host: the use of race in

admissions code not be reconciled with the guarantee of protection clause of the 14th amendment. justice sotomayor wrote a rose by decades of president and momentous progress. we invite you to tell us what you think about the decision yesterday on the use of affirmative action in college admissions and decisions made by the court. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to tax us -- text us at 202-748-8003. you can follow the show on facebook and twitter and instagram. headlines taki a look at the court's decision. pictures from the protest that took place outside of the court after yesterday's decision. high court strikes down is

the headline. the headline affirmative action is no more. what does uva do next? papers are centered around colleges, harvard being one of them, boston globe court bars affirmative action at the colleges. out of north carolina, unc the other college, court rules against you in race conscious admissions policy -- unc race conscious admission policy. tells about what you think about the course decision. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. as we gather because, i show you the headline of the wall street journal. court does affirmative action. run the stories written, justice

reject race-based system. jeff braden joining is now. you for joining us. tells about the mood in the court because of the decision. guest: it was tense. they have been a lot of issues that happened this year. things were sort of coming to a head. we saw something we've not seen for a long time which was descending opinion read from bench, concurrent opinion in addition to the -- they are sending a message they very disagree with the majority. host: toss the players who did that yesterday and what were the messages they were dissenting. guest: first majority opinion by chief justice roberts ritter from the bench and much of his opinion, usually they read a brief summary come he read a lot of his opinion because it is an issue that matter to him. the sister part of justice roberts produces he joined the court. he wants a colorblind

restitution. he said that again and again. it is no surprise it was his opinion and he took it seriously. host: -- guest: justice clarence thomas read. he did it because he has in his view a special view of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. he wanted to say that as a black man he recognizes the historical disadvantage he and his race has experienced over the centuries but two wrongs do not make a right with the bottom line from justice thomas. the longest reader was justice sotomayor reading the principal dissent joined by the other two liberal justices. she said the majority had gotten equal protection laws completely wrong. that attending race does not matter in america does not make it go away -- pretending race that does not matter in america does not make it go away. progress that many people from

minority backgrounds have gained through affirmative action programs was going to be wiped away in the future. host: tell us about what yesterday decision does from previous decision the court made on the use of affirmative action and admissions. guest: since 1978 supreme court has approved the use of race as a undefined plus factor. you cannot give a separate admission track for minority applicants, cannot have a quota, cannot give automatic point bonus but in some way race can be considered has been the court guided. -- guidance reaffirmed in 2003. a plus factor like it they play the saxophone, sports, that kind of thing. that plus factor was seen as a reasonable way a tailored way to recognize race to build a diverse class at a college or

university without discriminating too much against other people who were not benefiting from it. that is what came to an end on thursday of this week. chief justice writing for six conservators said it does not work. this discrimination. -- it is discrimination and it was a lot of discrimination, it is clearly unconstitutional. host: tells us about the man featured in the paper, edward bluhm. guest: he for years has organized and illustrated lawsuits trying to tear down the laws in and government programse believes unfairly give advantages to minorities. he has financed or orchestrated or organize or arrange lawsuits that attack aspects of the voting rights act. i case that gutted an important part of a part of the voting rights act that requires some

states to get clearance with federal government. he has been unhappy with affirmative action and has set up two previous cases and lost both of them involving university of texas, his alma mater. he then took a new attack going against harvard university, private university, edit university of north carolina, organizing a group that would allege discrimination against asian americans as the new method of challenging the way of affirmative action. this time he paid off partly because the supreme court today is different. there are different justices and more conservative and open to that point of view. it is not so much legal argumentsarguments better, nece, they are the same arguments but people listening to them are much more inclined to accept them. host: today the court to issue its final opinions on decisions. tell people what to expect. guest: two big cases remaining

for the supreme court. why is another education case deliberate legality of president biden's plan to forgive billions of dollars of student loan debt. the court is going to tell us if the people who challenged the program, several states and borrowers have legal standing to bring the case in the first place. if they do, did president biden exceeded his authority in canceling that debt. same case as a clash between gay-rights and religious opposition to same-sex marriage. it comes from colorado. the web design who makes wedding analysis for online wedding for folios, that she need to do work for same-sex couples even though the state law prohibits discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. those are two big cases were looking for a later. host: you can find his work at wsj.com. thank you for your time today. it was at that white house

