Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Victory: Supreme Court Overturns Affirmative Action

Transcript

Victory: Supreme Court Overturns Affirmative Action · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: It is official.
• 0:01
  Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has said that racial preferences, also known
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: as affirmative action, is unconstitutional in college admissions. Let me
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: just translate this down for you so you understand exactly
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: what the Supreme Court has said. They said that you
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: cannot consider a person's color of their skin in the
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: admissions process at the university level. The left is beyond furious.
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: They're furious because they absolutely believe that you should be
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: able to get into any school you want to and
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: it should be easy for you to get in based
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: on if you are a minority. But that's what the
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court said is unconstitutional, saying racial preferences in college
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: admissions violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court decide this in this historic decision. This will
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: have profound implications for racial preferences in many areas of
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: law as well as public policy. Now the Supreme Court
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: upheld racial preferences they have called affirmative action, something that
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: has been used in college admissions since there was a
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: court decision back in nineteen seventy eight, and since then,
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: debates have raged about whether to use quotas a point
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: system and other ways of favoring one applicant over another
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: solely based on the color of their skin. Now, let
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: me break that down a little bit more freez to
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: understand many universities, you could have lower test scores, You
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: could have a weaker admissions process, or have a weaker
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: candidate that would then beat out another candidate because they
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: were given so many bonus points for the color of
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: their skin. There are also universities where, no matter how
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: good of a student you were, if you had the
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: wrong color skin, you would not get in because they
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: were hitting quotas that were put in by the university.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: So let's make it even simpler than that. A university
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: would say, okay, we want forty percent right of our
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: student body, or thirty percent or twenty percent, whatever the
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: numbers they decide to be minority based. So at some
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: point you ran out of positions, regardless of the academic
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: transcript the resume of a student, and they would lose
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: out automatically on a chance to go to the college
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: they desperately want to go to because of a quota
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: system that's in place. The other thing that happened more
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: recently is we were finding out that students who were
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: clearly qualified to go to great institutions were being denied
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: because of a pointed system, a weight system that would
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: allow for minorities to have so much more.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Of a.
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: Of an ability to go to a school because because
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: they were a minority and there was no way to
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: overcome that. Well, what the Supreme Court is upholding is
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: some approaches while trimming the sales on others. Conservatives have
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: said for a long time that the Constitution does not
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: allow for any of the approaches that I just mentioned,
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: right like, that doesn't allow for this. The Equal Protection
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: Clause the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no state shall deny
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: the laws. The Supreme Court has always acknowledged that the
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: central premise of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: laws and public policies that discriminate on the basis of race.
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: And what was happening at these universities is you were
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: clearly discriminating against certain people solely based on race and
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: the color of their skin. There's also another part of this.
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: The Fourteenth Amendment, it applied applies only to state governments,
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: which includes state and local public universities. For example, Title
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: nine of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: also extends racial discrimination to institutions that accept federal tax money,
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: such as in grants and as intuition aid. That applies
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: to almost every private university as well. Okay, now, Students
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: for Fair Admissions, that's the name of this group. They
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: filed a bunch of lawsuits against public and private schools.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: The Supreme Court eventually took two of them. There was
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: two different challenges. There was a challenge through the admissions
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: policy at the University of North Carolina you would know
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: them as Carolina Blue, you and c. They challenged them
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: under the fourteenth Amendment. And a challenge also was accepted
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: by the Court to a Harvard's policy as well. The
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court held sixty three that UNC's policy is unconstitutional
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: and held the same regarding Harvard's policy by a vote
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: of six to two. So this was overwhelming that this
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: was struck down. Justice Brown Jackson recused herself from the
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: Harvard case.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: Just so you know.
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion that was
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: joined by all of the conservatives and also the moderate justices.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: The majority opinion declared that the Harvard and UNC and
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: I'm quoting. Now, the Harvard and UNC admissions program cannot
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: It concludes, quote, the Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: and the prohibition against racial discrimination is leveled at the thing,
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: not the name. A benefit to a student who overcame
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student's
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student who's
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: leadership role or obtain a particular goal must be tied
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: to that student's unique ability to contribute to the university.
