Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You.

>>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, we mark Sunshine Week, an annual celebration of transparency with the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government.

>> Williams: You have to, in practice, every day, say, we're going to do whatever we can as a government to make sure that we're going to make these records as available as quickly and as cheaply as we can.

>> Nash: And in honor of Women's History Month, we look back at some of our favorite stories of women's empowerment, opportunity and visibility.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us I'm Nash Jones.

This week, we are commemorating a couple important March holidays in honor of Women's History Month.

We searched through the archives for some of the best stories of gender equity and groundbreaking women that we've brought to you in recent years.

You're going to meet astronaut Nicole Man, who in 2022 became the first Native American woman in space.

You'll also hear from two local women who served in Vietnam about the 1993 dedication of the Vietnam Women's Memorial, what it meant to them 30 years on, to be seen and honored for their contributions.

Then we revisit a conversation with Martha Burke, former chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, about a letter that she sent more than two decades ago that rocked the Insular Boys Club of golf and business at the highest levels.

Finally, with the 2026 Oscars just behind us and actors and actresses still recognized separately for their performances, we reexamine a 2023 report from a group of local constitutional law students calling for the Academy Awards to reconsider that practice.

But we start tonight by commemorating yet another March holiday, and one particularly dear to the hearts of journalists like us, and likely civically minded viewers like you.

Sunshine Week, as the annual celebration of transparency, public records and good government stretches into its third decade.

Executive producer Jeff Proctor asks Greg Williams, longtime board member with the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, about where the light is shining brightly in New Mexico and what remains in the shadows.

Williams has been on the frontlines of the fight for your right to know for years, and a bit of transparency of our own.

He and Jeff have fought many of those battles together.

>> Jeff: Greg, Happy Sunshine Week to those like you and I who celebrate, and welcome to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Williams: Thank you very much for having me -- really appreciate you recognizing Sunshine Week.

We think it's really important and I'm happy to be here.

>> Jeff: Good, let's get going then.

I would like to begin our conversation sort of broadly by reading from the state and spectrum of public Records Act, which you and I know as IPRA, the law says the legislature intended that everyone is, quote, “entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees.” Doing so, the law continues, is an essential function of a representative government.

That is some high minded stuff, Greg.

And my question is, how are we doing in terms of living up to that in 2026?

>> Williams: I think we're doing pretty well, but it's a daily battle, right?

Transparency is so important to democracy and to government.

If people don't have faith in what's going on in the government or access to what's going on, then it's really detrimental to society as a whole.

I think we're doing pretty well as a state.

New Mexico, our public records law IPRA is really good.

It's very public friendly.

The problem is there are always efforts, there's always efforts to minimize what we can get and how fast we can get it.

And we've seen some efforts in the legislature in the last couple of years to limit what we can get and how fast we can get it.

And so we're always fighting the battle.

>> Jeff: That's a great transition.

Let's get to a couple of those recent battles that you guys have been fighting.

We covered a couple of bills on this show last year that sought to sort of limit IPRA neither of those bills passed, of course, but one remnant did survive.

And we'll get to that in just a moment this year, backing up about what is driving this desire to, quote unquote, rein IPRA in, >> Williams: I think what's driving it is something that has happened over the last few years, which is that the number of requests, public records, requests to public entities has really increased.

There's really no dispute that there are a lot more demands made on records custodians, public entities to provide public records.

And so it has in some circles said, you know, we're getting so many requests we should limit what's available or we should make it more difficult to get records.

We think that's the opposite approach, because, as the legislature said, providing public access is a fundamental, duty of public entities.

And so if there are increased demands on public entities to produce records, the result is not, the goal is not to limit the access.

The goal is, increase, the number of records custodians, increase their funding, increase their training.

Let's meet this increased demand with an increased supply.

Let's make it more, and let's give the records custodians more tools to meet these requests and make sure that the public is not, the victim in this kind of increase in records requests.

>> Jeff: Let's burrow into that just a little bit.

The idea that the volume of records requests increasing is undeniable.

It's a real thing.

It's really happening.

My first question is, is FOG sympathetic, to that perspective, to that argument, just as sort of a general principle?

>> Williams: We're very sympathetic to that because, IPRA is only as good as the records custodian.

So public access is only as good as what these people who work very hard can actually provide.

And so we're sympathetic that when their when their email boxes get fuller and their requests get greater, that it's more difficult for them to do their jobs.

But what we can't do is in response to that is create barriers to access.

We can't make it more expensive to get records.

We can't make it take longer, because those are the things that completely undermine the idea of of transparency.

A good comparison is the federal, FOIA Freedom of Information Act.

If you've ever tried to use FOIA >> Jeff: I have Greg.

>> Williams: It's a bureaucratic nightmare, right.

And every request takes years, takes a lot of money to the point where the act becomes nearly worthless to people who really want government information.

We want to make sure in New Mexico that that's not what happens.

that we don't create a system where these records custodians are so overburdened and underfunded that they can't they can't do their job, which is to provide timely, information without barriers.

>> Jeff: And transparency is a public policy choice right, and does that create a situation where it's kind of a put your money where your mouth thing.

>> Williams: So every politician likes to run on a pro transparency platform.

Everybody wants to say I'm the most pro transparent governor or mayor or school board president.