yesterday president biden went before cameras to respond to the decisions of the supreme court concerning affirmative action and admissions. [video clip] pres. biden: i've always believed promise america is big enough for everyone to succeed and every generation americans we have benefited by opening doors of opportunity wider to include those who have been left behind. i believe our colleges are stronger when they are diverse. our nation is stronger as we use what we -- because we are tapping into the full range of talent. i also believe while talent create heavy and hard work are everywhere across this country, not a opportunity is not everywhere. -- equal opportunity is not everywhere. we cannot let the decision be the last word. while the court can render a decision, i cannot change what america stands for -- it cannot change what america stands for. america is an idea of hope and

opportunity, possibilities, giving everyone a fair shot, leaving no one behind. never fully lived up to it but we have never walked away from it either. we will not walk away now. host: president biden from yesterday. you can see the full remarks at our website. and our app, c-span now. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. diane in new jersey on the democrats line starting the off. caller: what i want you to consider is legislate -- the legacy and alumni and sports they only play. in the schools for the powerful and rich if they get into school on that scholarship but i want to give you a good example of the legacy that is right here in

my family. my husband's father is a doctor and his daughters went to school, got master degrees, and are physicians themselves. my family, who i can tell you when i was a child, and i went to school in middletown townsend, the racism was rampant. my parents being afraid make the trek from georgia, afraid to fight back, so the education their -- meet my sister managed to go to college -- me and my sister managed to go to college and the sad part about it, the money ran out. my parents -- our parents cannot pay for anything. we went as far as we could with the pell grant. and scholarships. like some the people running for president say it is the content of the character, meet my sister

have an excellent content -- me and my sister have an excellent content. host: how does that relate to yesterday's decision? caller: yesterday's decision affirmative action really is going to trickle down into everything, especially is also going to businesses and is going to spread his arms out wide. host: match in michigan, republican line. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think president biden made a mistake not understanding these decisions dealt with legacy issues that he did not appreciate or his staff did not enlighten him. the biggest think we are dealing with here is the plight of the asian americans going back to the chinese people who built the transatlantic railroad and

continues to the japanese and world war ii and they are finally getting justice when they have superior achievements and have had their mission to unc and harvard denied. i wish some of the people would do their homework and not maintain their ideological stances. thank you for letting me talk. host: gil is next phil is next. caller: i watch some of the oral arguments. i have something to say. i grew up in new york city in the 60's, 70's, and 80's in the new york city public school system. when they talk about social and economic deprived, i know what it is like. my father worked 14 hours a day six days a week to put food on the table. i buy that was the first college graduate in our whole family --

my brother was the first college graduate in our whole family. my daughter is the first went out of my kids going to college. i grew up under affirmative action. i was basically designated against because i was caucasian. some of the arguments i listen to yesterday about checking the box and social economic backgrounds and president biden talked about people from appalachia and different parts, but there has been white economic depression since the gilded age, after the civil war, when immigrants came here they were treated horribly no matter where they came from and they work for peanuts. when you go up as a working-class person your whole life and he worked from week to week just to eat -- and you work from week to week just to eat the food of the table a should not matter what caller you are. -- coloryou are.

host: how does how does that reo yesterday's decision? caller: because i do believe some caucasians and asians are being germinated against based on race. it should come down to test scores for everybody because we all have socioeconomic problems no matter what race we are but we offered the same opportunity so if i am not being afforded the same opportunity because of my skin color i'm being terminated against. host: you can call us, send a text 202-748-8003. previous caller said he listened to the oral arguments. you can do the same. on our website when they release the tapes of the recordings of the arguments, we tape them and to process them so you can listen to them and see the

arguments made. you can do that on a website c-span metalwork. washington post taking a look at the decision in the editorial come affirmative action gone, campus diversity need not be the right, confusion about where the rules now stand to make it harder for universitiesalternatives that me easily survive legal attack and they should. one particular response it hardr universities to rework the admission practices, many or place race conscious policies with diversity promoted is eliminating legacy admission policies that benefit children of alumni universities could also evoke merit scholarships. another approach would be to step out outreach to all qualified minority applicants recitations them a try such methods such as university of michigan which restricted from engaging in from the action in 2006 decidedly not work -- say they do not work.

