Redesign America with Mustafa Ali-Smith

About Redesign America with Mustafa Ali-Smith

Redesign America is a podcast about imagining what a better world could be. Join Mustafa Ali-Smith as he, along with guests, unpack social justice related topics. The podcast centers Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Redesign America

Category

society & culture · society & culture

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

11 Aug 2019

Latest episode

13 Jan 2026

Latest episodes

13 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   13 Jan 2026

   The Price of Freedom (Audio)

   This episode of Redesign America features a reading of an essay by Mustafa Ali-Smith, published on January 4, titled “The Price of Freedom: On Clemency Power and the Selective Nature of American Mercy.” Get full access to Redesign America at redesignamerica.substack.com/subscribe (https://redesignamerica.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

2. 

   12 Jan 2026

   How the U.S. Defends Its Violence

   I was sitting at home when my phone began to vibrate repeatedly, notifications stacking on top of one another from various news outlets. The repetition alone suggested something serious. My first thought was what foolishness has President Trump unleashed on the world now? Just days ago, he kidnapped a country’s president (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/world/americas/maduro-us-court-arraignment-kidnapped.html), Nicholas Maduro of Venezuela, boasting ‘f**k around and find out.’ By the time I opened the articles, the details were already sinking in. On Wednesday, January 7, ICE agents shot and killed (https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnesota-fraud-state-reps-testify-01-07-26) a woman named Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, Minnesota during an anti-immigration operation. Video footage, now widely circulated, shows her attempting to drive away from a road blocked by federal agents. Within moments, multiple shots were fired, killing her. Renee was present in that neighborhood as a legal observer (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ice-minneapolis-shooting-minnesota-renee-nicole-good-b2896593.html)—someone there not to interfere, provoke, or obstruct, but to document state conduct and protect civil liberties. Legal observers exist precisely because history has shown what happens when law enforcement operates without scrutiny. According to early reporting (https://time.com/7344506/minneapolis-ice-shooting-mayor/) that Wednesday, Renee was there “watching out for our immigrant neighbors,” a quiet act of solidarity in a political climate increasingly hostile to community care. The context matters here because, just days earlier, the Trump administration deployed 2,000 federal agents (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2000-federal-agents-sent-to-minneapolis-area-to-carry-out-largest-immigration-operation-ever-ice-says#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20The%20Trump,to%20allegations%20of%20fraud%20involving) to the Minneapolis area, escalating an already tense city. This is the same city where, less than a mile from where Renee was killed, George Floyd was murdered (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html) by police in 2020. And we must not forget Philando Castile, who was shot and killed in his car (http://www.startribune.com/aftermath-of-officer-involved-shooting-captured-on-phone-video/385789251/) by police in nearby Falcon Heights. That history of violence isn’t past us, it’s present and ongoing, it’s why Renee was there. Her presence was a direct response to that escalation, a form of accountability in a moment designed to intimidate. And yet, almost immediately after her death, the familiar machinery of justification began to turn. Within hours, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, claimed that an agent opened fire (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-law-enforcement-involved-ice-related-shooting-minneapolis-rcna252812) only after Renee “weaponized her vehicle” in an attempt to kill federal officers. This framing, which transforms a car into a weapon and an officer into a victim, has become a well-worn tactic in the defense of state violence. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded bluntly, calling the explanation (https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-mayor-ice-shooting-self-defense-b******t-officials-will-seek-justice-jan-2026) “b******t” and stating plainly that this was “an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying.” Mayor Jacob Frey is right, it was b******t. The mayor’s response was important, but it also revealed something deeper. This wasn’t simply a disagreement over facts. The video is clear in what transpired. This was a clash between two narratives—one grounded in demanding accountability toward a system that produced harm, and the other in institutional self-preservation. And as is often the case, the state’s version—the latter—began to unravel immediately. There are multiple videos from different angles capturing the shooting. Together, they contradict DHS’s account of the sequence of events and call into question the claim of self-defense. These videos underscore why documentation matters, why legal observers exist, and why law enforcement agencies fight so hard against being watched. Visibility disrupts impunity and evidence destabilizes the power that enables ICE to function. It is no coincidence, then, that legislation is quietly advancing across the country to restrict people’s ability to film police and ICE (https://www.cato.org/commentary/dhs-says-videotaping-ice-agents-illegal-federal-courts-disagree) in public spaces. These efforts are often justified in the name of officer safety, but their practical effect is to limit accountability of the officers and agents. Because when violence occurs without witnesses, it’s easier to deny, though as history shows, witnessing attrocity often isn’t enough either. Rodney King, George Floyd, Eric Garner, Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Sonya Massey, Laquan McDonald—the commonality between all these people, aside from them all being Black, is that they were all murdered on camera by the state. Moments like this force us to reckon with a reality many witness: when agents sanctioned by the state do the killing, the state will always tell us not to believe our own two eyes. Truth becomes whatever the state says it is, despite documentation. Despite what we see. And sure enough, faced with video evidence that contradicted the official narrative, President Trump intervened to provide his own. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he described Renee Good (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115855701696773990) screaming in the footage as “a professional agitator” and characterized her as “very disorderly,” claiming she had “violently, willfully, and viciously” run over an ICE officer. He framed the shooting as self-defense and concluded by blaming the “Radical Left” for targeting law enforcement, insisting that ICE agents were simply doing the job of “MAKING AMERICA SAFE.” This narrative relies on familiar tropes of disorderly civilians, embattled officers, and righteous violence. It reframes accountability as hostility and solidarity as extremism. Most importantly, it shifts attention away from the act itself and toward the supposed threat posed by those who resist or observe state power. But even as Trump’s framing took hold, another narrative emerged—one that centered Renee Good herself as innocent, civilian, U.S. citizen. I understand the impulse behind these descriptors. In a country where empathy is rationed, people reach for language they believe will make violence undeniable. Citizenship, for example, is often treated as a moral credential, a line that, once crossed, turns tragedy into outrage. But this framing should worry us deeply. Because it suggests that state violence is only a problem when it reaches the wrong people. That the real issue is not violence itself, but misdirected violence. It implies that there exists a category of people for whom such force is acceptable or even deserved. This logic demands we ask a more fundamental question: should we be comfortable with ICE using violence against anyone? The answer is no. Not undocumented people. Not people with criminal records. Not people deemed guilty. Not people whose lives are already devalued by law and policy. Otherwise, we are not opposing violence, simply negotiating its targets. And that negotiation is precisely how the roots of violence remain untouched. It is how it remains defended. ICE is not a neutral agency that occasionally oversteps its bounds. It is an institution built around detention, deportation, and intimidation. Its purpose is not community safety as much as it is social control. When an agency designed to police movement and punish vulnerability embeds itself into everyday life, violence becomes an inevitable outcome. Understanding this makes clear that shooting someone during an anti-immigration operation is not a failure of enforcement. It is enforcement functioning as intended within a system that prioritizes control over care and impunity over accountability. We must discard the idea of violence at the hands of ICE as being a policy failure and call it as it is. It is a moral indictment of a nation that repeatedly chooses punishment and force over repair. It is indeed a choice. We are told that violence is an unfortunate byproduct of maintaining order, but order for whom, and at what cost? When the state responds to social conditions—migration, poverty, instability—with armed force, it reveals its priorities. It treats complex human realities as threats to be neutralized rather than conditions to be addressed, thus ensuring that violence becomes a governing logic. Angela Davis once warned (https://takeactionminnesota.org/if-they-come-for-me-in-the-morning/), “If they come for me in the morning, they will come for you at night.” Davis learned this truth through generations of Black struggle—from enslavement through Jim Crow, through mass incarceration, and through ongoing police terror. Black people have endured state violence that is ever present, and a state that perfects its violence on Black bodies doesn't stop there. It simply finds new applications for the tools it's already built. This violence adapts and expands, looking for new targets once old justifications lose their usefulness. We're watching this in real time. Just one day after Renee Good was killed in Minneapolis, on Thursday, January 8, federal agents shot and wounded (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/federal-agents-shooting-portland.html)two people during a traffic stop in Portland, Oregon. Since the news broke, protests have erupted across the city (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/09/minneapolis-ice-shooting-portland-oregon-live-updates/88095101007/) calling for accountability. The pattern of violence Renee's death exposed didn't end with her, it continued. Because when violence is treated as a tool rather than a crisis, when agents exist to harm, when the system defends rather than corrects itself, the cycle continues. The real question, then, is not whether ICE went too far this time. The question is not asking why ICE carries guns. The question is why we continue to accept institutions whose very design requires someone else's suffering in order to function. The state will always find a way to defend its violence through spokespeople, through narrative reframing, through the language of threats and agitators and self-defense. It will tell us not to believe what we see. It will cast accountability as hostility and solidarity as extremism. And that, too, is a choice. Mustafa Ali-Smith (http://www.mustafaalismith.com) is a social justice advocate who has worked around criminal justice issues for several years. His work examines race, justice, and the politics of reform and power in America. Get full access to Redesign America at redesignamerica.substack.com/subscribe (https://redesignamerica.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

