admissions process. and even though a student could not for example if it were to go to say you cannot consider race at all in admissions, what does that practically mean, everyone? you can't have a box of race. but what about a student who writes a essay about the lived experience as racial minority, and what about the holistic factors that jessica spoke about race as one of many factors and compare to say someone who is a veteran, someone who is a legacy student, whose parent went to the university, and mean for somebody who is a violinist or athlete or any number of factors that are played into the admissions process, and corporate america and military have had a hand in expressing views in this consequential decision, because they suggest what would be the parameters and impact on the greater atmosphere? it is likely and expected that the supreme court will continue to find the nuances of

race-based admissions or race as a factor in the admissions process, but we do not yet know how they will come down in a case that has been continuously a part of successive supreme court confirmation hearings, and let alone ballot initiatives in places like california. >> just so you know, it is in the zone of 10:00 p.m., and the rulings could come any second now. and we know two boxes that are delivered in writing there. and that means at least two decisions today, and there could be as many as four or so, because they can pack a couple into the box. but at least two, elie. and the gay rights decision in colorado is fascinating because of how the justices will choose to write about this. this has to do with whether someone has the right to refuse service because someone is gay. what are you looking for in terms of how the justices frame this, because if they say that

you can refuse for x, why not y and z. >> what is interesting here is that we have tension conflict in this case the first amendment right to free speech, and the web designgner is saying it is violating my rights versus the state of colorado that prohibits discrimination against those with lgbtq + status, and we had similar one on cake shop, but it was religious, and this is first amendment nondiscrimination, and the dilemma exactly what you said, john, if you allow this person to say, well, it is violating my first amendment right to not make a wedding cake for someone, and does it stop for interracial couples, and so we will have the supreme court

to thread some needles, and bigger picture is a great example of how what happens in that marble building with the big pillars and the legalese has a big effect on all americans when you take it together. >> it is significant that they take these case, because they don't have to take the case. so when they take it, it means there is something new or they lay down the law of the land to stay. >> they take under 5% of all cases taken to them, so they take them for a reason. >> so over to david chalian, and there is -- we are just learning that the case that we have is a case that has to do with religion, and it is case with a postal worker who says that they should not have to work on sundays, because of their desire to practice their religion. we are waiting for the court to

have the court the decide that. they have made a decision. now the question is what is the decision. can you give us some example, elie, what this case is all about, and there is a lot of the religious freedom cases coming up. >> yes, two big ones today. this is a case involving a pennsylvania u.s. postal service when amazon came on the scene, and the u.s. postal service started to make deliveries on sunday, and this postal worker who is deeply religious said, i don't work on sunday, because of my religion, and he went back and forth and left the job. and the question to the supreme court is yes, we have tok a come mow date free exercise of religion under the first amendment, and if it is a government job, how far do we go. >> i have to step in, because we are learning that the decisions on the affirmative action cases have come down, and we do not know what the decisions are just yet, but we are going to laura coates for this, and this,

laura, i think it is safe to say is the biggest case facing the court that could have the widest reaching implications. >> that is extraordinarily true. we are aware of what the consequences could be, and we know that we do not truly live in a society where race is never a consideration or factor or thought of, and the courts have had to wrestle with this idea. remember infamously sandra day o'connor as a justice spoke about a time line when we would reach a point in time that we would no longer consider race. and you had justice roberts talk about the way to stop discriminating on the way of race is to do just that. and you heard the conversations in the voting rights space of not removing the umbrella in a storm, because you are not getting wet. so we have seen the racial dine mi -- dynamics play in this court, and with ketanji jackson would

recuse herself in this case, because of her ties to harvard and not as a student, but the board-type relationship, and so they had two case, one the private school harvard and the other involving university of north carolina, and you had the added dimension of whether racial minorities including asians have been detrimentally impacted by affirmative action as well. so right now, we are on a kind of the waiting with bated breath about what the supreme court is going to ultimately decide given the evident conclusion that we should all reach which is that frankly race is one of many factored analysis in any realm of our society. >> and just a note for the control room when i can -- yeah, that is what i was thinking. okay. let's go over to jessica schneid e schneider, because we know that we have after firmtive action-- affirmative action, the