amanda in mississippi on the democrats line. caller: i want to comment on the ruling and some the things i see people saying. in northwest mississippi born and raised and going through the system and stuff many acquaintances and family members and friends were already out of college and teaches school by the time i graduated which means they went to school right here in the state because we had a black colleges. many of us went north and within the state colleges and their michigan and illinois different places but i beg to differ with some of the people are saying that affirmative action, white

and asian people out of their admissions to these colleges, i would never believe that is true because this is one woman, one white and one black, and white woman brought a complaint when they checked this course, the black woman had outscored her. i believe right now we have people who came to the education system in our culture i will put them against any asian person, white or otherwise, as he typed 90% percent out the does well in math and sciences and all that stuff to prepare them for that when they have that good start background to learn the calculus and various mass and sciences that will prepare them to do well in the schools but we do not have a lot of that. host: that is amanda there.

michael in alpharetta, georgia on the republican line. caller: i'm going to think you for this dialogue here and i want to support one of the previous callers. there has been extensive overreach and i come from a perspective as a blue-collar individual who was fortunate to go to college and did not have access to pell grant but how to take out college loans to get through my college were blue-collar workers. i worked my tail half relative to the real world and as a middle age 50 year i cannot tell you how much i have been discriminated against for job applications, post-covid, where the economy took a turn and trying to rebuild himself but i've been a victim of tremendous discrimination based on experience and work ethic and a

tremendous amount of work has gone into building my career from the bootstraps up even on the current college -- even though i am a caucasian individual, losing job after job because a diversity equity and inclusion initiative. i will hope this decision creep into job applications because affirmative action is wrong. there extensive overreach. where see people not qualified to get into director and managerial positions you are seeing that over and over and my comment is i would hope that this affirmative action rejection when i'll bleed back into corporate america and bill back the economy --build back the economy and committee decisions have been made this

mandatory to the white man -- which discrimination to the white man. host: some of you posted on the social media sites, a viewer from yesterday's decision on twitter, can we ever really know each student's obstacles in education beta financial, physical or social. race along does not address this. everyone has their cross to bear. another beer is saying the phrase being used to describe actions of the court struck down affirmative action is the bunker not the board room and affirmative action is fine for me to soldiers for cannon fodder but not higher education to advance create a more equal size -- society. viewer from twitter also, if each student has not always perform equally, maybe comparison should be based on income. twitter if you want to post their@cspanwj. facebook.com/she spent. you can text us at 202-748-8003.

"wall street journal" highlights in their coverage of yesterday's public states have done previous to the court's decision yesterday highlight that nine states including california, oklahoma, michigan, texas, border, at new hampshire has banned race conscious admissions. selective universities and some of those places say they are eager to reflect demographic of the states they serve because they believe diverse population in which a student's educational experiences. john in new jersey on the independent line pretty -- on the independent line. caller: despina policy narrated over the last couple of days. people are saying affirmative action processes are being included with people that are ready passed criteria and now things like race are being added

in as far as the admission process. that is a lie. that is a total lie. most of these people have not passed the criteria. they're not had sat scores. they're not had the grace. they do not have the act scores. for people to say they've already passed the criteria, and now race is just giving an added bonus to the process is a total fallacy. i heard that over and over from people over the past couple days. they not passing the criteria. there are not even close. i've seen it. many times. host: also -- how so? host: -- caller: i'm not going to tell you how. caller: you -- host: he made the assertion.

caller: i know for fact people are getting it there are not even close to passing them over to mom requirements. host: marlene in massachusetts on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment based on my perspective as being a direct beneficiary of affirmative action. i have a few reflections i would like to make everyone out there, especially to those who may have a very dim view of the policy. i had the privilege of attending an elite college here in the state i currently now reside in. i do not think i would have been able to take advantage of that opportunity to attend said

institution unless people from that college directly reach out to me to offer me that opportunity and i think that i want to stress the word opportunity. it is not like i was given any break. it is not like i was given any special consideration. i still had to have decent test scores. i still had to have decent gpa. i still had to have all of the other requirements with respect to school activities, college essay to be considered. for admission to the school. another thing i would like to add is that host: for your experience are you talk about commodity relate to that to yesterday?