3. 

   4 Jan 2026

   The Price of Freedom

   The year was 2019 when I first set foot in Philadelphia. I was leaving the south to begin my time as a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, carrying with me the belief—perhaps inherited, perhaps naïve—that my continued education might offer a clearer view of the country I lived in and the one I was determined to help sustain. On my mind at the time was Anthony Ray Hinton’s The Sun Does Shine, which had been released just a year prior in 2018. The book told the story of a man who had served over 30 years in prison and was on death row for a crime he had never committed. Hinton’s incarceration was a result of mistaken witness identification, false and misleading forensic evidence, and inadequate legal defense, leading to his imprisonment for a 1985 double robbery-murder. Hinton’s account of incarceration was not written to persuade so much as to survive. He wrote about the slow erosion of time behind bars. He wrote about hope as a discipline rather than merely a feeling. He wrote about the peculiar cruelty of a system capable of taking decades from a person and calling it justice. He wrote about his freedom being taken away from him, not for what he had done, but for what the state needed him to be: guilty, containable, forgettable. Reading his story was a formative moment for me as I began grappling with the concept of the prison as a system that demands guilt, containment, and erasure in order to function. I questioned whether the prison was the true rehabilitator it had been made out to be. I questioned the idea of retribution—if someone caused harm toward someone, should our response be to inflict that harm back on them? Then there were “justifiable cases,” or, in other words, the stance that says prison is okay for group A of people (you know, the monsters), and prison is horrible for group B (the perhaps not-so-bad monsters). And who decides which group you belong to? Is it the act itself or perhaps something much larger? Something written on the body, impossible to shed. Something fixed at birth. Race has always been the invisible hand on the scale within America’s carceral system, a sentence handed down before any crime is committed, tilting presumed innocence toward guilt, mercy toward punishment, and freedom toward captivity. I was arriving at Penn with these questions unresolved, not yet aware that the university itself would become another site of reckoning. Before classes had even started, I was greeted by Dr. Angela Davis, who was on campus to speak about abolition feminism, collective action, and the ongoing struggle for Black liberation. There’s a moment in her talk where I remember her reflecting on the phrase Black Lives Matter, reminding the audience that to insist on the value of Black life was not an act of exclusion but an invitation to moral consistency. If Black lives were ever truly allowed to matter, she said, then all lives would matter as a byproduct. It was a simple formulation, but one that required the country to abandon its most comfortable lies about itself. Not long after that talk, the country entered a racial reckoning. Statues fell, corporations issued statements, and there were moments where the language of justice and freedom, defined by the community, briefly entered the mainstream. Yet even in that moment, it was clear that the reckoning was provisional, bounded by comfort and constrained by fear. The demand was not for transformation but for reassurance, not for truth but for resolution. The lie, or the story we Americans tell ourselves about our history, to borrow from James Baldwin, had not been confronted so much as it had been managed, contained, and repackaged in a way that allowed the country to move forward without looking too closely at what it had done or what it would continue to do. The country wanted absolution without confession, change without cost. It wanted to acknowledge systemic racism while maintaining the systems that produced it. What became clear was that the reckoning was never about justice. It was about comfort—about finding a way to live with the knowledge of harm without being required to stop causing it. That comfort would be tested. In the 2020 election cycle, more