In practice, though, there are a lot of people that want to keep this aspect confidential, this record quiet.

And so it you have to, in practice every day, say, we're going to do whatever we can as a government to make sure that we're going to make these records as available as quickly and as cheaply as we can.

>> Jeff: Let's talk for a moment about that remnant that I mentioned a moment ago from those couple of IPRA bills that died during the session last year.

One of those remnants was a task force to, quote unquote, “study IPRA implementation”, which ultimately passed this year, as I believe House joint memorial 2.

Greg, tell me a little bit about that task force.

Who's going to be on it, what are the timelines for it, and what is that study and going to look like?

>> Williams: So that came out of the bills that you mentioned, which were introduced in 2025, which really some of the bills, suggested some really substantial changes to IPRA that made transparency advocates really nervous and really concerned about access and the approach that was agreed on rather than passing these bills was let's take a little bit more time, and let's study this a little more closely to see what all the ramifications are going to be.

And one of the things that came out of it was this task force, it was the result of this House memorial, and it's going to have, people that are in the, records production business, like, people from the counties and other, governmental entities.

It's going to have transparency advocates like Fogg and, the Press Association, the ACLU, people who understand and are always fighting for access.

It's going to have both sides of the table and the purpose the Attorney General's office is going to be involved as well.

And the purpose is, let's look at these issues of increased demand and increased burden on records custodians and see what are the solutions.

And make sure that in creating those solutions that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, that we suddenly put up such burdens to access that, that IPRA, has its legs cut out from under them.

So we want to make sure that, what comes out of this task force is not necessarily changes to IPRA.

What we'd like to see are ways that we can help the records custodians do their jobs better, which is streamlining electronic access.

Increasing funding to their offices so that they can hire more people, more staff.

There's been a lot of work done by some records custodians in terms of making records available online so that their individual search time is a lot less.

So I think the task force is an interesting idea.

We're glad to be a part of it, and we want to make sure that the end result is, not legislation that really undercuts what the legislature has already said is fundamentally important, which is quick access to records.

>> Jeff: Greg, any time the legislature gets near IPRA, it makes me incredibly twitchy, as someone who favors transparency.

This is, after all, the legislative body that exempted many years ago its own emails from IPRA.

It sounds like a lot of what FOG does in terms of the way the legislature approaches IPRA, is to play defense.

Am I understanding kind of your role a little bit on that task force that way?

Yeah, there's no question.

So New Mexico is really fortunate.

We have a very good pro transparency statute.

If you look at, state laws from around the country, New Mexico's IPRA is really good in terms of providing access and providing it quickly and without too much cost.

Every year there are bills that try to erode that a little bit.

There are never pro transparency changes to IPRA that are suggested.

It's always, let's make this record confidential or let's exempt this or, yeah, let's let's make sure it's a little bit tighter.

Sometimes there's good reasons.

We've had changes to IPRA that have to do with victims of crimes that are a good thing.

And we recognize that that's a policy balancing.

But but generally as you said, our job as transparency advocates is to make sure that the legislature doesn't go too far, that the concerns of records custodians and the government, and people who are in that system who may have reasons to keep things quiet and aren't as interested in transparency, we want to make sure that doesn't overcome this fundamental access.

>> Jeff: Gotcha.

I want to get to sort of a new player on the transparency scene, and that's going to be artificial intelligence.

I noted a recent study from the city of Albuquerque and, more specifically the city clerk, Ethan Watson, who has become sort of one of the leading voices in the Let's Reform IPRA movement, as what I'd like to call it, who kind of made the media rounds recently and presented what I think at least, I'd never seen this before.

A novel argument that might explain that volume increase that we've been talking about.

What he said was that the majority of the city's requests are now coming from out of state data scrapers or suspected artificial intelligence bots overseas.

As such, Watson argues, the law has become unworkable.

What do you make of that argument?

>> Williams: Well, it's interesting and it's new.

And like you said, this is kind of the first we're hearing of AI having any role at all in access to public records.

There's no question that part of this increase in records requests over the last few years has come from what we might call commercial users, which are people that have a need for public records, but then they use them for commercial purposes.

They republish them in some form, or they create their own database out of it.

>> Jeff: Mug shots.com.

>> Williams: Exactly.

There's all kinds of, YouTube channels and things that use police camera footage and things like that, that is an increase.

And what the city of Albuquerque is reporting is that they believe that some of these are AI created and, that that is a factor in the number of requests that they get.

I don't we're going to have to flesh that out a little bit because this is brand new.

>> Jeff: I was going to say have you seen any evidence to support that claim?

>> Williams: If they believe that fact, based on what they've looked at, I don't have anything right now to say that's not true, but I don't know how widespread it is.

I don't know exactly how big of a burden it's creating on them.

But it's certainly worth considering and talking about.

But we have to be very careful.

IPRA doesn't limit who can ask for records.

IPRA has never said has never allowed the government to ask a requester, why do you want this information, and what are you going to do with it?

The whole idea behind transparency is, your reason for asking for it is irrelevant.

The point is, it's the public's records and anyone who asks for it should be able to get it.

We understand that the more records requests there are, the more burden there is, and that slows down the ability of other citizens to get access to records.

So I guess I am, I'm always a little bit skeptical.