caller: i think it is devastating. it forecloses opportunities that i have been able to take advantage of throughout my educational career and my professional career. i think it will have a devastating impact on those kids that come after me. i think that the foreclosure of opportunity is really what struck me. i think that by the supreme court decision yesterday getting affirmative action, it is not just for closing opportunities for a lot of young people in the country, but also leading a lot of untapped potential on the

table. host: a viewer in massachusetts. several conferences held of the decision by the supreme court yesterday. learn them by students for fair during that conference that calvin yank a member of the organization denied admission to harvard spoke about why he opposes affirmative action in light of the decision. [video clip] >> many people have asked me why i chose to speak out publicly for affirmative action, especially the potential backlash, my answer is simple, if no one is standing up to speak out against the injustices face by a community, then our deserved rates will never be realized -- rights will never be realized. today's victory transcends far from the sitting in the room today. it belongs to sleepless high schoolers applying to colleges.

it belongs to the overachieving son of a recent unemployed west virginia coalminer. it belongs to those with last names of smith or lee chin or gonzales. it belongs to all of us who deserve a chance they can all rejoice over the fact that at least our kids can be judge based on their achievements and their merits alone. most importantly, it belongs to all of us who believe that if we work hard enough, we all can have a chance at getting our own slice of the great american dream. i believe adversity is important for education. future leaders of america need to have representation across all backgrounds in society. this is why affirmative action is well-intentioned idea that is poorly executed in reality thus

it is my hope to see a renewed college admission system that recognizes and we works the multifaceted talent and diverse perspective that each individual to bring to the table. host: taking a look at yesterday's action and decision on the supreme court concerning affirmative action. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. today is the last day the court will issue its final opinion from the docket it took among them to still get an answer to where the court is on it. the president student loan forgiveness plan. look for that and others as it plays out today during our various platforms on c-span. makia in new mexico on the public in line. -- republican line. caller: hello.

i have to say i agree as a black woman with a decision yesterday. i think it is highly offensive to go based off of anyone color. i do not think it is fair. i think ss is back and -- it sets us back and it promotes more racism than it stops. host: a viewer from maryland on the independent line. mansa you are next. caller: good morning. please do not cut me off. as an abdominal american indigenous to north america, 1828. i find the decision made by the

supreme court very interesting given that everything europeans acquired in north america has been given to them, buy them a murdering indigenous americans and in lamenting policies indian removal act -- implementing policies like the indian removal act. it is the same supreme court that deems indigenous americans 3/5 human? the same supreme court that says -- what law is the supreme court enforcing? common law? or is it enforcing the law of commerce? host: yesterday it address affirmative action. caller: i think the biggest been european women.

if you're going to speak about -- host: how does that relate to decision yesterday? caller: because they don't address the fact that people in sororities and frat's their kids get to go to college without even being qualified to go to them colleges. george w. bush did not qualify to go to yale. he was only able to get into yale because his father was in the frat group there. he was not qualified to go to you. george w. bush is half host: chief justice roberts decision in making the -- writing harva and university in the carolina procannot that legal protection clause. both programs like sufficiently

focused and measurable objectives want to thef race. like meaningful points. his or her expenses exitedsed on visual on the basis of race. many of have for too long done just the opposite and in doi soconcluded wrongly that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not th challenges of vested, skills vote, lessons learned but the colors of their skin. our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. 200 page plus opinion coming down when it comes to the actual legal paperwork that was leased yesterday online at supreme court website. our website for links so that and arguments that were made during that case, the decision coming down yesterday and will get your thoughts on it during the course of the morning. stephen up at night in louisville, kentucky on the democrats line. caller: hello.

i am listening to some of the callers and am also have been watching what is been going on with this case i guess what i have to say is i am listening to justice roberts a few moments ago say essentially that special difference is not a part of our experience. well of course it is a part of our experience. it is a proper balance between understanding who we are, our unique individuality, and also at the same time it is also about realizing if we have a conscience, we are all part of that kinship. that is what conscious is. brenda say that is ridiculous to separate the 2 -- for him to say that is ridiculous, to separate the two. as far as it wrongs do not equal a ride from justice thomas, what a joke.

he benefited from affirmative action himself. how does that constitute his experience? this whole attitude while i have benefited from something but you are on your own is a part of the problem in the country. let's justice thomas qualified to be on the supreme court with donald trump -- was justice thomas qualified to be on the supreme court? was donald trump ready to be president? no, they were not. host: james in buffalo, kentucky on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. she does not know what she's talking about. from the of action is nothing that leads to more incumbency and it is almost like a free handout. you should only get a job if you got the mary's, the skill -- merits and skill.