university case. >> yes. it is the affirmative action cases of harvard and unc, but it affects all colleges and universities, and that it violates equal protection clause which essentially means that colleges and universities can no longer consider race as a factor in the admissions. this is the decision that seemed to be hinted at, at oral arguments here. in particular, the justices seizing on the decision back in 2003 which had allowed for affirmative action, race as a factor, but it sort of said, maybe affirmative action won't be needed in about 25 years, and we are just about at the 25-year mark from 2003, and the conservative justices ruling that affirmative action is no more at colleges and universities. we have to dig a little bit more into the case to find out if race can even be considered holistically for race-neutral

factors or used in some way, but they cannot use it as a factor in admissions factors, and as most colleges and universities have done. it appears that the chief justice john roberts wrote this opinion. in part, he said, eliminating racial -- let me start over. eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of this. this is sort of a point that the chief justice had really hammered home on in oral arguments. here said, you know, if we want to end racial discrimination, we shouldn't consider race. that has been his view for a long time in other opinions that he has written and it is something that we expected in this decision as well. i'll head back to how this opinion shapes up, but to take away here is that as was expected the supreme court ruling that colleges and universities can no longer consider race as a factor in their admissions. they can no longer practice affirmative action. guys. >> jump back into it, jess,

because we are interested to hear the wording that you are saying from the majority opinion, and also to hear if any of the dissent is read from the bench as some are done on monumental cases. and elie, violates the clause of the 14th amendment, and give us a moment of what a big deal of this is, because it is 6-3, and it is no longer affirmative action in higher education is no longer. >> this is going to change the way about the way that colleges handle their admissions. jessica hit on one of the key nuances that we have to dig through and find out is what the supreme court says about race neutral processes, and this is a big discussion of oral argument in can colleges consider other factors than race. >> zip code. >> economic status. first-generation member of the fa family, and can those things be considered and this is a hot topic, and one thing that is

interesting to note is when you can see the decisions when the supreme court says that we are in a bert pltter place now, and we had the first affirmative action case in 2003, the judges said, we have to have a sunset here, and this is about 25 years, and here we are 19 to 25 years later, and the dilemma is we in a better place because of the policy and the famous quote came from ruth bader ginsburg is a voting case and she said the majority said that we don't need this protection away from the protection, and she said it is like throwing away the umbrella, because you not getting wet. so this is because it is not necessary, because it has done the work or is there a continuing need for it. we need to dig in. >> it is a thick opinion, and i pull it up on line, and it is a

thick one. >> and the college administrators and organizers will see what to do to stress diversity. >> and california and michigan both had basically abolished the affirmative action and they have seen the diversity numbers drop because of this. and so, i want to go to laura coates, and this has been held for 40 years that affirmative action has been in place, and now they have upended it, and stare decisis, as you attorneys call it, it is no longer in this case, and what do you make of this decision, and what it means to those going to college now and to the universities themselves? >> well, i don't think that we can even overstate the role that race has played in our society

as a country. it also is a big part of one's identity and part of the college admissions process is the practice of a college student, and applicant detailing why they believe their identity and being ought to be an additive addition to a particular school. it is hard for the admissions process and admissions office to delineate between how a student views themselves and their identity and what can now be considered in practice. an example that came up during the supreme court oral arguments is what about a student who is writing about their personal identity as it relates to their race. is the admissions office to look at that essay, and throw it out and burn it, and i cannot deal with this here, because it deals with race? i know that we are short on time, but the monumental consequence of the decision cannot be overstated, but everyone from apple to ikea and

starbucks joined in to talk about racial diversity and improving decision making by increasing creativity and communication and accuracy and some of the largest law firms talked about the private bar and the legal profession benefitted from a diverse pool to recruit, and admirals and generals said quote, diversity in the halls of academia directly affects the performance of theatres in war. and those who believe that the confines of the action of the decision is going to be here only in the halls of harvard or perhaps the university of north carolina, you have the amicus briefs about the impact more broadly, and the domino impact of this decision. >> all right. laura, standby for a minute, because obviously what is going to matter now that we know that the courts have basically overturned the idea of affirmative action or considering race in college admissions is how they state it specifically, and what are the parameters and the exact