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: In other words, the student must be treated based on
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: his or her experiences as an individual, not on the
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: basis of race. In other words, you don't get thirty
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: points on a point system just because you show up
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: with a application that marked de box African American or
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: indiansiles when going into the college admissions process. Now, many universities,
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: again this is from the majority opinion. Quote, many universities
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: have for far too long done just the opposite, and
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: in doing so, they have concluded wrongly that the touchstone
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. So again, the
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: majority opinion here make it clear you judge an individual's
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: identity by challenges bested skills built, lessons learned, their academic resume,
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: they're outside at curricular resume. But you cannot judge someone
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: solely based on the color of their skin. The constitutional
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: history does not tolerate that choice. Justice Clarence Thomas also
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: joined Robert's opinion in full, but also wrote separately to
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: highlight the constitutional principle at stake by saying, in the
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: wake of the Civil War, the country focused its attention
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: on restoring the Union and established the legal status of
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: newly freed slave PEPs. The Constitution was amended to abolish
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: slavery and proclaim that all persons born in the United
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: States of America are citizens, entitled to the privileges or
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: immunity of citizenship and the equal protection of the laws.
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: Because of the second founding, our Constitution is color blind
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Now, this
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: is the exact opposite of what Judge Jackson said in
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: the dissent saying our country has never been color blind.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: I'm going to get to that in a moment. Now
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: this case that are these cases. These two cases are
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: Students for Fair ad Missions versus the presidents and fellows
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admissions versus the
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: University of North Carolina.
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: This is a mass of when.
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: For judging people not by the color of their skin,
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: but by the integrity of their work and who they
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: are as a person. Now, that is the exact opposite,
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: by the way of what the left wants. We know
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: this because they wrote about it in the dissent. Let
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: me go to those that said no to this Justice Jackson,
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: President Joe Biden's nomini of the Supreme Court dissented in
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: very harsh terms from the decision striking down racial preferences
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: in college admissions.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Decision.
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: Now the full decision and the concurring opinions and the descents,
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: you can read those online if you want to, But
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: let me just give you some of what she said.
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: Brown accused the Court's six conservative justices of pretending that
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: the US is a colorblind society and ignoring, she says,
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: pervasive radical racial inequalities that persist even in the absence
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: of formal racial discrimination laws. Now, Justice Thomas, as I
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: read for you a moment ago, says, Hey, regardless of
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: what you believe, when we amended the constitution right and
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: got rid of slavery, and we amended it, the constitution
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: is color blind. Our laws are color blind. She's saying
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: it shouldn't be that way. She outlined a history of
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: black suffering in America and the descent from slavery to sharecropping,
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: from Jim Crow to redlining, saying, quote, the race based
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: gaps that first developed centuries ago are echoes from the
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: past that still exists today. She added quote to demand
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: that colleges ignore race in today's admissions practices and thus
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: disregard the fact that racial disparities may have mattered for
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: where some applicants find themselves today. Is not only an
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: affront to the dignity of those students for whom race matters,
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: it also condemns our society to never escape the past
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: that explains how and why race matters, to the very
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: concept of who merits quote unquote admission, describing by the
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: way the use of race and admissions at Harvard and
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: the University of North Carolina as a plus factor and
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: ignoring the burdens suffered by Asian Americans and others harmed
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: by the policy. She argued that there were quote universal
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: benefits to using race and college admissions policies, not just
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: for the beneficiaries. She said, quote and the dissent do
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: not miss the point that ensuring a diverse student body
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: in higher education helps everyone, not just those who do
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: to their race have directly inherited distinct disadvantages really respect
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: to their health, wealth, and well being. She wrote, she
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: was very frustrated. She also argued in The Descent that
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: race blindness will delay the day that every American has
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: an equal opportunity to thrive regardless of race, even though
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: the data is actually showing the opposite of that. Now,
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: let me explain what I mean by that. There are
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: countless young women and countless young men, who by the way,
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: are poor, who have not gotten scholarships and have not
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: gotten into amazing universities because they were born with the
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: wrong color skin, and that wrong color is anything but
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: what is described as a minority. Many Asian Americans have
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: also not gotten into universities because they have not been
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: waited at the same level as Hispanic Americans, Indian Americans,
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: and African Americans. That is clearly, I would argue a
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: form of racism when you have one race that you
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: choose to have more students come in or have more
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: waiting than another race. How is that not discrimination? And
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: that's exactly what the justices were saying. They were saying,
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: you can't do this at UNC, you can't do this
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: at Harvard. You can't do this at other universities where
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: you have a quota system where you decide what you
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: think is the perfect blend of minorities in your university.