everything is competitive. she not get any freebies. they did the right thing. i've been working my whole entire life and i see where they use affirmative action to bring people in and do not have any clue how to do the job at hand. they get upset when someone puts them in a situation where they have no clue what they are doing. i am glad. finally america's we can go to the reality. hopefully that will transcend into the working world. host: this is part of the dissent issued by justice dienting from the decision yesterdaying, today the court stands in the way and rose by decades of precedent and it holds race can no longer be

used in limited way in admissions to achieve medical benefits. so holding the court submits colorblindness as constitutional principle in a cystic that's a great society were race has always matter and continues the matter. the court embrace constitutional guarantee by the entrenching ratio in quality in education very foundation of our credit government and pluralistic society. the court -- we continue on as look at that. tony in new york. independent line. caller: i want to back up prior to the nomination of justice jackson brown. president made it known that his

choice would be a woman and a woman of colr. if justice brown jackson whatever publication she may have, she did not set the two qualifications she would never have received the nomination. host: how does that relate? caller: keep in mind with what is going on. if it is acceptable by black america, it is a problem. you negated with qualifications she had because according to the president if she was not a woman and a woman of color she would have been chosen. host: how does it relate to yesterday's decision in affirmative action in universities? caller: justice brown jackson those had to be met. host: she recused herself from the harvard case yesterday. she is serving as advisory capacity.

but weighing in on unc case as well her dissent also read like this, with let them eat cake the business the majority pulls the ripcor and announce colorblind is for all by legal fiat but the memories irrelevant inoes not make in life. having detached itself from the country's actual past and prexperiences, the court has been poured into interfering with crucial work that unc and institutions are doing to soe america's world one problems. no one benefits from ignorance. ray still matters to the lived experiences of all americanin innumerable ways today's ruling makes things worse, not better. that is justice ketanji brown jackson yesterday a part of her dissent. refino in nebraska on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. if you will give me a minute i

was named after my uncle who died on the day -- d day. her brother died in vietnam. i grew up in a military family. i have a son and a daughter in the navy and air force. i was a recipient of affirmative action. i'm 56 years old. -- 66 years old. i know if it was not for affirmative action, may not have been able to get into college despite the sacrifices my family made because of my color. my grandfather and my father were unable to have opportunities so i do appreciate the society to give us a chance to get into college. idea become a lawyer. -- i did become a lawyer.

i was too successful because a white lawyers were very upset at my successfulness. i guess it was jealousy but they took my license away because filing an application for mexicans for asylum, which is -- but in nebraska it was deemed not legal so they took my license away. it is a major problem because demographic change, everybody saying -- i do not know any spanish. a group as an american -- i grew up as an american. i only know english. host: the military times also highlights an aspect of the decision yesterday. military times right chief justice roberts wrote in footnote quote no military academy is a party to these cases however none of the courts

below address propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. this opinion also does not address the issue in light eventually distinct interests that military academies may present. petitioner's of students for fair admissions argued those cases when it comes to racial discrimination especially gives asian american applicants and it goes on from there but also talks more about how military institutions and conservative institutions. you can find more of that at military times.com. we go to diane in connecticut on the independent line. caller: hi. i went to yell law school for -- yale law school. i was the first black woman they ever hired in the law school to be secretary to the professor. i had to qualify -- more than qualified.

add to be better than those already there. i was told that. they hired me and i got promoted and i lasted 32 years. while i was there they only hired one more black pricing. -- black person. i hired her. i got promoted to supervisor and i hired her because she was black but she could not make it. --she lied to me and said she ws going to do something that she did not know how to do. i feel as though all black people who apply to colleges and universities should be qualified, not only that -- host: what makes you assume that they are not? caller: because when affirmative action price begin i remember a lot of black students that had applied universities did not make it. i read it. if you do not qualify and you admitted, how do you make it --

you make it is university? they do not make it. 500 blacks -- black students who did not make it in the university when affirmative action first began. i remember reading it. host: we continue on with your calls for the next 15 or so minutes. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. republicans, 202-748-8001. texas -- you can text us at 202-748-8003. james this is in chicago on democrats going. texas -- you can text us at 202-748-8003.caller: if all my s are higher than any of the applicants in college, do i still get in? one of them get dropped out geico -- get dropped out?