That's my nature in this job, to be a little skeptical of the records custodians and the governmental entities when they talk about burden.

But I do believe what they're saying, and we do have to take it seriously.

We just have to make sure that in taking those issues into consideration, we don't undercut IPRA, which is to provide as much access as possible.

>> Jeff: Greg, I've always appreciated your skepticism on this front.

Let's spend a quick moment here at the end on our state's other sunshine law, the Open Meetings Act, which folks like you and me refer to as OMA.

It's having a bit of a moment lately itself.

One example I can think of is the kerfuffle over the Dona Ana County Commission's approval of $165 billion and industrial revenue bonds for the Project Jupiter Data Center.

Another happened just earlier this week when the Otero County Commission, in a 12 minute emergency meeting, approved a brand new contract for immigrant detention with ICE.

I want to ask the question a bit more broadly, though.

One thing to have access to records, another to be in the room when big decisions get made.

What happens when that law starts to erode?

>> Williams: You know, the Open Meetings Act is about the most simple statute we have.

All it does is require public bodies like school boards and city councils and county commissions to say, tell us when you're going to have a meeting.

Tell us what you're going to talk about at the meeting and do your votes in public.

That's basically all it is.

There's more more to it.

There's some exceptions to it, but that's basically all it is.

>> Jeff: If you're going to shut the door and keep me out of it, you got to explain why you█re doing that.

>> Williams: You have to do it in very limited circumstances, and you have to, you have to explain why.

And if you're going to have a meeting under emergency circumstances or on short notice, it again, has to be under very limited circumstances and there has to be a very pressing need.

That's what's at issue in Otero County.

When they had this emergency meeting about contracts with ICE, they had an emergency meeting.

And the question is, was that appropriate?

Because it did have the effect of shutting the public out, because the public really didn't know about it.

And so the Open Meetings Act is a very easy act for people to comply with, for government entities to comply with and there's no reason that they ever shouldn't, because we're just asking them that when you're when you're going to make a decision, do it where we can hear about it and participate and know about it and think about it and present our opinions.

And it's a little distressing to see lately, as you said, it's cropped up a little bit, because it's not hard to comply with that act, but it's really important that they do.

>> Jeff: Greg, thanks so much to you and FOG for not just caring about this stuff during Sunshine Week, and I appreciate you coming in to talk to me.

>> Williams: Thank you for having me.

I appreciate it.

>> McCoy: So then relating to what we talked about in the proposal, we think that people should be based on their acting performance rather than being separated into these gendered categories, which can kind of perpetuate this notion of ability.

>> Nash: Stay tuned for that conversation.

Questioning the Oscars and its gender-based based awards, in about ten minutes.

And thank you to Greg Williams for helping us observe Sunshine Week here on [New Mexico] in Focus.

But now let's move on to another important topic celebrated each March, Women's History.

More than two decades ago, New Mexico feminist and political psychologist Martha Burke wrote a letter that snowballed into a protest at the world's most exclusive golf club during the sport's most prestigious championship with the 2003 Masters Tournament underway, Burke led a small but mighty demonstration against the Augusta National Golf Clubs men's only membership policy.

She reflected on the move 20 years later and what's changed since, with executive producer and avid golfer Jeff Proctor back in 2023.

>> Jeff: Martha, it's really good to see you again.

And thanks a ton for coming down to talk to me today.

>> Burk: My pleasure.

>> Jeff: Okay [laughs] If I recall correctly, this whole thing started with a letter that you wrote.

To whom did you address the letter, and what did it say?

>> Burk: I addressed it to Hootie Johnson, who was Head of the Club, the Lord Master, you might say.

And it was a very polite short letter, and it just said, we've noticed that you have a very prominent club that attracts the CEOs of America's largest corporations, and you don't allow women.

And we would like to encourage you to do that.

It was a polite letter, probably about four lines long.

I can't find a copy of it now.

I didn't expect really to get an answer, or I thought if I did, they say, “oh sure, stay tuned, we're working on it.” Something like that.

I never expected it to explode as it did.

>> Jeff: If I recall my history correctly, you hadn't really thought much about golf or golfers or golf clubs by that point.

What was going on for you career wise at that point, and how did Augusta National get on your radar?

>> Burk: Oh, well, I was Head of the National Council of Women's Organizations, which had membership ranging from Planned Parenthood to Church Women United, Black Women United for Action, American Nurses.

We had about 50 groups representing collectively 10 million women, and our job was to advocate for women's equality.

And we did stuff like go to the Hill all the time or harass the president of the United States, occasionally, to get on certain bills like pay equity, childcare -- the things that women need in order to achieve equality.

And this was just such a minor little thing.

I read somewhere in a magazine or a paper, you know, this club and it's a prominent club and they don't allow women.

So I asked my board.

We were packing up to leave.

The meeting was over.

I said, oh, I heard about this golf club, blah, blah, why don't we write them a letter?

And they said, sure, write a letter.

No vote, nothing.

It just wasn't a big deal.

I didn't think.

[both laugh] >> Jeff: So, you weren't expecting much of a reaction at >> Burk: Not at all.

>> Jeff: What happened instead, Martha?

>> Burk: Well, my phone rang in this voice at the other end of the line said, “Hi, this is Doug Ferguson.