language. we go back to jessica schneider who has some quotes here, and what have you learned? >> john, that is key. this opinion does contain a little bit of the nuance, and broadly, the colleges and universities can no longer have applicants check a box which says which race they are, and they can't expressly consider the race, however, within this opinion which is a 6/3 opinion led by the conservatives, they do say that nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting university from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected their life through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise. that is a question that came up at the arguments, can applicants mention their race at all in their essays, in other things that they submit in letters of recommendation, and the like, and this is saying that in a broad sense, universities can look at race when it pertains to

how it has affected someone's life. but they can't really have someone check a box saying exactly what race they are. so in the broad sense, they are saying that the way that unc and harvard and other colleges and universities across the country have operated up to this point, they say that violates equal protection, but they are not completely banning the universities and colleges from banning the race in the broad sense and how race has affected someone's life. and we are waiting for more dissent from the bench, because we are reading parts of the opinion from john robert, but i will tell you that justice sonya sotomayor says this has rolled back decades of progress, and this is going to have a devastating impact. that is something that throughout the months of

covering affirmative action, devastating impact is a theme that came up again and again. these universities have already told the court in amicus briefs and even the universities in california and michigan who have not been allowed to use affirmative action for years, say that there is no substitute for affirmative action, and they have tried to diversify the campuses, but they have been unsuccessful in using other race-neutral methods. and sonya sotomayor says it is going to be a devastating impact. but they are saying to the colleges and universities, you cannot use race in admission policies. >> thank you for pointing this out, and continue digging through it, and it is page 39, elie, where she is reading from, and the words matter, and the chief justice wrote this opinion, and let's read them, because it is important. at one point he writes here,

both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race unavoid ably lack the race and to prohibit race, and we will not do so today, and at the same time, nothing in this decision should prohibit universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life be it through inspiration or other wise. >> that is crucial, because it is guidance of what is still in play. and this is the race-neutral factor, and we are not checking boxes, and students do not have to say what race they are, and one thing that was object to is giving a specific numerical bubble as far as race, but the passage that you read makes

clear that the colleges can do to try to generate diverse classes for themselves, and for example, you can look at what is in the student's essay, and you cannot restrict what they say, and yes, the colleges can consider that, and other factors, economic background, and first-generation college students, and what is also interesting is that there is a recognition here, the majority striking it down, vase a virtue, and value and not saying it is bad thing or meaningless, but the question is what are the constitutional means to get there. and that is the dilemma they are grappling with here. >> and when is precedent not precedent? i mean, everyone says i am not going to change the precedent and the thing that has been around for 40 or 50 or 60 years, and then they do. so what's happening here? >> here is the real answer, precedent is precedent until five justices don't want it to

be. i don't mean to be -- >> five or more. >> it is 6/3 in north carolina and i believe it is 6/2 in the harvard case. >> jackson had to recuse. >> yes, she is member of the harvard board of governors or something to that nature, and every time someone is up for a nomination to the supreme court we see it every time, do you believe in precedent. the answer is of course, i do. do you believe at times that precedent should be overruled, yes, of course, brown ver vus board of education, and plessy versus ferguson, and they always try to come up with the quasi precedent, and talk about something super precedent which is invented, but when five or more justices decide it is time, and that what is happening with fairlydictably conservative justices, and though, there are other neutral

justices, and one descenting. >> and the chief justice says in other words, the student must be based on his or her experiences as an individual and not on the basis of race. >> and race is part of it, but not solely. >> i am interested to see how much leeway that gives schools. we are joined by tony chin who is currently a professor at northwestern university, and he is writing a book on this, and he did file an amicus brief in this, and so talk to me again about, the scope of this decision in your mind, and what it changes now. >> well, the decision just came

out, and for about ten minutes now, and i have not gone through it carefully, but the decision will mark the end of an erro, and colleges and university admissions will raise questions these days, but it is unquestionably the legacy of a storied moment in our history when police dogs had cannons and spraying people with water from cannons, and since then, scotus has put the tighter and tighter bounds, but this decision is going to sweep away affirmative action altogether, it would seem. >> can i ask you a quick question in the way it is put forth, because initially, it is sort of the white students against the minoritminorities, recently, it is the asian students put at the forefront of this, and why that change, obviously done on purpose. >> i think that using asian