host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: everybody calling in saying it's only on your test scores only. at my test scores are higher, then the appellees why do i not -- then why do i not get in? host: ok. james in reaction to the decision from members of congress. cori bush saying put emily white's additions have thoroughly barred a black and brown people from assessing higher education. affirmative action continues to help in an even playing field. the decision to strike down another attack on our rights. we need court reform. representative saying students benefit when institutions reflect diversity of our country. rolling dismantles years of precedent and exacerbates obstacles to higher education for students of color ignoring

the realities of the need for equitable any good opportunities for all. the democratic minority leader of the house hakeem jeffries saying right-wing ideologues on supreme court got it reproductive freedom last year. the same is obliterated consideration of racial diversity in college admissions. clearly want to turn back the clock. we will never let that happen. senator blackburn from tennessee, primitive action forces college to put students in a box. discredit his hard work and backgrounds that countless applicants have and requires colleges to buy you one single characteristic.above others this is wrong and un-american. byron donalds from florida, will he is a mess win against left equity agenda that seeks to achieve equality through equal outcomes not equal access. it is clearly a time when affirmative action was needed to enter a showed in nation but that time is over. house speaker kevin mccarthy supreme court just wrote no american should be denied

education opportunities because of race. it is to be able to compete based on equal standards individual merit. this will make college admission process fairer and uphold equality under the law. there's a sampling of tweets from members of congress. let's hear from stephen in new york of independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i will be brief. i did not know how i feel about the decision. i think in an ideal world colorblind constitution is desirable i do not think we live in an ideal world and it is the affirmative action that provoke a move in the direction of more opportunity for minorities and they are getting. i want to say that i listen to the president remark that it is wrong to think this gets an unfair advantage to people who

are not qualified that people must meet the qualifications. for admission first before this criteria comes into play. if that is accurate then it will be naturally occurring that minorities would be represented overt discrimination. i'm a little confused with the situation. thank you again for c-span and i appreciate. host: howard in indiana on the independent line. caller: yes. i'm disappointed with the decision yesterday. i think i agree with ketanji brown jackson distant. it captures the essence of my frustration with this whole issue. we are never confront the

realities of the injustice that we still suffer from these and while affirmative action was not the purpose -- perfect it is certainly made an advance the idea of establishing justice for particular group, the sentence of the enslaved, particular group that by law was prohibited from going to school. other groups are not prohibited the same way black americans worry. this whole image -- affirmative action and other issue is a part of a broader intent to establish justice that our constitution requires. i think is a complicated decision. i'm still trying to digest all the bid. i'm of the immediate activities to be taken for all black and minority students come the need to capture in their written

summaries all of the about how discrimination and injustices have been impacted upon them and use it for a boilerplate for every application so we can go as far as we can and establish justice for the submission process. thank you for letting me comment. have a good day. host: chris in florida on the republican line. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i think it is important that people understand how we got affirmative action because it is created by richard nixon and it was initially an effort to keep companies that were applying for government contracts to have a racial tapped employee showed

the same rich diversity of the taxpayers that would give money from. it expanded into the other things. it is a shame that people do not know that richard nixon was one of the best civil rights presidents and gave native americans true bill ever had. host: your thoughts on yesterday's decision of the court? affirmative action programs in higher education. caller: i think we probably still need it. host: marie in silver spring, maryland an independent line. caller: good morning. i work in the college admissions office. i have a unique perspective. i am saddened by this because i feel that i hear your callers and most people are ignorant of the process. if you do not mind indulging me for a minute. my school can each take in 1000

students. will easily get 10,000 applications. f i'll look at test scores and grades, i can easily take in thousand students. in all fairness we should put their name as he had started drawing 1000 kids we need but we have to dwindle down to 1000 students. we start looking at letters of recommendation. we have students who have sats and 4.0 averages about the teachers do not recommend them. for our process it is when we get down to 2000 students with get a lot of things. let's say i have 500 kids went to major in business. i can only take 100 of them as a business department cannot handle that. i'm going to look at a raise? yes but one of the bigger things were going to look at a significant pay for tuition and students who cannot. how many athletes, regional places where they are coming from, we're going to want to take in international students,

but race as one factor and with eliminating affirmative action, you also need to limit a lot of other factors when it comes to admission in order to have a fair class but with him for as equality. -- but we're looking for as equality. host: as it private or public? caller: private. host: ok. ensure god. -- finish your thought. caller: race as one factor. every kid we admit, we assume is going to graduate. race is one factor but it is not a deciding factor. host: marie there from maryland. a collection of lawyers i spoke yesterday after the decision. lawyers that argued in defense of school admission programs as they currently stood up until yesterday. you can find the full advent at