I'm a golf writer for the AP.” What did you think of, Augusta National's letter?

And I said, what letter?

And he read it to me.

Point of a bayonet.

The whole screed.

And I said, oh, well, I got a Fedex about ten minutes ago, but I hadn't had time to open it.

I guess it's in there.

And from there, as we know, it just exploded into a year long or a little over a year, actually, argument.

>> Jeff: Tell me, please, about the protest itself.

What was the vibe?

What was the atmosphere?

What was that day?

>> Burk: We had, about a 20 foot pink pig that we had, borrowed from Ralph Nader organization because he always said, you know, the corporations are pigs and that stuff.

So we had that down there, and we were hoping to be at the club gates, but local law enforcement wouldn't give us a permit.

Well you know whose pocket those boys were in.

>> Jeff: Shocker.

>> Burk: Yeah... So they put us about a half mile down the road.

It's kind of muddy.

Just an open field.

The press reported we had 40 people.

I think we probably had closer to 60 or maybe even 80.

But we didn't have as many people as we would have had at the gates.

We didn't have any violence, even though, as I said in the piece, I did have bodyguards and I did have a bulletproof vest.

I had gotten a lot of death threats.

Some people take golf much more seriously than they ever should.

>> Jeff: Isn't that the truth?

What happened afterwards?

What was the private response that you got?

I remember the I stand with hoodie tee shirts and the little Ghostbusters buttons with your face in the middle of it.

What was the response privately?

How did the public respond to what you were doing?

>> Burk: Well, most of the women were for us, a few weren█t.

My husband plays golf, and I don't want to play, you know, that kind of stuff.

The, shall I say, the progressive community knew exactly what it was about.

And it was never about golf.

It was about equal opportunity to the business deals that were made on that course and in that clubhouse.

And, I mean, the Fortune 500 was a membership.

You can't just go put your money down and get a membership to that club.

You have to be invited, and they didn't invite anybody but the highest levels of corporate America or occasionally, I suppose, some, prominent preacher or something like that.

But there were no normal people, so to speak, and women were trying to, get equal footing in the halls of big business.

And that's where off campus deals were made.

And so that's what it was about.

>> Jeff: I want to talk some about the value of protest itsel and the value of direct action.

Why did you choose to go the route that you did, and to have that day in front of all those cameras and a big pink pig and all of that stuff?

And how do you think it impacted what it is you were trying to do?

>> Burk: Well, I think it made a difference.

They waited eight years to let a woman in so we wouldn't get credit, but we did.

I mean, people remembered and, you know, they knew what happened.

But the value of protest is to raise public consciousness.

We wouldn't have protested had they not provoked us with this letter.

They said that said, we won't be held at the point of a bayonet by a women's group of all people.

I mean, my God, let women tell you what to do.

No, but the value of protest is real.

We would not have the civil rights movement if we didn't, civil rights laws.

If we didn't have protest, we wouldn't have what's now very controversial.

But, the LBGTQ community is under siege.

But protest will turn the tide eventually.

You have to get out there because asking politely to bigots is never going to make social change.

>> Jeff: I want to flash us forward to today, given the current political climate in this country now should protest and direct action like that still be on the activists menu?

>> Burk: Yes and no.

I think it should be, because I think, again, it's vital to democracy.

What has changed is the gun culture.

And as I said, I had a bulletproof vest way back then, but we didn't have AK 47s on every street corner, and we do now.

And so people who protest on either side are under much larger threat than what we would call a peaceful protest.

You know, my grandchild asked me fairly recently what I was doing back in the day.

He said 60, 70.

I said I was protesting the Vietnam War, and we did it.

And it was peaceful protest.

You know, you never would have carried a gun in the street and and threatened to kill people.

You wanted to change their minds.

You didn't want to eliminate them.

And that's what's changed I think.

>> Jeff: And speaking of change, a lot has changed at Augusta National in the 20 years since you've done this.

They have admitted a few women members.

We're not exactly sure because of their secrecy policies as to how many.

They now stage a big, women's amateur golf tournament there.

Beyond that, given that this was never about golf for you, what has changed and what has not, and pay equity and the other women's struggles that you've dedicated so much of your life to?

>>Burk: Well, this is what's kind of pathetic Jeff, let's take pay equity since you mentioned it.

Back then, the gap between women and men's pay was something around $0.78 on the dollar.

Women made $0.78, too, and the white man's dollar was the standard.

Now it's $0.82.

That's $0.04 in 20 years.

So maybe in the next century, at the rate we're going, we need better laws.

We need a lot of things to give women an equal playing field.

Let's take Covid, for example.

Just a little digression here.

Who lost their jobs during Covid?

Women.

Why?

Because they made less in men.

And a two family.

The lower earner needed to quit to stay home with kids because we don't have childcare in this country, unlike all of Europe and most of the civilized world.

So we're making progress.

But it is much too slow.

>> Jeff: What do you think would happen if we went down to Augusta and decided we wanted to go to the golf tournament?

>> Burk: Oh, I think the boys would put on a really good show.

I bet they would welcome us and say, see?

See what we've done?

Look at our six women out of 300, members.

You know, they're secretive, but we█re pretty sure it's about six.

That█s 2% of the membership.

But I think they would have a different tone, a great patina, you know, and behind that tissue paper, the quality, they're still doing the same thing.

