Justice ReDesigned Podcast

When Power Claims Victimhood

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, retired Judge Steve Teske examines a growing and dangerous inversion in America’s civil rights debate: the claim that civil rights laws, diversity efforts, and inclusion strategies are now forms of discrimination. Titled When Power Claims Victimhood, this episode challenges the narrative that equality has gone too far. Judge Teske argues that civil rights laws were not designed to protect historical dominance from discomfort, but to dismantle systemic exclusion and expand access to opportunity. When accountability is reframed as punishment, inclusion as favoritism, and structural reform as discrimination, the meaning of civil rights itself is turned upside down. With sharp commentary and historical perspective, this episode explores the myth of “reverse discrimination,” the misuse of neutrality, and the difference between genuine harm and the discomfort that comes when unearned advantage is challenged. The episode makes clear that civil rights did not create victims; they named them. And when a society begins to call equality oppression, it reveals more about who it believes the country belongs to than about civil rights law itself. This is not just a debate about DEI. It is a debate about memory, power, fairness, and whether America is willing to tell the truth about why civil rights protections were necessary in the first place. Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Episode 10: When the Acronym Retreats but the Architecture Remains

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske examines what may be the most important development in the DEI debate so far: what happens when organizations stop talking about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—but continue doing the work. Using Goldman Sachs as a case study, Teske explores the growing disconnect between public rhetoric and operational reality. As legal challenges, political pressure, and accusations of “reverse discrimination” reshape the landscape, many organizations are quietly retreating from the language of DEI while preserving the systems that made those initiatives effective in the first place. This episode explores: • Why Goldman Sachs eliminated explicit diversity criteria for board evaluations while maintaining its commitment to inclusion and broad talent recruitment• The rise of what Teske calls the Corporate Chill—when legal and political risk alters organizational behavior before the law requires it• Why critics often focus on the visible variable of diversity while overlooking the inclusion systems underneath• The distinction between demographic diversity and cognitive diversity, and why both matter for governance and decision-making• How structured hiring, transparent promotion systems, and bias-resistant evaluation processes function as organizational architecture rather than political ideology Drawing on the insights of diversity strategist Ginny Clarke and finance scholar Alex Edmans, Teske argues that the real story is not whether companies are abandoning DEI, but whether they are abandoning the systems that reduce talent waste, challenge groupthink, and improve performance. The acronym may be retreating. But the architecture may still be doing the work. Because institutions rarely survive by defending slogans. They survive by solving problems. And in the end, the spreadsheet usually tells the truth. Justice ReDesigned is a podcast about rethinking justice, challenging assumptions, and rebuilding the systems that shape people’s lives. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Beyond the Business Case — From Correlation to Institutional Architecture

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske moves the DEI conversation beyond its most familiar—and most flawed—argument: that diversity increases profits. For years, proponents relied on studies showing correlations between diverse leadership and financial performance. Critics responded with a valid critique: correlation is not causation. But as Teske explains, that debate misses the point entirely. The real question isn’t whether diversity magically produces profit. It’s whether poorly designed systems are quietly wasting talent. This episode reframes DEI not as a moral slogan or political talking point, but as institutional architecture—the systems organizations use to identify, retain, and elevate talent. When those systems fail, companies don’t just lose diversity. They lose performance. This episode explores: * Why the correlation vs. causation debate is the wrong fight * The critical difference between diversity as an outcome and inclusion as a system * How bias, narrow pipelines, and opaque promotion processes create costly “talent leakage” * Why inclusion is best understood as engineering, not ideology * And how organizations that reduce waste outperform those that ignore it Teske also tackles a common misconception: that DEI is simply a modern version of quotas or affirmative action. Instead, he explains how properly designed inclusion systems operate like any other performance system—measured, refined, and accountable. At its core, this episode delivers a simple but powerful insight: Inclusion doesn’t work because it is politically correct. It works because inefficiency is expensive. And when organizations stop wasting talent, something predictable happens: Performance improves. Because the real issue was never whether diversity causes profit. The real issue is whether your system is designed to waste less human potential. Steve Teske is a retired judge who served in the juvenile and superior courts, presiding over delinquency, child abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights, and adult civil and criminal matters. He has testified before Congress and numerous state legislatures on policy development related to racial disparities. He has published several articles in scholarly and professional journals. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Judge Geronda Carter on Reimagining Access and Accountability

We’re taking a short pause from the DEI series for a conversation that reflects the larger purpose of Justice ReDesigned: exploring how systems can be rebuilt to serve people better. In this episode, I interview Judge Geronda Carter of Georgia’s Clayton Judicial Circuit, a jurist whose work demonstrates what meaningful reform looks like when it moves from theory into practice. Too often, justice reform is discussed only in terms of what is broken. But real progress also requires us to study what is working—and why. Judge Carter shares how she has used judicial leadership and innovation to remove barriers that too often prevent people from fully participating in the legal process. From virtual court appearances that reduce transportation problems, lost wages, and scheduling conflicts, to a Parental Accountability Court that helps families through support, structure, and responsibility, her work offers a blueprint for smarter and more humane justice systems. In this episode, we discuss: * How technology can expand access to justice without sacrificing fairness * Why many failures to appear are rooted in barriers, not irresponsibility * How child support enforcement can focus on solutions instead of automatic punishment * The importance of helping parents become fully engaged in their children’s lives * What judicial leadership looks like when it is grounded in service, common sense, and outcomes This is not innovation for innovation’s sake. It is redesign with purpose. It is justice that meets people where they are.It is justice that asks what works.And it is justice worth building. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Woke, Anti-Woke, and the Politics of Selective Outrage

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske steps back from the legal and economic debates over DEI to examine the word driving much of the conflict: woke. Once a term meaning awareness of injustice, “woke” has evolved into a political weapon—used to dismiss conversations about race, history, and inequality. But Teske argues that the real story is not wokeness itself, but the selective outrage surrounding it. This episode explores: * How the meaning of “woke” has shifted from awareness to accusation * Where progressive activism has sometimes overreached—and why that matters * The growing irony of “anti-woke” efforts that engage in their own forms of cultural intervention * The difference between remembering history and honoring it * And why neutrality is never the absence of values, but a decision about what to preserve and what to ignore At its core, this conversation challenges a simple assumption: that awareness is the problem. Because when cultural intervention is condemned on one side and embraced on the other, the issue is no longer wokeness. It is inconsistency. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]