our website but here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> it is made it harder if university is going to consider race as a plus factor, not just consider race allies experiences, universities -- racialized experiences, universities have always been extreme to consider those but what is universities want to consider race as a plus factor is estimated lot harder but it is not -- has made it harder but has not totally banned affirmative action. last summer when the court wants overall president, it knows how to overall precedent, and that linkage is not in justice roberts decision. we know opposition will continue to push forward is anti-civil rights agenda by suggesting all other areas from employment to k-12 admissions programs and the like all impacted but.that is not true

the decision. this -- -- systems to loose to but again he stands alone in that opinion. it majority opinion does not reach that far although it does do an incredible this service to the true intent meaningful intent behind equal protection clause. host: a lot of opinions yesterday stemming after the court decision and you can find them all at the website at c-span.org and our app at c-span now. cardella in savannah on the democrats line. caller: thank you for accepting my call. my think is concerning what about the idea of inclusion. i have heard a caller mentioned the fact that if it was not for affirmative action organizations out there it would not even consider african-americans at all. i thought this was a process

that included our people in everything so that our society and diverse from the grassroots all the way up to the highest office in the land. affirmative action makes the playing field equal. even in all white school, it is unfortunate for a small white child to never be able to share a classroom with a black or somebody different than themselves. if the purpose of colleges is to get an education, then why deny yourself the education of diversity? the education of sharing an experience with somebody. just because i'm sitting in a classroom does not meet outlining the topic that my professor is having for that day. some things i learned in college helped me to be a better human being. i do not think it is good for anyone race to have the institution to themselves in

u.s. if there is a threat against adversity or particular people feel when they look to the left or the right they no longer see themselves as the majority, i think this helps them to gain that leverage back. host: harvard university issued a statement after yesterday's ruling, they were part of the ones being heard saying we write today to reaffirm for them that deep and transformative teaching arng and research depend on community optimizing people -- comprisingeople of many backgrounds and lived experiences. it is as true as important as it was yesterday. harger -- harvard has defended and omission system that as fully complied with long-standing precedent -- drawi on the talent of our harbor community will determine how to preserve consistent with the court's new precedent are central values.

kyle in buffalo, new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. the real link yesterday i think really is not at the right time for this type of issue. a caller from maryland talked about inclusion which i think was the whole purpose of affirmative action to include a black people, especially in to america because there was huge amounts of discrimination. so to this day there is discrimination, not as bad but we're still talking about were you here the first black this, the first like that. when we can stop saying the first black person especially at high-level offices and different areas then i think we can start to discuss ending affirmative action but we as black people are still way behind statistically on every level and

now you just took a toll a way that could help black person who may come from disenfranchised area, did well in school, maybe i'm not the part to another district there may have tons of money to educate their children, but were not including anymore so i little scared in was going to happen down the road. it almost seems the supreme court is taking us back for different issues. i as a republican do not really -- it is tough because you should be based on american -- merit not caller but if you look at statistics is really not time for that type of -- host: ok. bernie in florida on independent line. caller: good morning. i have an issue with the lady

who called in from connecticut. did she ever take into account the number of whites who did not make it? her comments is really the reason for affirmative action. it shows something else that is going on. anyway i do think affirmative action should remain and not be rejected. that is my comment. host: to all of you who participated in this hour on the court's decision, thank you for doing so. we continue on talking about the decision with two people who follow we will be joined by jared bass and michael brickman on supreme -- to talk about what happens next in light of the decision on affirmative action. new economic data released may

show a better picture about where the economy is in the united states. we will talk about the new figures and the economy overall. that is coming up on "washington journal." >> in 1814, attorney and author francis scott key wrote a song that would go on to become the national anthem of the united states. sunday on q&a, meet the college professor who talks about his book about the cultural impact of the star-spangled banner. >> what might big insights or believes about the song is that it is a living document. it is not a frozen icon. it is something that is constantly changing and brought to life in performance by people

at jimi hendrix. every time we sing a song we elevate the questions and the tension and the crises and the hope that is in that song. >> with his book sunday night eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> sunday on in-depth, author and professor returns to talk and take calls about politics, international affairs, liberalism and more he is the author of the end of history and the last man. he has published several books since his last appearance. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets.

