Inside Vox’s Entrepreneurship, Explained panel

From left: Nisha Chittal, Jenifer Beher, Fletcher Kasell, and Tanner Richie | Dorothy Hong Photography

Last Thursday, Vox hosted a panel of New York City-based small business owners in an intimate Entrepreneurship, Explained panel discussion presented by Verizon Business. Nisha Chittal, Vox’s VP of development and chief of staff, was joined by luxury jewelry and hair accessory designer Jennifer Behr and fashion brand owners and designers Tanner Richie and Fletcher Kasell of Tanner Fletcher. The panelists discussed the highs and lows of their entrepreneurial journeys — from how they started their companies to how they juggle wearing multiple hats as a founder and the advice they would give to people starting their own companies today. Here are some highlights from the discussion:

Jennifer Behr on blending creativity and business:

I do feel lucky that I am a creative person that’s analytical as well because a lot of creative people aren’t. The thing of starting a business with no money is that you have to be very practical from the beginning. You can waste money and you can’t, you know. We always make some beautiful products that I know aren’t good to sell because that’s what actually brings me joy in it. But I also know that I have to make the things that are going to pay the bills.

Fletcher Kasell on building an inclusive brand

A lot of people give you advice when you start a business, “You have to have a defined customer, and your model should look this way…” We were like, “Okay, we don’t want our customer to think that we’re catering to one customer because it might close off all these other people who would wear our clothes.” We really wanted to be broad in that way. 

Tanner Richie also added:

We always say that our customer is “Bushwick meets the Upper East Side.” There’s such a wide mix — our customer is the ladies who lunch all the way down to the East Village boys. It’s just the most random mix of people but it might be the same product, right, it could literally be the same sweater but it’s just all how people style it and I think it’s just keeping the storytelling open.

Tanner Richie on what works well on social media:

Being ourselves on social media sells the products without having to mention it very much. I think they (our audience) want to see that we’re real people and they want to support. I think people are having a harder time with big corporations right now, so I think seeing that your support to our business is just going to a small operation and real people who are doing everything. … They really appreciate seeing that. And it’s fun too — because I can’t think of too many brands that actually like to show they’re kind of messy behind the scenes and I think we all have it, so let’s expose it a little bit.

Jennifer Behr on her proudest moments as a designer:

There’s obviously the press that everybody sees which people are like — oh this celebrity wore this or that which is great…but it’s actually [when] somebody has chosen to wear you is kind of amazing, like just them making that choice, or people who get excited about [your brand] or care about it is ultimately the thing that kind of means the most. 

Fletcher Kasell’s advice to entrepreneurs starting out:

(when starting a brand) Find your vision and stay true to it. … It’s really easy to second guess yourself. It’s really easy to…ask for tons of opinions and change your mind; like, for example, at first we took way too much advice. … At the end of the day they’ll (our customers) buy what you are most proud of. … I think that really taught me that I need to be confident in what I see from my brand.

Related articles

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce still didn’t announce pregnancy, despite AI rumors

Baseless claims following their engagement announcement in August 2025 swirled online.

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”