than a transfer of power was at stake. When the results came in, Joe Biden’s victory was received as relief—relief that a norm-breaking presidency might end, that the machinery of government might resume something resembling restraint. For many, Biden’s win symbolized a fragile recommitment to the idea that democracy, though battered, could still function. But Donald Trump refused to concede, insisting without evidence that the election had been stolen. The lie was not meant to convince everyone. It was meant to mobilize enough. What followed was a deliberate effort to erode public faith in the electoral process itself, transforming defeat into grievance and grievance into purpose. January 6th exposed the limits of that reckoning. The U.S. Capitol was breached (https://apps.npr.org/jan-6-archive/), the Vice President was threatened, and members of Congress were evacuated as a mob attempted to halt the certification of a lawful election. This was not a spontaneous outburst of anger, but the culmination of years of grievance, radicalization, and political encouragement. It was an assertion that democracy is only legitimate when it confirms a particular vision of who belongs. What unfolded that day was a declaration that the lie of American democracy—that it is neutral, fair, and equally accessible—would be defended by force if necessary. I watched from Philadelphia, the city where the Constitution was drafted, where the very ideas of self-governance first took shape. The irony was not lost on me. Here was a country, my country, that could not admit what it was, attempting to preserve its innocence through violence. What I witnessed that day was not new. America’s greatest achievement is its ability to believe itself innocent. January 6th was an attempt to preserve that innocence, to deny the reality of a changing electorate and a multiracial democracy by insisting that any outcome not aligned with a particular vision of the nation must be illegitimate. The violence was not an aberration; it was an inheritance. Trump’s reelection in 2024 confirmed that the reckoning had been deferred, that the lie still functioned as political currency. Since returning to office, Trump has used the language of loyalty and victimhood to reframe January 6th, casting those convicted for their roles in the insurrection as political prisoners rather than threats to democracy. Through a series of pardons and acts of clemency, individuals who assaulted police officers, coordinated breaches of the Capitol, and sought to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power have been granted mercy. My point in mentioning this here is not that these individuals deserved incarceration—I remain convinced that prison is a harmful institution (https://www.vera.org/news/why-punishing-people-in-jail-and-prison-isnt-working) that has not served the rehabilitative or restorative purposes it claims. The question I’m interested in is not whether they should have been punished more severely, but rather: what institutions, what systems of radicalization, what failures of education and community brought them to that moment? And more pressingly, why is mercy extended so swiftly in some cases while withheld entirely in others? The pardons came quick, without hesitation, without the procedural scrutiny typically required. They were celebrated as acts of justice, framed as mercy extended to patriots who had been wronged by an overreaching state. It made clear that clemency operated according to a logic that has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with power. The mechanisms of accountability—courts, trials, evidence—could be bypassed when politically convenient, while others would spend decades proving their worthiness for freedom. On the other side of this, I’ve seen what mercy looks like when it must be earned. Clemency carries another meaning, one far removed from spectacle and ceremony. Through my work with the ACLU’s Clemency Project, I alongside undergraduate Tyler Douglas were assigned the case of Gregory Williams (https://www.aclu-nj.org/press-releases/aclu-nj-celebrates-third-round-of-releases-under-the-clemency-project/) in 2025. I remember sitting in the Princeton Public Library, several of Gregory Williams’ case files spread across my laptop, attempting to construct a narrative that might persuade the state to reconsider a life it had already deemed disposable. At one point, I stopped and looked up at Tyler, sitting with the weight of what we were doing. We were negotiating the terms under which freedom could be imagined for someone we had never met. We combed through all of the records that were given to us. We looked through sentencing transcripts, character references, and rehabilitation programs completed behind bars. We were building a case for mercy and, I might add, it was a case that required perfection. Gregory would need to prove that he was worthy, that he had changed, that he deserved a second chance. Gregory Williams had been sentenced to forty-two years in prison for robbery charges. The plea offer extended to him was nine years. He rejected it and chose to fight for his freedom. It was a right guaranteed by the Constitution, yet in practice, it became a decision that bore additional years of his incarceration. Gregory’s sentence, among the thousands of others throughout history, was a lesson. It was a warning about what happens when one refuses to comply with a system that equates confession with justice. Decades passed, years that cannot be returned, before we submitted our petition for clemency to the governor. On November 10th, 2025, the governor granted Gregory clemency, and he was released on parole. This contrast haunts me, not because I believe the insurrectionists should have remained imprisoned, but because the disparity reveals something fundamental about how the state determines value. Gregory Williams spent decades proving himself worthy through every institutional metric available, only to be granted conditional freedom after the punishment had already extracted its cost. Meanwhile, those who stormed the Capitol received pardons almost immediately, with no questions asked about rehabilitation, remorse, or transformation. The issue is not that one group received mercy while the other should have been punished more harshly. The issue is that mercy operates according to political utility rather than human need, and that the state refuses to interrogate the institutions that produce harm. For the insurrectionists, there was little serious examination of the media ecosystems and political rhetoric that radicalized them, minimal accountability for the systems that failed them long before they arrived in Washington. For Gregory Williams and countless others in the carceral system, those questions are rarely posed either—the state does not investigate the failures of education, housing, healthcare, or economic opportunity that preceded incarceration. It simply punishes, extracts, and moves on. The price of freedom in America has always been tied to race. It is unevenly distributed, carefully rationed, and deeply political. The same country that pardons white nationalists without asking what brought them there demands that Gregory Williams, a Black man, prove his own humanity. Prove that his life is worth something. The same system that rushed to absolve those who attempted to overturn democracy moves with deliberate slowness when considering the release of someone rotting behind bars. Freedom becomes, then, a reward granted to those who serve power and withheld from those who challenge it or simply exist outside its favor. And the deeper questions—what institutions create harm, what conditions lead people to violence, what true accountability might look like—remain unasked, because asking them would require confronting the systems themselves. The price of freedom in America is then giving up the lie, and yet the lie persists because we—America—need it to. Because confronting the institutions themselves—the ones that incarcerate, the ones that radicalize, the ones that decide whose life holds value—would require confronting ourselves. And we are not ready for that. We have never been ready for that. So, we call the distribution of mercy “justice.” We call survival “democracy.” And we ask ourselves why nothing changes. Get full access to Redesign America at redesignamerica.substack.com/subscribe (https://redesignamerica.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