>> Jeff: Well, maybe next year we'll do that.

Thank you so much for coming down and talking to me today.

>> Burke: You're most welcome, my pleasure.

>> Nash: Thanks to Martha Burke for recounting her early aughts effort to force Augusta National to admit women members.

So did you catch the Oscars last weekend?

If you did, you saw Jessie Buckley take home Best Actress for her role in Hamnet, while Michael B. Jordan won Best Actor for playing twins in the movie, Sinners.

For nearly a century now, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has gendered its awards for performers.

That's despite its musical counterpart, the Grammys, doing away with that practice more than a decade ago.

Well, a few years back, a group of undergraduate students studying constitutional law at the University of New Mexico questioned that structure, and their report made it all the way to the academy's board of governors.

Last year, Senior Producer Lou DiVizio sat with two of the ten student authors, Abigail McCoy and Devrah Fung, and their professor Larry Jones, to find out what they recommended and why.

>> Lou: The proposal mentions some potential legal and social flaws in the current system of gendered categories.

Let's start with the law, Abigail what have you found in terms of case law that supports your idea for integrating these categories?

>> McCoy: One of the, cases that we discussed was United States versus Virginia, in 1996.

And this is a case that struck down, the male only, admission process for the Virginia military Institute because they believed that, the admission should be based on individual ability rather than your gender.

So then, relating to what we talked about in the proposal, we think that people should be based on their acting performance rather than being separated into these gendered categories, which can kind of perpetuate this notion of ability.

>> Lou: Okay.

What about potential social flaws?

Devrah -- What█d you find when you dug into that a little bit?

>> Fung: One social flaw that I saw was that it excluded non-binary people and it perpetuated binary for men and women.

And it also discouraged women from competing against men and men competing against women.

>> Lou: Your presentation cited something called the Taylor Swift principle.

That's based around the success of gender desegregation at the Grammys in 2012.

They've been doing it for 12 years now.

Is there anything that we've seen from that award show that would give the Academy cause for concern or the opposite?

>> McCoy: I think that it could lead to some concern because we've seen Beyoncé, Adele and Taylor Swift, as we mentioned.

They've dominated the Grammys for the past over a decade -- it could lead to the opposite within the Academy Awards.

We could see Leonardo DiCaprio or Cillian Murphy or all these male actors start to dominate, and then it's going to get rid of the female representation that people have worked so hard to put in place.

>> Lou: Okay, Hollywood.

It's often perceived by the rest of the country as about as far left and progressive as it gets.

Why do you think that we haven't seen more support for this change in the industry?

Devrah.

>> Fung: I would say because they're really, focused on tradition, especially with the Oscars being like century, a century years old.

They want to keep that.

Yeah, they want to keep their tradition.

>> Lou: Okay.

I want to ask you the inverse.

Larry, our country just elected Donald Trump?

Could there be backlash from the wider movie viewing public if the Academy decides to go this way?

>> Jones: Well, there could be theoretically backlash on anything.

Anytime there's any type of change, anytime you're talking about looking at doing something differently than has been in place for 100 years, rightfully or wrongfully or for any other reason, there's always going to be some people who support change and some people who oppose change.

But this is a progressive country, a country which has been built on change.

So something as high profile as the Academy Awards, that the rules are first put in place in 1927, where socially and legally things were much different.

That it's time to look at things in 2024, to see where there can be progressive and positive change.

So that's what the students are talking about in terms of setting up a task force by the academy to look really carefully at these issues and in a very public way, too, because the Academy Awards is a public event, it is a public social event.

So, like with anything else, there are bound to be some people who oppose change and some people who support change for all kinds of different reasons.

>> Lou: Your analysis didn't explicitly call on the Academy to make these changes.

What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with the report?

>> McCoy: We are hoping that they create a task force to address the issue.

We wanted to stay very neutral within our presentation.

We didn't want to root for one side or the other, but we wanted to lay out a framework.

And, the case law, the legal implications, the social implications for and against desegregating, the award show categories.

>> Lou: Now, I know you said that the Academy hasn't gotten back to you yet.

Even if they don't make the change now, or if they don't get back to you by, the Oscars this year.

Do you anticipate that this is inevitable, whether it's in a year or two or ten years from now?

>> McCoy: I do think it's inevitable.

We've already seen changes with different award shows, and we live in a rapidly evolving society.

And I think that -- people are going to start noticing and they're going to ask for change, and, you know, they can't avoid it forever.

So they're going to have to address it one way or another.

>> Lou: Understood.

>> Fung: There was already a change, with the Oscars-So-White movement, people started noticing that a lot of the Oscar winners were white.

And so I think it is inevitable that they're going to change.

>> Lou: Understood.

Abigail McCoy.

Devrah Fung, Professor Larry Jones, thank you so much for being here.

>> Group: Thank you for having us.

>> Nash: A big thanks to Abigail McCoy, Devrah Fung and Professor Larry Jones for breaking down their proposal for us last year.

Professor Jones told us this week that academy leadership has still not yet responded to the students work, but efforts to engage them continue.

Now, how about we step off the red carpet and on to the International Space Station on October 5th, 2022, NASA's SpaceX crew five launched from the Kennedy Space Center with astronaut Nicole Mann not only on board but commanding the mission.