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: You can't discriminate against amazing students because they have the
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: wrong color of skin. Right, Racism is racism, and bigotry
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: is bigotry, and having these quotas is not good for
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: America and the government, they're saying, are again our constitution
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: is color blind.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: The Descent, they're saying, no, No, our government.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: Should absolutely fill quotas and advocate for quotas and decide
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: to pick winners and losers solely based on the color
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: of your skin. Let me go back to the Discent,
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: though they say, quote with let them eat cake obliviousness.
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: Today the majority pulls the rip chord and announces color
• 14:08
  Speaker 2: blindness for all by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: in law does not make it so in life, And
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: having so detached itself from this country's actual past and
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: with the crucial work that you n see and other
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America's real
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: world problems. I couldn't, by the way, I disagree more
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: with that statement, she says.
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: Quote.
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: No one benefits from ignorance. Although former race linked legal
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today's ruling makes
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: things worse, not better. The best that can be said
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: of the majority's perspective is that it proceeds from the
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism. But
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain.
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: If the colleges of this country are required to ignore
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: a thing that matters, it will not just go away.
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: It will take longer for racism to leave us, and ultimately,
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: ignoring race just makes it matter worse.
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: Now.
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: I actually believe that affirmative action breeds racism at the
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: college level because it also undermines minorities that get in
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: on their merits outside of a quota system for the
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: cloth of their skin. There are people that have come
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: forward saying that they were frustrated when they went to
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: college because they should they were there on their own merits,
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: but people looked at them in class like whose spot
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: did you take? And you're only here because you're a
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: minority and a quota system, not because of how hard
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: you worked. That's undermining the accomplishments of amazing men and
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: women who are minorities right now. In his own concurring opinion,
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: Justice Thomas took on Justice Jackson's dissent, saying, this Justice
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: Jackson would replace the second Founder's vision with an organizing
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: principle based on race. In fact, in her view, almost
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: all of life outcomes may be unheaesitantly ascribed to race.
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: This lore is not and has never been true. Even
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: the sum of their skin color than is now. Not
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: all disparities are based on race, not all people are racist,
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: and not all differences between individuals are ascribed to race.
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: Worse still, Justice Jackson uses.
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: Her broad observation about statistical relationships between race and select
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: measures of health, wealth, and well being to label all
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is un
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: fath to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: Black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: Justice Jackson then.
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: Builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: that court should defer to experts quote unquote and allow
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: institutions to discriminate on the basis of race. Make no mistake,
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: her Descent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless.
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: It is instead a call for empower privileged elites who
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: will tell us what is required to level the playing
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: field quote unquote among casts and classifications that they alone
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: can divine. Then, after siling all of us into racial
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: casts and pitting those casts against each other, the Descent
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: somehow believes that we will be able to, at some
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: undefined point, march forward together into some utopian version. Social
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries historically have
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: ended disastrously. Unsurprisingly, this tried and failed system defies both
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: law and reason. Hell yes to Clarence Thomas for having
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: the guts to write that. Let me also tell you
• 18:18
  Speaker 2: about a friends of Augusta Precious Metals. Have you been
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: saving a long time for retirement, Well, if you have,
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: you've probably been really stressed out over the last year
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: with interest rates have been skyrocketing, inflation issues, bank failures,
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: and people that have actually lost.
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: Some money in their retirement accounts.
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: If you aren't invested and diversified in gold, you should
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: check out Augusta Precious Metals.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: Augusta Precious Metals. They're just different.
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: They'll even tell you if a gold ira isn't your answer,
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: they give you the facts about gold and precious metals.