4. 

   28 Feb 2023

   Environmental Racism and Injustice

   On this month’s episode of Redesign America, Mustafa Ali-Smith is joined by Taylor Bauldwin, who works at the intersection of food, tech, and the environment, to discuss environmental racism and injustice and its disproportionate impact on Black and brown communities. How did we get here? How have communities around the country been impacted by environmental racism and injustice? And what can we do to address it? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

5. 

   18 Jan 2023

   Why Redesign America?

   On today’s relaunch episode, host Mustafa Ali-Smith is joined by Katy Otto, Director of Communications at Juvenile Law Center, to discuss how the idea of Redesign America came to be, its focus, and why the podcast is more critical and urgent now than ever. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

6. 

   4 Jan 2021

   Updates for Redesign America in 2021

   2020 showed us many things: change, struggle, uncertainty, and so much more. For Redesign America, it was a moment of reflection on what this podcast can be and how it can help us make the world a better place. Listen to hear the updates for the podcast and what is in store for the podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

7. 

   15 Jul 2020

   Embracing Abolition with Police & Other Institutions of Violence

   As more people are emerging into conversations of defunding, divesting, and dismantling from police departments and the institutions they represent, we need to understand how these conversations fit into the framework of abolition. On this episode, we are joined by Jeneisha Harris, organizer and activist, to discuss the history of policing, the differences between reform and abolition, and how abolition helps us to solve systemic problems. This episode reinforces the need for abolition in the fight for social justice, from policing to racial capitalism, and how each of us has a part to play in this movement. Resources: Jeneishaharris.com (https://www.jeneishaharris.com/) gideonsarmyunited.org/ (https://gideonsarmyunited.org/) 8 to abolition (https://www.8toabolition.com/) The Equity Alliance (https://theequityalliance.org/)Critical Resistance (http://criticalresistance.org/)Survived and punished (https://survivedandpunished.org/) Movement for Black lives (https://m4bl.org/) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

8. 

   29 Jun 2020

   Language, Privilege, & Solidarity for Black Lives

   Language conveys information about our attitudes, biases, and is a huge part of how we orient around issues of identity. Today, we are joined by Christopher Mendoza (@linguistpapi), a graduate student in Linguistics at Florida International University to talk about how to unpack the pervasive discourses of anti-Blackness within our communities. This episode interrogates the role of allies, most specifically non-Black Latinxs, in talking the language of intersectional movement building while centering the most marginalized as our political moment necessitates. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

9. 

   15 Jun 2020

   Raising Queer and Trans Voices in the Movement for Black Lives

   The Black Lives Matter Movement is an important one, but we do ourselves an injustice by suppressing some of its voices. In this episode, we are joined by Stephon Bradberry (@stephon_jb), Founder of We, Too, are America (@w2aa_org), to talk about the importance of critically acknowledging and uplifting all Black lives, not just some. This conversation looks at how our history has left queer, trans, and non-binary people out of our history despite their many contributions to it, the lack of attention they have received in the Black Lives Matter Movement, and how Black communities must address the violence against queer and trans people within their own community. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

10. 

    12 Mar 2020

    Racism, White Manning, & Accountability in Higher Education

    Higher education since its inception has been dedicated to advancing white maleness. This is often displayed in institutional and racial systemic practices that place persons of color and women on an opposing side. In this episode, we will explore how “white manning” shows up in higher education. We will also explore the lived experience of scholar, professor, practitioner, and researcher Dr. Frederick V. Engram Jr. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

11. 

    4 Feb 2020

    Debunking "Job Fit" in Higher Education

    Despite its often vague and broad meaning, job fit has been found to be used consistently in student affairs hiring spaces by both candidates and employers while engaging in the search process. Even though there may be modest intentions behind its inception, unclear and vague use of job fit within the student affairs job process can prove harmful as means of condoning exclusionary practices against candidates while upholding hierarchical and oppressive practices while adhering to institutional whiteness within hiring practices in student affairs. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

12. 

    4 Sept 2019

    The U.S. Criminal Justice System

    The United States criminal justice system is complex in design, and many people just don't understand it and its inner workings. There are people who want to be involved in criminal justice reform, yet realize that the system has many moving parts. On today's episode, we are joined by a graduate researcher at Columbia University, Candice Crutchfield, as she discusses the criminal justice system, organizations advocating for reform, and ways that everyday citizens can get involved in being a part of this change. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

13. 

    11 Aug 2019

    Introduction of Redesign America

    A brief introduction from Mustafa Ali-Smith on what to expect from Redesign America's new podcast. A monthly podcast that will discuss and analyze topics and issues with experts and individuals studying in the respective fields. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit redesignamerica.substack.com (https://redesignamerica.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

22 ratings

Contact Redesign America with Mustafa Ali-Smith

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.