That day, she became the first Native American woman in space before she blasted off on her historic mission.

Mann caught up with New Mexico in Focus correspondent Antonia Gonzalez.

Here's that conversation.

>> Antonia: How excited are you about this?

This is going to be your first time right?

>> Mann: This will be my first time to space, yes.

I joined NASA back in 2013, and so I've been training ever since.

We've been training specifically for this mission for the past year, and we are ready to go, ready to launch.

>> Antonia: And what is your role going to be?

>> Mann: So I'm the commander of the spacecraft, so I will fly myself and three other crewmates.

We will launch from Kennedy Space Center in a Dragon spacecraft, which is built by SpaceX.

And we will take a day or so to get to the International Space Station, and we'll stay on board for about six months to execute our mission.

Our spacecraft will stay attached that entire time.

At the end of the mission, we'll come back home and we'll splashdown off the coast of Florida.

>> Antonia: What are some of the key parts of the mission?

Is there something that is going to be studied or looked at, or what's going to happen during the six months?

>> Mann: during the six months on board?

We have about 250 scientific experiments that we will be able to partake in and execute for the principal investigator on the ground.

Some of those are technology demonstration to help us in further human exploration.

A lot of them are scientific investigations and research to benefit humans back on Earth, though.

So because the space station is in microgravity, there's a lot of things that we can do that you simply can't do on Earth.

So one of my favorite that I'm excited to participate in is this, bio fabrication facility.

We're actually growing human cells on the space station.

So they've already grown a partial meniscus and some heart cells.

And this, like, 3D printing of cells is difficult to do on Earth because of the gravity.

But in space, they're discovering that they can create better, stronger, more intact cells.

And so hopefully I'll be a part of that effort.

>> Antonia: And, as a Native person, we know that there are some Native who have chosen and have worked for NASA in the past So, what does that mean to you?

>> Mann: To me, it's really important.

I think your your background and your heritage is an important part of who you are and your family and the community that brought you up.

And so I think it's important also then to share with our communities what the amazing things that all of the people that you know, that we grew up with are executing and what they're doing.

And so hopefully there's some young native kids that are looking and see what amazing things, what amazing opportunities they have in front of them.

And I mean, a lot of those barriers that used to exist are really being broken down.

And so I think that's some good messaging that we really want to communicate specifically to the younger generation.

>> Antonia: And especially when it comes to getting, girls and women involved.

And there are programs across the country and in Indian country that encourage, young girls to get interested in STEM.

Why is that so important?

>> Mann: I think that's important because I think there's many young girls that grow up not realizing that these are options for them.

You know, for example, growing up in Northern California, I was interested in math and science, and I thought, you know, it'd be really cool to go to space one day.

But the thought of being an astronaut honestly never crossed my mind because I never saw anybody that that was from, you know, my background or my area that had done something like that.

And so I think really just communicating those opportunities.

And then if people are interested, then we need to help them.

We need to have a program.

We need to have teachers and mentors that are there to kind of shepherd them along the way.

It's important to have that support.

>> Antonia: When you get home after the mission, you know, looking forward to being up there for six months, what are you going to do when you get back and what do you you know, what what can we see in the future from you?

>> Mann: So, when I get back, I think I'll be excited just to be outside and feel the wind on my face and the sun.

That will be something I will definitely miss.

There'll be a period of time to rehabilitate back to 1G.

It can be a little tough on your body, so I'll do that.

And then I'll look on to the the next mission.

I'll be able to support current missions on the International Space Station.

We will have flown hopefully Artemis 1 on back to the moon by then.

And so we'll be looking at future opportunities, whether that be in low-Earth orbit or maybe something on the moon.

I think there's a lot of opportunities out there.

And so I'm looking forward to all of those.

>> Antonia: Thank you for your time, Nicole Mann.

Good luck and best wishes to you.

>> Antonia: Thank you.

I appreciate it.

>> Nash: According to NASA, Mann spent 157 days in orbit as part of the SpaceX crew five mission and conducted two spacewalks, before she and her crew safely splashed down off the Florida coast in March of 2023.

Thanks to her, and to Antonio Gonzalez for bringing us that conversation.

In another first, back in 1993, the Vietnam Women's Memorial became the first monument to women installed on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The statue was designed by the late Santa Fe based sculptor Glenna Goodacre, and 30 years later, Faith Perez, host of NMPBS█ arts and culture program, Colores, spoke with two local nurses who served in Vietnam, about what that memorial and its acknowledgment of that war's women veterans has meant to them through the years.

[Patriotic music] >> Carson: I see a beautiful fall day in Washington, D.C.

on the -- on Veterans Day of 1993, when we unveiled the statue that Glenna had made, this huge, beautiful statue of three women, one holding servicemen.

I see the crowds and the women who have been waiting on this forever, and it was just a wonderful sight to unveil it and dedicate it.

>> Faith: And Dotty what comes to mind for you?

>> Beatty: Well, for myself and many of the nurses, we kind of had to hide out for years because people weren't real receptive to us having been nurses, and so it was just something you didn't talk about at all.

And that day was so special.

There were marches and and really acceptance and seeing soldiers who were looking for their nurse.

But the thing that I think about now is; what's happened in that span of time?