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: It's all about protecting your IRA and protecting your four
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: oh one k in this crazy economy. And it's so
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: important if you're in retirement or close to retire, because
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: there's no time to make up losses.
• 19:03
  Speaker 3: Now.
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: If you've had those losses, you know what I'm talking about.
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: So if you've saved one hundred thousand dollars or more,
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: take a look at their free guy that they'll send
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: you and they'll do a one on one conference with
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: you to talk about your financial portfolio. Both are filled
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: with economic insights and their gold IRA info will give
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: you peace of mind of knowing that, hey, you can
• 19:23
  Speaker 2: protect your hard earned dollars. Age seven to seven the
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: number four gold I r A. That's eight seven to
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: seven the number four gold ir Or visit Augusta Precious
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: Medals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Medals dot com. Or
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: eight seven seven the number four gold ir A. I
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: want you to hear what whins when some sears had
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: to say about justice KBJ. Listen to this from Fox
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: News earlier.
• 19:56
  Speaker 4: What would you say to these justices?
• 20:00
  Speaker 5: Well, what you have is a justice who has chosen
• 20:04
  Speaker 5: because she's black and because she's a woman. You know,
• 20:07
  Speaker 5: that's what we're understanding now what a woman is. And Martha,
• 20:11
  Speaker 5: while we're playing these stupid games, I'm saying that education
• 20:15
  Speaker 5: and the lack of it in America has risen to
• 20:17
  Speaker 5: a national crisis. China is not playing these stupid games.
• 20:21
  Speaker 5: China is interested in total world domination, and so is
• 20:25
  Speaker 5: Russia and the rest of them. That's what we have
• 20:28
  Speaker 5: to be concerned about. Our children are not learning, and
• 20:31
  Speaker 5: in fact, when they do graduate from high school and
• 20:34
  Speaker 5: decide to go on to college, Martha, more than sixty
• 20:37
  Speaker 5: percent of them, according to the statistics, need remedial education
• 20:41
  Speaker 5: that very first year.
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: So you know.
• 20:44
  Speaker 5: How the president is talking about getting rid of student loans, Well,
• 20:48
  Speaker 5: then the children are having to stay one extra year
• 20:51
  Speaker 5: in college based on loans that they've taken for work
• 20:55
  Speaker 5: that they should have completed when they were in high school.
• 20:58
  Speaker 5: So let's cut and let's get to what the remedies are.
• 21:02
  Speaker 5: And I'm pulling for school choice. School choice now our
• 21:06
  Speaker 5: children are in need.
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: I love the fact that Lieutenant Government Virginia came out
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: and said this, saying, let's be clear, there is a
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court justice that was chosen solely based on race,
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: solely based on the cover skin and sex. And that's
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: correct because Joe Biden ran saying, if you let me,
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: the next person I'm gonna put in the Supreme Court
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: will only be a minority woman. He was filling a
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: racial quota, just like universities have been filling racial quotas.
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: And so the point that she made there was spot
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: on how many great people, how many amazing men or
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: women should have been considered, should have been considered for
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court that were immediately kicked out because they
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: had the wrong color skin or they were a man,
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: because you were totally discriminated against by this President the
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: United States of America because he said, I'm going after.
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: A quota only this is the quota.
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: If you don't fit this racial makeup, you will not
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: have a chance at sitting on the Supreme Court.
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: That is the fact of the situation.
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: And the Lieutenant governor in Virginia, African American woman, God
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: bless her for coming out and saying it the way
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: that she did, because Justice Side of my Or and
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: herd Ascent in the Affirmative Action Rooming said quote, despite
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: the country's unjustified exercise of power, the opinion today will
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: serve only to highlight the Court's own end potence in
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: the face of an American America who cries for equality.
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: Resound that's what Justice Side of my Or said, And
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: Sears said, well, what you have is the justice who
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: has chosen because she's black and because she's a woman
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: who's now saying I don't like that, We're going to
• 22:59
  Speaker 2: change that, because that's why she got the job to
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: fill that quote up. Columbia University president had this to
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: say about what happened with this decision on MSNBC. Listen
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: carefully to how angry they are over there.