americans at the focal point has a lot of ideological appeal, and especially the critics for affirmative action, and it is true that asian americans have been sort of experiencing a wave of anti-asian heat in last three or four years burk at the same time asian americans arected as, and asian americans are seen as people who play by the rules, they work hard and they do so and they get ahead, and their outcomes seem to bear it out. so if asian americans are not being treated unfairly by the admissions process, then something must be wrong with the admissions process, so critics of the affirmative action understood this, and asian americans were selected for that reason. >> all right. >> tony, thank you so much for that. i want to get back over to laura coates, because i was handed an excerpt, laura, from the dessent

that says a person's skin color may be assessed but not assessed to a person's diverse learning environment, and that indefensible reading of the law subverts the 14th equal protection. >> i think that many would look to sonya sotomayor who has spoken to herself as the model affirmative action recipient, and she and clarence thomas who have similar backgrounds, but she views it as sensitivity, and justice thomas as paternalism. and it is inconsistency when race can be used as a factor in some factors of the

constitutional scholarship and in others it is treated quite differently and subordinated to things like one's legacy status of the child of a alumni or one's athleticism and beyond. but she is speaking to a much greater issue who many people who are proponents of affirmative action have spoken to for years and that is the role of race as evident in the course of the history and the present. i would note that we speak about precedent and the value of precedent. as recently as 2016, the supreme court for at least the third time recognized that they wanted to have race as but one of the factors considered holistically also spearheaded by mr. bluhm who had a underlying supreme court case as well, and the reason that is important is because at the time it was a slight majority of which she is the only remaining now this that slim majority. it is telling you the power of an election, and nominations for

the supreme court bench. we knofocus a lot on "roe v. wa that factors into the selection of a supreme court justice, but affirmative action has been very much a part of the conversation of the criteria of the criteria of a supreme court justice is selected and now a total shift from 2016. i am very keerous as well to hear more from justice thomas who has been a staunch opponent of affirmative action. he has believed it was something that made people look to him with skepticism and academic side eye that he was somehow not prepared or worthy to be in his spot. he believed it carried throughout his career and should be stopped, and contrary to justice sotomayor and the recognition of one's holistic identity as part of it. i will say of all of the

passages here today, we have read, i am scratching my head as many admissions offices will be, i can take into account the experience of race, but the group as a whole cannot be taken into account. you will have a situation as part of the admissions process to quote, unquote equal students perhaps in academic scoring, s.a.t.s or a.c.t.s or geographically or the instruments they play so well for the symphony and what is the deciding factors? the court here today says it cannot be race, but other factors could very well remain. aim curious the hear from secretary lloyd austin who has spoken quite vociferously about the role of diversity and preparedness in the military. remember, we do select and recruit, and we do think of the people coming out of colleges in preparation for the military as is corporate america. so while the actual language of the supreme court will come

across as very intellectualized and es oteric as if in a classroom, in reality, how does this work? how do you have certain color blind deedness and then take in account the experience of everyone, and that is the devil in the details of the affirmative action cases. and sara, you pointed out the statistics that are borne out when they go away like in california which is prop 209 in the prop initiative of the ability of the state schools to take into consideration the race, and you did see a falling off of the ability to have minority applicants be selected and also apply. now, there's been a number of incentives to have recruitments for people to come to school. there is a lot of factors the take into consideration, but this opinion, make no mistake about it, it is going to change

the landscape of education, and this is what the majority has asked for. >> and laura, and elie standby, and as we try to unpack the impact and the enforcibly, it has political reverberations, and so let's bring in david chalian. where does this affirmative action stand in polling, and how does this develop into a political action in the literally next several minutes if not hours and days? >> well, it is going to be a political football that is injected into the campaign season, and obviously, reverberations will go far beyond the universities here directly impacted by the case into society more broadly, but to your point, polling on this like polling on many things is how you phrase the question, but overall, what you see on the

polling of the affirmative action is discontinuing of these programs, and that it should not be a factor in college admission than support for it should be. as we talk in the polling, it is splitting differently along the racial lines or the partisan line. the democrats are far more in favor of using affirmative action in college admissions. african-americans are far more in favor than white americans are. so, this definitely splits along the faultlines, and as you will see from the candidates seeking the race of the broader universe, and you will see a broader line forming no doubt. i remember that this is an issue in our political discourse for quite some time.