And I think the statue still does the same magic that it did on that day -- >> Carson: Yes.

>> Beatty: Yeah, for me it's a statue about healing and about accepting us as we are and camaraderie, which was very important.

And, then coming back to the States and getting separated.

A lot of that camaraderie was lost.

And so it was very magical to be in that environment again.

>> Faith: And Dotty, tell me about this sculpture that you brought with you, this little one.

>> Beatty: Well, I was really lucky because -- from Linda Goodacre, she's a sculptress who lived in Santa Fe, got the commission.

I called and asked if there was any chance I could come and just see it when she was working on it.

And she's the most gracious woman I have ever met in my whole life.

She said, “sure, come on Friday, those are usually a good day.” And so I would go frequently on Fridays and just sit there and we didn't talk an awful lot.

But she has the ability to just sense the emotions that were in me.

The first time I walked in, I saw the Kneeling Lady and I turned around and walked out.

I couldn't even talk and she told her -- “I don't think she likes it.” [Laughs] but I fell in love with it.

That's called the Marquette, I believe, and its what she presented before the committee, when that was chosen.

And she actually let me work on the sandbags just a little bit on the last few days.

And then when I saw a couple of weeks later, I asked her how long it took to get the sandbags back in shape, and she said, “only an hour or two.” [laughing] I had messed them up [laughs] >> Carson: Yeah.

>> Faith: Is there an inscription on there?

>> Beatty: Yeah, that has my name on it, and then she signed it.

So yeah, it's really special to me.

>> Faith: So what does the memorial mean to both of you?

Jane, if you want to start.

>> Carson: Oh, my goodness -- to me -- what Dotty said, healing, hope, and -- lifting the cloak of invisibility.

You know, women have been going to war and going with soldiers, for time immemorial.

But I guess we've never been recognized -- and this is all in the Mall.

Diane was very specific, she's not going to have anything other than on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

because that's what the women deserve.

>> Beatty: The women who are over there -- because there's no insignia on the uniforms, everybody is included in this statue.

And just seeing it -- and the recognition -- excuse me.

I still can't get over it.

The fact that this country finally accepted us.

It's the recognition of what was done over there and -- that we were no longer outcast.

We really were, when we came back.

>> Carson: Well, everybody was, you know, the soldiers -- people didn't want to hear about Vietnam.

They just closed us off and -- thought we were all baby killers.

In fact, when we came back, as nurses -- and I'm sure you too, Dotty, Dotty was Air Force, I was Army.

I was in, Chu Lai, about 300 miles northeast of Saigon.

She was in Cam Ranh Bay, which was down on the southern point -- >> Beaty: Midway.

>> Carson: Midway.

>> Beatty: So what it really means to me is the healing that has happened for me -- from the time that it was commissioned.

And still today, whenever I think about the statue or [when] I see it, the 23 year old in me comes back and I feel her pain.

But because of the statue, I also feel the acceptance that the country has given to me.

And I feel -- the respect -- that I feel now when I say I'm a Vietnam Vet, which wasn't there before, but it's really a joy for me, to have people respect what I and my friends gave.

And then it always speaks to me about the camaraderie.

There's just nothing like the bond that happens with your fellow nurses and the Corpsman and the team that you have working there.

And it's something that can't really be replaced here, but it's essential for survival.

>> Faith: Why is it important to have a memorial devoted to women?

>> Carson: For so long, women were pushed in the background.

We didn't have enough docs, so nurses had to do cut downs.

They had to do tracheostomy.

They had to do a lot of things that the doctors were used to doing.

And so that transferred back to the United States.

And nurses were able to do more back here.

I think in general, it elevated the profession of nursing -- quite a lot.

[Laughs] >> Faith: Yeah.

>> Beatty: And I think it's also important because now, so many women are going to war because they've changed the rules and they can fill a lot of different roles.

And there's an acknowledgment that women do serve.

I think society in general, didn't want to think about sending women off to war, okay for men, but not women.

So, yeah -- And that has changed significantly.

But as a group, there is none more dedicated to saving a soldier's life.

And the hardest thing to do was to lose a soldier.

Many of us came back and -- I felt guilty all the time because of that one that that I couldn't save, which was totally -- understandable.

You can't -- you couldn't save them all.

but -- but you tried to.

And I felt very guilty about the ones that I couldn't save.

Not realistic at all.

But that's when you start packing things down in this little box you have.

And, you don't open it for years.

[laughs] >> Faith: How do you describe the women that you were out there with?

>>Beatty: I think most of us were really young -- but we felt old -- like I was 23 when I was, probably, almost to the top of the age group right in there.

But our patients were 18, 17, 20, and they looked up to us, and it was quite a role to have to fill.

>> Faith: How important are those friendships, and what do you remember most about working together?

>> Beatty: I wouldn't have survived without them.

>> Carson: Yeah, very true.

And the thing you remember the most, you left a lot just to overshadow all the carnage all around you.

At first, I didn't understand that, you know, you here all these people laughing, joking, but that's a way of coping to try to get to the next patient or go through the next -- emergency room -- flood of patients.

It's just -- there's no way to describe, a group of 10 or 12 men coming off a helicopter with legs gone, arms gone, half their face gone.

I mean, no one could prepare you for this.