• 23:14
  Speaker 6: Sorry now, I also which is really I was not
• 23:19
  Speaker 6: aware of the Columbia Veterans program. That is fascinating because
• 23:22
  Speaker 6: they bring so much experience and leadership qualities and skills,
• 23:28
  Speaker 6: all of the training that they have. I just wanted
• 23:30
  Speaker 6: to read part of Justice Jackson's descent in the UNC case.
• 23:35
  Speaker 6: She did not participate in the Harvard case because of recusal.
• 23:38
  Speaker 6: She writes to demand that collegees ignore race in today's
• 23:41
  Speaker 6: admissions practices and thus disregard the fact that racial disparities
• 23:45
  Speaker 6: may have mattered for where some applicants find themselves today.
• 23:49
  Speaker 6: Is not only an affront to the dignity of those
• 23:51
  Speaker 6: students for whom race matters, it also condemns our society
• 23:55
  Speaker 6: to never escape the past that explains how and why
• 23:58
  Speaker 6: race matters, to the very concept of whom merits admission. That,
• 24:02
  Speaker 6: combined with the justices writing that there should be an
• 24:05
  Speaker 6: end date to these policies those that survive, reminds me
• 24:10
  Speaker 6: of the Voting Rights Decision twenty thirteen, which is to
• 24:12
  Speaker 6: assume that at some point society will magically become race neutral,
• 24:17
  Speaker 6: which doesn't happen.
• 24:19
  Speaker 7: So this opens up your question. Andrea opens up the
• 24:25
  Speaker 7: two different philosophies that are reflected in the Roberts and
• 24:29
  Speaker 7: other conservative justices views about how to think about race
• 24:34
  Speaker 7: in America and that of Justices Jackson and Sodamayer and
• 24:40
  Speaker 7: formerly of Justice Ginsburg to Justice Roberts and the others
• 24:46
  Speaker 7: who joined him. Brown versus Board of Education was a
• 24:50
  Speaker 7: great moment in American history, declaring that the fourteenth Amendment
• 24:56
  Speaker 7: required equal protection and not separate but equal schooling and
• 24:59
  Speaker 7: other programs in the United States and set off the
• 25:03
  Speaker 7: Civil Rights era. That was a great moment, but that
• 25:08
  Speaker 7: was only about stopping racial discrimination. Any kind of effort
• 25:15
  Speaker 7: to overcome the effects of racial discrimination are not allowed
• 25:20
  Speaker 7: in history. To Justices Jackson and Sodamayer, this is and
• 25:25
  Speaker 7: Thurgood Marshall in the Baki case, this is wrong. Thanking
• 25:30
  Speaker 7: that we've had several hundred years of discrimination against African
• 25:34
  Speaker 7: Americans in particular, and we must as a society find
• 25:39
  Speaker 7: means to try to correct for that because they're ongoing.
• 25:42
  Speaker 7: They haven't stopped, and affirmative action in higher education began
• 25:47
  Speaker 7: exactly for that reason in the nineteen seventies, all across
• 25:51
  Speaker 7: the country, every selective university tried to become more diverse
• 25:56
  Speaker 7: as part of an effort in the country to grapple
• 25:59
  Speaker 7: with the h history and ongoing effects of discrimination. In
• 26:03
  Speaker 7: the Baky case, universities were told by Justice pal you
• 26:08
  Speaker 7: cannot talk in those terms, and ever since then universities
• 26:13
  Speaker 7: have been limited in how they could think about affirmative
• 26:15
  Speaker 7: action to just the diversity rationale, not to the racial
• 26:20
  Speaker 7: justice rationale. So Justice Jackson and Sodamayer our right to
• 26:28
  Speaker 7: say the only way to think about this sensibly is
• 26:33
  Speaker 7: to put it in the context of a history of
• 26:36
  Speaker 7: racial discrimination that continues to this day and requires the
• 26:42
  Speaker 7: work of universities and other institutions to try to overcome it.
