America: From a Fallen Child Star to the Head of the University of the West

Chapter 102 Finding Fault

In Durant Hall 200, the lecture hall, which can accommodate nearly two hundred people, was about 70-80% full.

Professor Anderson from the Department of Political Science gave a brief opening speech, emphasizing the importance of rational dialogue and respect for different viewpoints, and then introduced the main organizers of the evening.

Matthew Chan and Liam walked together to the reserved seats on the side of the stage.

Matthew wore well-fitting khaki trousers and an Oxford shirt, trying to appear composed; Liam wore a suit, though it was still slightly oversized, but he straightened his back, avoiding looking at the sea of ​​people below. They had only simple notebooks and water glasses in front of them, no thick fortresses of prepared speeches.

This was Kelly's request: "Talk like a normal person, not like reciting a eulogy."

"Good evening, everyone," Matthew said, taking the microphone from the professor. "I'm Matthew Chen, working as an assistant in Mr. Sean Penn's team. This is Liam Paterson, our team's chosen California youth representative and also our policy research assistant. Thank you, Professor Anderson, and the student council for organizing this event. Mr. Sean would have liked to attend in person, but he's currently out of town dealing with some urgent matters. However, he's very interested in tonight's discussion, and we'll take everyone's thoughts and questions back with us."

Some understanding nods rang out from the audience, but discontent immediately followed.

"An emergency? Are you hiding?" a boy in the middle wearing a red baseball jacket shouted. His name was Kyle Dunn. "Or does he think college students' problems aren't worth his personal attention?"

Liam visibly tensed up, but Matthew had already picked up the microphone.

"Mr. Sean is visiting small tech companies and community training programs in Silicon Valley and the Central Valley, gathering field feedback for the policy framework I just mentioned." Matthew wasn't angry. "He believes that policies can't just be imagined in the office; we have to hear what people on the front lines have to say. After all, you can't have a voice without investigation."

His answer not only explained the reason for his absence but also enhanced the value of the discussion and threw the question back to the questioner:

Are you here for a serious discussion, or just to provoke us?

Kyle snorted and didn't continue.

Professor Anderson intervened at the opportune moment, guiding the discussion into the pre-set flow. Matthew and Liam first spent ten minutes briefly introducing the three pillars of the policy framework for the press conference, and then played a short online video of Sean.

They didn't release campaign videos directly, as the school wanted to maintain a neutral stance that everyone liked.

After the introduction, we will move on to open Q&A and discussion.

The initial questions were relatively mild, mostly focusing on technical details: "Where does the funding come from?"

"How can these projects avoid becoming just another bureaucratic waste of taxpayers' money?"

The two addressed a series of issues by dividing the work among themselves.

Matthew is better at using data and macro-level explanations. He cited the effects of similar policy pilot programs in some Nordic countries. Liam, on the other hand, compared the current technological transformation with the labor transfer during the Industrial Revolution in history, pointing out the importance of proactive government intervention and training.

Their teamwork improved steadily, and although there were occasional stumbles, they were well-prepared and used solid sources.

But soon, the atmosphere began to change.

A student wearing thick glasses stood up and asked a pointed question: "Your slogans sound very inspiring. But in the wild, when deer face a pack of wolves, the slower ones will be eaten."

Mr. Sean Penn's policies, in essence, aim to protect industries and workers that are "slow to develop." Doesn't this violate economic principles and delay necessary structural adjustments? Couldn't this cause the entire country to resemble an overburdened deer, ultimately falling behind other countries' antelopes in the competition?

Liam instinctively looked at Matthew.

Matthew took a breath; thankfully, he and Kelly had rehearsed this problem beforehand.

"Excellent question. First, we do not advocate protecting outdated industries destined for obsolescence; that's a waste of resources. We advocate for a managed transition." Wolves preying on deer is natural selection; but in human society, we can choose not to let ourselves be eaten like wild animals. So-called economic laws are not physical laws; they are shaped by policies, institutions, and social choices. Germany's apprenticeship system, Denmark's flexible social security system, and others demonstrate that it is possible to significantly reduce the social costs of transition while embracing technological progress.

"This will not slow down the country; on the contrary, it can reduce internal friction and enhance the overall social resilience and cohesion, which is itself a form of competitiveness."

He paused, then looked at the questioner: "As for competing with other countries, if many of our communities are decaying, our people are in despair, and our society is torn apart, can we really concentrate our efforts on healthy, future-oriented competition? Or will we only get bogged down in internal conflicts?"

After thinking it over, the student sat down and did not continue to argue.