you remember when barack obama was first running for president back in 2007, he was asked about this specifically about his daughters and whether affirmative action should apply to them when they were old enough to apply to college, and he said he didn't think that his daughters who would have every advantage in life should be benefited by affirmative action program, but he went on to discuss how that is not true for all families, and specifically black families in america. this is one of issues that the republicans believe it is the public opinion on their side, but it is not just a die-hard republican base, but they see it as an issue that may also benefit them, their position on it with independent voters and white suburban voters specifically that this is something where they can broaden beyond their base, and now they have a 6-3 court decision to

broaden that. >> and david, stick with us, because there is a lot of news coming in, in regard to this very, very momentous decision coming down from the supreme court, and our colleagues arlette saenz says that the biden administration from the white house no department of education is reviewing the affirmative action decision from the supreme court, and you can be sure that we will hear much more from white house and the department of education coming up on that, but i wanted to go over to jessica schneider, and i am seeing notes, jess, that clarence thomas was reading from his concurring opinion from the bench, and now sotomayor is reading from her decent? >> yes, it is lasting a long

time. the chief justice read for a long time from the majority opinion, and then we heard from justice thomas reading his concurring opinion, because remember, he has been outspoken against affirmative action for decades he has been outspoken about it. and he actually talked about it in his autobiography about how it affected him al yale law school that he was not happy about his race was such a factor in his admission. but justice sotomayor is reading from the bench. she is reading her dissent, and this a full throated fiery dissent, and she is lashing out at the court, and typically they are respectful, and this is respectful, but it is very, very disappoint and very angry in the way that this decision will really reverberate she believes to expand inequality. i will read you a little part of the dissert. she says that the court subverts

equal protection by further entrenching inequality in education, and the very democratic part of our pluralistic society. and because it is not grounded in fact, and it is intervening in the 14th amendment, i dissent. and her thought is that this is going to lead to the detriment of undergraduate education and the future of those students who would have gotten a better undergraduate education if it had not been struck down as it did today, and so she has a biting dissent, and angry about what this decision will mean in the years and the decades ahead for failing to erase racial inequality, and she has maintained that race needs to be taken into account to create

this diverse student body and to give people a different racial background a chance to get into a great school, perhaps an ivy league school, and really try to change society in the process. so obviously, fact that these opinions are, or these, the majority, and the dissent and the concurrences are still being read from the bench just about 25 minutes after this opinion came out shows you all of the emotions that this case has illicited from the conservative members, and then from the liberal justices who are essentially lashing out at this court's decision today. guys? >> and jessica, to this point, an excerpt from ketanji brown jackson, and this is on the north carolina case, because she recused herself from the harvard case because of her association with harvard. justice jackson writes, with let them eat cake obliviousness, the

justices pull the rip cord and color blindness for all by fiat, irrelevance in law does not make it so in life. and this country's experiences, has brought the crucial work of unc and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve america's real world problems. no one benefits from ignorance she writes, and although formal race-linked barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences to all americans in innumerable ways and today's ruling is going to make things worse not better. the best it can say is that it is going to proceed parenthetically ostrich-like, in the hope of the ending of race will end racism.

>> the ending of race will end racism. >> and elie hoe annig, it is something that is put out there for posterity now, and what matters is the majority opinion, and this is the law. >> that is the law, and dissents become majority opinions as seen here, and decades worth dissents in the prior affirmative actions that are the majority view, and these dissents though, and there more than one, and sotomayor's and jackson's -- >> is that rare to hear her speaking on that and then saying, i will read my dissent? >> no, they will do it on big cases. >> this is apocryphal cases. >> and she is referring to

justice marshall and sort of the blissful race neutrality and blissful neutrality and quoting justice marshall, and the capacity before he was a justice and leading lawyer for defense fund, and says that he, quote, rejected the hollow race ignorant idea, and so saying when he was an attorney in key of bringing brown versus board of education, and nobody in our court would understand better than he, and even he rejected this race neutral view of the law. >> and laura coates, i wanted to ask you about ketanji brown jackson said that the justices stuck their head in the sand when it comes to the reality of the role that race plays in people's lives, and what do you think about her dissent in