• 26:46
  Speaker 7: Affirmative action has been that. So that's a fundamental difference
• 26:53
  Speaker 7: in the ways in which we talk about affirmative action
• 26:56
  Speaker 7: reflected in these opinions.
• 27:01
  Speaker 6: President Lee Volunteer of Columbia University, a leader for decades
• 27:05
  Speaker 6: and decades on this and so many other issues of
• 27:07
  Speaker 6: higher education.
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: It's real, I love it right, Columbia University.
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: We must find means to correct for several hundred years
• 27:16
  Speaker 2: of discrimination, and so therefore this is the way to
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: do it, So therefore we should just keep doing it,
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: and if it screws over other minorities, we don't care
• 27:22
  Speaker 2: because we give ourselves a hug that somehow we've done
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: it right. Paul Butler on affirmative action. Our country is
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: at great risk of returning to quote the old days.
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: I'm taking the case personally. He goes on to say.
• 27:38
  Speaker 4: I was really struck at the end of our last
• 27:40
  Speaker 4: hour in that conversation between Andrew Mitchell and Jonathan cape Hart.
• 27:43
  Speaker 4: And you wrote an op ed in the Washington Post
• 27:45
  Speaker 4: about affirmative action in twenty twenty two, and you write
• 27:49
  Speaker 4: you got into Yale University and then Harvard Law School
• 27:51
  Speaker 4: because of affirmative action. I mean big picture here, What
• 27:55
  Speaker 4: is the impact that you think this will have on students?
• 27:59
  Speaker 3: So we know the dramatic and negative impact this will
• 28:03
  Speaker 3: have based on the nited states that have already outlawed
• 28:07
  Speaker 3: diversity in college admissions. In UCLA, California's elite school, the
• 28:15
  Speaker 3: enrollment of black and Latin X students declined dramatically. There
• 28:19
  Speaker 3: was a brief submitted by universities in this case that
• 28:23
  Speaker 3: suggests that the number of black students of these schools
• 28:26
  Speaker 3: is going to go down to two percent. And yes, Lindsey,
• 28:30
  Speaker 3: I'm taking this case personally. As a black man who
• 28:32
  Speaker 3: graduated with honors from Harvard after being admitted through its
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: affirmative action process, I was as qualified as idiot of
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: mine excellent colleagues. But the reality is that before affirmative action,
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: black people, Latin X people, Native people, we weren't present
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: at these selective institutions, even though we could do the
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: work as well as anybody. And now that their courts
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: in effect overturn one of the most successful racial justice
• 29:04
  Speaker 3: policies of all time, our country is at great risk
• 29:08
  Speaker 3: of returning to those old days when black and Latin
• 29:12
  Speaker 3: X and Native folks, the people who built this country,
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: are shut out of the opportunity to learn at some
• 29:20
  Speaker 3: of our country's best colleges.
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: Okay, so he gets in, and he says, I got
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: in only because of race, but it was worth it.
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: And the question is, Okay, then who got screwed over?
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: Who didn't get in that worked extremely hard because they
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: had the wrong color of skin. Now I'm glad that
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: he got in. Okay, I'm glad that everybody gets in,
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: but you shouldn't kick other people out just to meet
• 29:48
  Speaker 2: a quota. And that's exactly what the Supreme Court said today.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: You can't do this.
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: You can't discriminate against other people based on the color
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: of their skin while claiming that this is good for
• 29:59
  Speaker 2: the country on the issue of discrimination. Right, one person
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: can't get discriminated again so that you can act like
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: you're running the wrong from what happened in the past
• 30:09
  Speaker 2: to another person. That's not our country and our constitution,
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: our quote color blind. That is exactly what Clarence Thomas said,
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: and that's exactly what is right in this country. This
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: is going to be a big day for fairness and
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: moving on. And this is also going to be phenomenal
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: for people that get into these institutions based on their
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: merit and not have to worry that they're being undermine
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: or whispered about. Well, are they really here because they
• 30:36
  Speaker 2: deserve to be here. They get here because they got
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: in because of the color of their skin. This is
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: going to fix problems and it's a fabulous thing.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: Don't forget.
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: Share this podcast with your family and your friends, and
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: I will see you back here tomorrow.