lot of physical exertion, and sometimes the literature also describes individuals who are not necessarily complying with law enforcement official orders, and/or being inappropriately clothed.

Frederica Freyberg:
In your research, what did you find about the outsized diagnosis of this “excited delirium” in Black or brown police subjects?

Julie Owen:
Usually, there’s a skewing of the use of this term with young men, young men of color, and young men of color who probably, at a later phase of examination, are found to be utilizing some sort of what we call sympathomimetic or a stimulant-like substance.

Frederica Freyberg:
The Frontline investigation narrowed in on the use of injected drugs like ketamine by police and medics. What’s your view of that use?

Julie Owen:
I work in the hospital setting. In the hospital setting, if an individual presents with agitation, typically the best accepted practice is as a physician to evaluate that person and try to determine what is the most likely cause of that person’s agitation and medications are used as a tool then to treat and relieve that person of that agitated state. So the use of medications in and of themselves is not necessarily problematic. It’s the use of a medication with oftentimes very incomplete data and with differing protocols and dosing and, again, sort of starting with that not truly a medical diagnostic term to sort of drive the intervention or the choice of the intervention that seems to be problematic in these cases.

Frederica Freyberg:
How troubling is it to you that “excited delirium” might be used as a justification for use of force or injections of ketamine?

Julie Owen:
It is troubling. And again, I think, you know, as a physician and as a physician who practices in solely emergent or acute settings, this sort of case is hard for somebody like myself to try to get to the bottom of, and when you have folks who don’t have the same amount of clinical training sort of throwing out terms that sound like diagnoses to then drive interventions with questionable safety involved, and, of course, when these interventions result in lethal outcomes when really that’s probably not necessary, that is disturbing.

Frederica Freyberg:
You say that it is imperative to find consensus among medical professionals around the diagnosis of “excited delirium.” Has that yet been found, that consensus?

Julie Owen:
No.

Frederica Freyberg:
And are more people like yourself talking about it?

Julie Owen:
I think so. We — you know, again, my practice clinically is working shoulder to shoulder with emergency medicine physicians and that sort of cross specialty collaboration and collaboration of expertise in this space. I think that’s what’s necessary to really find, again, consensus, but a real clear sense of what it is that we’re trying to accomplish with utilizing terms like this or trying to categorize clinical presentations like this.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. We leave it there. Dr. Julie Owen, thanks very much.

Julie Owen:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.