particular in the case that involves north carolina? >> well, i have to admit that i would have loved to have been a fly in the wall, because if this is what is reduced to paper, you can imagine the conversations before that. i think it is particularly impactful that she is the only black woman to have ever served as a supreme court justice and much of the commentary and conversations even around her confirmation process had to do with maybe how she might rule an an affirmative action-based case and ruled on cases before and beyond, and i wanted to illuminate an issue for the public, because it seems like a very basic concept to lawyers as to how a court would actually decide this issue. it all comes down to the term called strict scrutiny which says that if you is something called a race, called a suspect classification, and if race is an issue, we want to make sure that there is something narrowly

tailored to accomplish the end and compelling interest of the government to continue to do what they are doing. they applied this analysis to this, and spoke about the motivation of having race as a basis for or a part of an admissions process and tried to undermine each of the prongs as not being timely or necessary any longer. so that is the legal framework here, but it is hard to divorce oneself from the ideological framework that is brewing for some time of role of race in america. and remember when we first talked about the equal protection in this country, and the 14th amendment, it is about trying to remove race as a determining factor in the treatment of other people. obviously, harshly, and think about the timing of it, but now it is being used, and the premise of it is used differently nowadays to talk about now instead that we think that race never should have been a factor, and people have been treated badly, and that could be true, but it is not doing as

much as justice brown jackson spoke about the reality of race in this country today, and that the rub for the dissenting opinions compared to the majority. and the idea of while we would endeavor to be a society in which race plays a factor to no aspect of the constitutional mandates, there is a reality that perhaps sad, but true. this rub is the tension that this dissenting opinion speaks about. >> i wanted to read a very powerful statement from sotomayor, because you mentioned 14th amendment, and obviously, did she. the court concludes today that indifference to race is the only constitutionally permissible means to achieve racial equality in college admission, and that interpretation to 14th amendment is not only contrary to the precedence and the teachings of our history but it is grounded in the illusion that racial

inequality does not exist. these are strong statements from them. but they are the minority. it is a 6-3 vote. so elie, that says something as well. it is not 5-4, and it is not close. these dissenting opinions are strong, but the law of the land has been changed here. >> it has been changed, and now the law is that universities and colleges cannot consider race specifically and standing alone as a factor. and important the note that there is an interesting back and forth here, and the majority of the conservatives say that well, in some instances it can be fine for colleges and in considering the whole of the applicant to look at perhaps an essay, how has race impacted this person's life, but it is important to note that the dissent is not satisfy at all with that. there is a passage that jumped out from justice sotomayor's dissent, page 47, this supposed recognition that universities can in some situations consider race in application essays is

nothing but an attempt to put lipstick on the pig. she says that is not sufficient to get the job done, but this is the new law of the land and the supreme court. >> and the universities around the country have been preparing for this ruling, assuming something like this would happen, and some have started to change some of their policies internally. one of the things that you are seeing is emerson college in massachusetts is no longer considering the legacy in admissions, and preparing and saying if affirmative action is going away and we can't consider race, we won't consider legacy which tend to be whiter in that case, so they are adjusting therein, and we are getting fresh reaction from capitol hill. manu raw

manu, what are you hearing? >> yes, pretty much along the party lines. chuck schumer said that the supreme court has been a giant roebuck on the giant march, and the consequences will be felt immediately of the people applying in the next admissions cycle, and in schumer's words, fewer opportunities than the siblings did a generation ago. and the minority caucus, the democratic caucus, and members of the african-american in that black caucus, and a large block in the house said that by delivering a decision on affirmative action as to be so radical to deny young people education, it has thrown into question its own legitimacy. and republicans have a different view. virginia fox said that no longer

will academias ivory towers divide and promote based on the color of one's own skin. and we have a comment from the speaker of the house said that no american should be denied educational opportunities because of race. students will be able to compete based on equal standards and individual merit, and this is going to make the college admissions process fairer and uphold equality. and so much on the capitol hill along the party line, and this is no different. this is a major case of upending how the selection process could occur in colleges and have a significant effect on the diversity, and this is coming down on party lines. and democrats sounding grave disappointment, and the one democratic senator peter welsh moments ago, about whether the democrats while they control the majority if they should curtail this in any way, and he said it is unclear what they could do,