But the attacks didn't stop. Next to stand up was a man in his thirties wearing a polo shirt, whose question was fraught with traps: "I noticed that Mr. Sean Penn repeatedly emphasized that he is not a believer in the traditional sense and opposes legislation based on specific religious values. But on the other hand, he talks a lot about 'community,' concepts with strong moral overtones. If morality lacks a transcendental foundation, won't it eventually slide into moral relativism, even sacrificing efficiency and the freedom of some for the sake of some 'community sentiments'?"

This question was more philosophical, directly addressing the core contradiction of Sean's worldview. The room fell silent, and many students with humanities and social science backgrounds perked up their ears.

This time, Liam took the microphone. His cheeks were slightly flushed. "What Mr. Sean is talking about doesn't rely on any particular metaphysical foundation. It's based on a simpler, and perhaps more universal, consensus: people feel more valuable when they can support themselves and their families through labor and participate in community life. This feeling is reflected in different cultures and different beliefs."

"The goal of our policy is to preserve this opportunity as much as possible in an era in which technology is rapidly replacing human labor."

This is not about relativism, but about preserving some common human needs amidst change.

"As for freedom, freedom without economic freedom is often empty, and the price of such freedom is often freedom itself."

"Our framework aims precisely to expand genuine, substantive freedom of choice, not the other way around."

His answer, though somewhat immature, successfully avoided abstract philosophical debate. The man in the polo shirt who asked the question nodded, seemingly satisfied, but another voice rang out from the corner.

“That sounds nice!” This time it was Kyle Dunn, who stood up again, this time holding a piece of paper. “But how do you explain this? Senator Harris Crane just filed a lawsuit today accusing Sean Penn of not only knowing the Avalon Foundation was a scam but also falsifying lists to frame others! A person suspected of fraud is here talking about morality and dignity? Isn’t that the biggest irony? What’s your team’s response to this? Or will you just read those prepared policy statements?”

The entire audience erupted in uproar.

Many students were clearly unaware of the lawsuit news, and whispers immediately broke out. Some of the previously neutral listeners frowned, their gazes towards Matthew and Liam turning suspicious.

On stage, Liam's face turned pale instantly.

Off the court, the man in the polo shirt subtly smiled. Kyle Dunn, on the other hand, held his head high, as if to reveal the truth.

Professor Anderson wanted to speak up to maintain order, but Matthew raised his hand and gestured for him to stop.

This guy is definitely here to cause trouble.

He needs to respond, he absolutely must respond!

"I can't let Mr. Pan down!"

Or to put it another way: He won't let him down.

So he picked up the microphone.

"Regarding the lawsuit filed today," Matthew began, "Mr. Sean Penn and our team have issued a brief statement. This is a baseless political accusation stemming from Mr. Penn's initial reports exposing the Avalon Foundation's connections to certain political figures. When investigations and public opinion are against some people, resorting to legal intimidation is a common tactic."

He looked at the skeptical faces below the stage.

Matthew knew he didn't possess the same talent for reading people that Kelly praised, but his ability to read people had improved considerably during his time working there.

"We are here to discuss how to address the impact of automation on employment, how to help communities affected by industrial transformation, and how to ensure that the benefits of technological progress are shared more equitably. And what is the solution of the senator who is accusing us?"

"It's about suing someone who proposed a different solution!"

"Students, you can judge for yourselves which behavior is more likely to show genuine concern for your future employment and livelihood, and which is more likely to be a distraction?"

Kyle Dunn was clearly dissatisfied: "You're avoiding the real issue! Respond to legal problems with the law, don't talk about political motives—"

“Legal issues will certainly be resolved through legal channels,” Liam suddenly spoke, his voice more firm than before. He continued, “We trust the judicial system. But before that, should everyone stop thinking about how to solve real economic problems just because of one charge? Should we ignore the difficulties that are happening? The indictment won’t create a job for Fresno or Youngstown. But serious thought and trying to come up with solutions might.”

He believed that Sean could once again escape the so-called legal entanglements.

"We are here not to defend any one person, but to discuss an issue that concerns many people. If we abandon the discussion of substantive issues because of political attacks, then we are truly letting those attacks succeed."

These words, spoken by the relatively more bookish Liam, carried an extra layer of appeal compared to Matthew's more rational rebuttal.

Some students in the audience nodded, and even Tom slightly suppressed his smile.

And so, the situation was temporarily stabilized.

But the questions and sharp criticisms continue.

From policy feasibility to tax implications, from global competition to the boundaries of individual and governmental responsibility.

Matthew and Liam were like a small boat in a storm, sometimes battered by huge waves, sometimes struggling to keep their course. Not every answer they gave was perfect; sometimes they were stumped and would honestly say, "We need to do more research on this issue," sometimes they would complement each other, and sometimes they would elicit small bursts of applause or laughter from the audience.