So as far as I'm concerned, the nurses, the Corpsman, the doctors did a magnificent job of taking care of the patients.

Not only their physical wounds, but their psychological wounds, too.

>> Beatty: And then, when you got off duty and you went back to the hooch, it was like, there was someone there sometimes if they weren't -- working to have a cigarette with to share a Coke with.

And I think that was the most important thing of all.

The unspoken communication that occurred.

>> Faith: So, what have you struggled with?

>> Carson: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

We didn't even know what it was -- before it was upon us.

I remember, I was in Korea as a Chief Nurse, and this is when men -- they were just recognizing it with the men.

And the Chief of the Corps said, “well, you know, nurses don't have that.

They're not in combat.” [laughs] “I don't know where she was in Vietnam, but...” we weren█t pulling triggers.

We were giving injections and IV's.

That was our rifle.

The incredible -- Dotty, you take it.

>> Beatty: Okay, I think -- for myself, it's been depression.

That's been something that I've really had to deal with.

I had so many suicidal thoughts.

And I didn't realize what was causing it for a long time.

When I came back, I decided that I could no longer have anyone die around me.

So I got out of nursing and I became a dentist and that took seven years because I had to take a bunch of classes, and then I had to go to Dental School.

And I think that helped me keep that box closed, because I was so busy meeting all of these requirements that I could keep the lid on the box.

But then just before I graduated from Dental School, someone handed me a piece of paper that talked about nurses and PTSD, and I started to read it and I started crying, and I tucked it away and said, “I can't do this.” And then the Vet centers started.

So when I moved to Santa Fe, I went to the Vet center, and I got in with a group of the guys that they were doing a group with.

And it was real interesting because I thought they wouldn█t want me there because there were so many needs of theirs that I had not met.

And so I was ashamed about that.

And they had really been in terrible battles.

You know, and so -- I was really surprised when they were accepting of me.

And that started to open crack in the box.

>> Carson: Yeah.

>> Beatty: And then, I have done counseling at the Vet center since then, and I have had a private therapist that I see.

And I still get triggered.

I work really hard at it.

There have been many benefits that have come from that year that I served, friendships, that are beyond what you can imagine.

And there's darkness too, that comes with them.

And it's learning how to dance with those, for me.

>> Faith: Well, where are you, 30 years later?

[Whispers] >> Beatty: Older and fatter.

>> Carson: Yes!

[all laughing] [all laughing] >> Beatty: Wouldn't you say, Jane?

>> Carson: Yes, definitely.

But I feel like I have a little bit more -- control over my life now.

I still get depressed.

I still, you know, I'm still on medication.

I still go to counseling, but -- at long last, I can still to forgive myself for not saving that soldier that I couldn't save.

and I feel like I can -- Well -- I know I can help a lot of people.

And I would say to any nurse, military, if you're ever in a traumatic situation and you come back with all those feelings and thoughts bottled up, the best way you can help yourself is by helping someone else.

I've always felt that way, and so, now I help the pets, with this spay-neuter program that we have, and it's very beneficial for me.

I am much better than I was even ten years ago.

>> Faith: Yeah, that's amazing.

>> Carson: I think -- [laughs] Dotty might think differently.

[both laugh] [both laugh] >> Beatty: She's as honoree as she ever was.

[both laugh] >> Faith: Well, what about you, Dotty?

Where are you, 30 years later?

>> Beatty: I think -- I think that there's many ways to deal with the darkness and there are very successful ways to deal with the darkness and just because it comes, does it mean it'll stay?

There's also joy, and there's great friendships and there's wonderful things to do and eat and life can be really good.

>> Faith: So, what still needs to be done to recognize women veterans?

>> Carson: 50,000 more statues, no, I█m kidding.

[all laugh] >> Faith: Not a bad idea.

>> Carson: You know this -- was the first statue to a woman in our Nation's Mall.

I didn't realize that until Diane called me and asked me if I would help.

And she told me this fact, and I said, “you got to be kidding.

There's men all over the place with their horses, and rearing up, but not one of women.

The closest one was in -- the Arlington National Cemetery.

There's a nurse in the Nurses Plot, and that's it.

>> Faith: What did you learn and want to share with women veterans from different eras, because that's actually, kind of, what the conversation we're having right now.

>> Carson: I would want to share -- You have to be -- the dream that you want to have, you know, what is that -- >> Faith: Be the change you want to see?

>> Carson: Ghandi, yeah.

Be the change, yeah.

Be the change you want to see.

And I would say pinpoint that dream for yourself and do it.

>> Faith: What about you, Dotty?

What would you want to share?

>> Beatty: Find people and keep talking, because there is a connection there, you're not alone.

You're really not alone.

And you're not the only one who's had to struggle.

>> Faith: Camaraderie, right?

>> Beatty: Camaraderie.

That█s it.

[all laugh] >> Faith: Jane and Dotty, thank you so much for being here I really appreciate you coming and sharing this story with us.

>> Beatty: Thanks.

>> Carson: Thank you.

>> Nash: Thank you to Dotty Beatty, Jane Carson and the team at Colores for sharing that interview with us.

And thanks to everyone else who contributed to the show.

Join us here next week for an all new episode of New Mexico in Focus.

For New Mexico PBS I'm Nash Jones.

Until then, stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You