and they have to contend with the republican house, and unlikely for any congressional action, but at the moment, the republicans are hailing the decision, and the democrats are outraged. >> manu continuing to get reaction from capitol hill, and pouring in statement after statement here. and manu is going to continue to work on that, and in the meantime, joining us is richard collinburg, and he was a witness for students for fair admissions, and he was involved in the lawsuit brought against unc and harvard and nonresident scholar at georgetown university as well. and what is your reaction to what we now know. >> thank you. while i will emphasize it is early reaction of a 237-page opinion and i am scanning through it, the main point is

that it is not the end of affirmative action, and it is going to shift the basis of affirmative action from race to socioeconomic status. as a political liberal myself, i think it is a good thing. i mean, harvard is majority minority which is a very important thing, and i'm glad they are, but at the same time, they are 15 times as many rich students as poor students. what will happen at most universities is they that they will not give up to race, but give an advantage to socioeconomic advantages to students who will have hispanic, and black students who have been shut out to harvard and north carolina, and at harvard, 71% of to black and hispanic and native

american students from the richest 1/5 of those popu populations, and so to my mind, it is a conservative supreme court decision that is actually going to yield a number of liberal public policy results. >> richard, i wanted to ask you quickly about the effect of banning affirmative action has had in places like california and michigan where they are really struggling now, and they have said over and over, look, this is put in place by voters, and it is put in a different kind of way to put it in place, and since then, they have seen significantly lower numbers of black and hispanics particularly attending their colleges. how do you square that with what the decision the court made, and i know that you are happy about. >> right. so there was a drop in the

beginning, but if you are reading the amicus briefs that they said, it has been a disaster, and they have not been able to recover, but if you are looking at the admissions numbers at those institutions particularly at places like ucla, they now have a higher black population representation today using things like socioeconomic disadvantage than hay they did using race in admissions. so it is much more expensive, and that is the rub here. universities will tell you that there no way to get racial diversity without using race, because it is much easier and less expensive for them to bring in upper middle-class and wealthy individuals of all races than to do the hard work of admitting working class students, low-income students. i want to be clear, i think that

we have a horrible history of race in this country that we need to address. there are ongoing questions of racial inequality thatu can do it through the socioeco factors in particular by looking at things such as wealth. there is a huge wealth gap between black and white individuals because of our history of slavery, segregation, red lining, and so, if universities shift to considering those types of factors, they can comply with the u.s. supreme court which says don't use race, but they can also implicitly recognize our history and ongoing realities with race, and i think that is important to note. so we are not ending affirmative action, but we are shifting basis of affirmative action to something that is much more popular for the public which

supports giving a leg up to those economically disadvantaged rather than race. so this is much different than abortion, because think were rubbing up against public opinion, but in this case, they have public opinion on their side. >> but they have broken precedent much like the abortion case. but uc-berkeley one of the elite schools in california has actually only has 3% of the students in the 2022 fall freshman class who identify as black. and there a lot of talk about how this is impacted, and so not all universities have been able to deal with this. when you are looking at what roberts said, and he did bring up the fact that you can consider race, but it has to be in a different way, and it is lived experience along with your race that can be looked at, how difficult do you think it is going to be for the universities

to implement this across the board, because everyone is going to have a fear that they are going to come in and break the law basically? >> right. i think that the primarily thing for the universities to do is to emphasize the socioeconomic factors for all of the extracurriculars in light of the obstacles that the student has overcome, and there, it is relevant to consider the race of an applicant in overcoming obstacles. so if a student writes in her essay about the way in which it has been very difficult being the only black student in an a.p. class, that it should be something that is considered not in terms of just diversity, but

rather adversity. they have overcome adversity. that is going to be a way that universities can continue to make sure that their classes are racially diverse. on berkeley, quickly. so berkeley and all of the elite universities that can't use race are fighting for talented black and hispanic students with one hand tied behind their back. so if you get into berkeley and you are an african-american student, and you get in without consider of race, they can also get into stanford and they have been able to use race, and where do you go? so it is remarkable that berkeley has been able to do as well as it has. the other thing to note is that berkeley does not use wealth in admissions, which i think that they should take a look at. that is the most highly

racialized socioeconomic factor out there. it is unfair for students not to be counted from a low income family. >> and do you think they should not count legacy? as a factor? >> absolutely. legacy is, and i wrote and edited a book called affirmative action for the rich. legacy was never -- and legacy preferences were never defensive in my view. they are giving an advantage to themost advantaged groups in america. it is affirmative action in reverse. it was astounding to me when i testified in the harvard case is that one of the things that harvard should do is to get rid of the legacy preferences, and oh, no, we have to build relationships with the alumni and furthermore said that

having, and this is unbelievable to me that having legacy preferences promoted diversity in their view, because the dean said, that having students who have had more experience with harvard interact with students who have had less experience with harvard makes them better citizen leaders, because they learn from one another. it is such a twisted rationale. and yes, legacy preferences should go, and i think that we will see the universities end those preferences in the very near future. >> all right. thank you so much for being with us. and with us now is michael gerhart at the university of north carolina, and burton craig, professor of jurisprudence, and you are obviously not just a member of the hair club, but you are also a member at unc, where this is going to have an immediate effect, and your take as someone who is there and your take as a law professor?

>> i appreciate the opportunity to be back, and i have been on the faculty since 2005 of unc and virtually like any other college of unc has been watching this case very closely, and i would note at the outset as well that it is nearly 45 years to the date when the first supreme court upheld the use of affirmative action in admissions. that fact is not lost on anyone. so this decision has been coming as people have suggested for a long time, the pushback extends from 1978 the year in which the court decided the case which allowed for certain uses of race to today's decision which is of course trying to end that practice. at unc, like every other place, the university is going to hustle in trying to determine, what are the admissions policies

going to be, and what are we going to look at, because we do care about the diversity of the class in defining diversity as broadly as possible. and socioeconomic status will allow for some inclusion of people perhaps minorities. we just have to wait and see how those statistics will bear out, but at the same time it is naive as the dissent suggested today to think that simply barring race will necessarily exclude any further consideration of race. what i suspect is going to happen after today among many other things is that you will see more lawsuits, and those lawsuits will begin to focus on example of the use of race by students in their essays. is it okay to raise race in essays, because raising race in essay raises the possibility

that the admissions office may rely on that factor, and any other number of alternatives that the schools are considering that are subject to judicial challenge. and again, today, universities have to be concerned about the whole person, and holistic analysis, and it is not fair for the majority of decision was to be a decision based on a number of different factors. and so, what is going to happen, i think that besides judicial challenges affected at unc and other places because of the essays, i think that you will begin to see the universities trying to raise more money for students so that they can provide scholarships to promote

diversity. that is ak factor, and as noted before by richard when example at a great place by berkeley who has diversity from racial minorities and one other thing is that berkeley has less money to try to get people. there is intense competition, and already intense competition for students of all kinds. and that competition is going to be incredibly intense. >> if you are a white student who is enforced, can you sue and then demand to see the applications of every black student who was accepted? >> technically, you are not allowed to sort of look into private records of other people. so, looking at the private record of somebody else is, i think that is legally

prohibited, yet, i think that what the court is opening itself up to is that student x with high grades or high a.c.t. might -- how did that student not get in when other students with lower credentials got in. the thing to remember about that is whether it is harvard or yale where i went to or unc where i happen to teach, one thing that happens is that schools don't define the merits solely on the merits of grades or a.c.t.s or s.a.t.s or lsats or if you have a violinist or a jazz musician that is really, really good, there are other things that lawsuits may end up trying to

challenge is the extent to which whatever benefits a person had by virtue of the high grades or scores, somehow, it justified their admission over somebody with lower scores is going to be hard to prove given the fact that diversity is about a lot more than race. >> michael, just talk a little bit more broadly in this moment as we are going to remind everyone where we are in this huge moment that is just now come to the entire country of coming from the supreme court in this decision, and we heard from the last guest who says that this is not ending affirmative action in terms of the race consideration in admissions. he says it is shifting focus of affirmative action in terms of admissions. do you see it that way or is this ending affirmative action without ending it? >> i think that this is ending affirmative action without