in-depth, live it sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. >> listened to c-span radio app just got easier. tell your smart speaker, plate c-span radio and listened to "washington journal daily. important congressional events throughout the day. catch washington to j for a past -- -- catch washington today for a fast-paced discussion. c-span, powered by cable. >> of the democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work and how a republic thrives. c-span, unfiltered, unbiased,

word for word from the nations capital to wherever you are. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal" continues. host: we will continue on a discussion looking at the supreme court decision regarding affirmative action practices at higher educations. joining us are center for american progress' jared bass and american enterprise institute's michael brickman . thanks for giving us your time. a snapshot of yesterday's decision. it tell us what you think of the decision and what it does. guest: essentially they were

looking at the policies at two institutions but it was not just about the university of north carolina or harvard but looking at the idea of affirmative action more broadly and they found the policies in place violated the constitution's equal protection clause and because there are a limited number of spots in each incoming class at this institution and many others, although what they were trying to do was well intentioned, you are essentially allotting spots to certain racial groups. a lot of evidence came out and the court ruled that it is discriminatory either way you

slice it, especially against asian american students and they ruled those policies unconstitutional. host: same question to you. guest: the supreme court decision that came down yesterday upended more than 40 years of jurisprudence surrounding this issue and established precedent back to the 1970's. so concerned about the ability of universities and they had a compelling issue to have a diverse student body. it is not really sure what it does other than strike down the

admissions policies and critical around affirmative action but not overturning some directly. there is a lot of ambiguity and a lot of back-and-forth for the justices. host: is there a sense of how universities determine how much raceways into a student's application and if they get accepted? guest: i think there are considerations for how universities have their admissions policies. one example is looking at the harvard and unc cases, they were effectively saying based on a series of categories we will assess a student's ability to join this school and they looked

at race and they looked at academic rigor and they would assign them a numerical value based on certain categories. i think different universities may do it differently but in this case unc and harvard is to point system to assess the merits of admission to the university. host: what happens now in late of the decision in particularly in determining future applicants to higher education institutions? guest: i think the institutions are trying to figure that out and reviewing the cases. there is an interest of having a diverse student population in the institutions might have to try a little harder. if they're just going to sit

back and see what they get for students and sit back and think about the racial composition, i think they will have different standards for different people based solely on the color of their skin, which is what the court took issue with. it is not to say he can't take a lot of different factors into account, with the court said essentially is there been cases over the years on this topic that the court has previously said these programs after not use space as a negative and that is not what these programs were. they seemed to go on indefinitely. personally fixing some of the underlying problems that the affirmative action programs were trying to correct.

we have to address the bigger societal issues and not just try to correct for everything in the college admissions process. host: what is the best way going about it now in light of the court's decision yesterday. what could they use? guest: they can look at a variety of factors and if an african has less financial means then a university can take that into account. if they have medical situations but they cannot use the skin color that is the point here. they should look at the broad picture of the individual not just say this person looks like

this therefore we are going to assume a lot of things about them. versa t is a positive across a lot of different ways and there are a lot of things the institutions can do to achieve that. they may just have to try harder and take a closer look at the actual individual who is applying and not just make assumptions based on their space other characteristics. host: mr. bass, same question to you. how do they develop the whole picture considering the decision made yesterday? guest: i don't think that the institutions were just basing on race. they were looking at the ssent.

universities will have a challenge parsing through the opinion because there is a lot of ambiguity. justice roberts talked about the program at the university of texas at austin limited and did not say it was invalid. a looked at military academies when they did not racial based policies there. there are alternatives but a lot of universities are thinking about looking at drawing from various zip codes in other factors.

there looking at having academic programs. if you graduated the top 10% you may get slot in one of these universities. texas has a different requirement for the university of texas around 2006 1 there were some policies reversed around affirmative action. the issue is that these programs, if you want to address race based qualities and inequality, the best way to do that looking at race. host: if you want to ask questions about the supreme court decision yesterday, the center for american progress'

jared bass and the american enterprise institute's michael bergman join us. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. even the president himself suggesting to colleges and universities about developing new standards. i want to play what he has to say and get your response to it. [video clip] pres. biden: college take in what the student has overcome in assessing all fight applicants. under this new standard, students first qualified applicants. they need a gpa and test scores to meet the schools standards. once that is met the university

should include back a financial means because we knew too few students from low income families are getting an opportunity to go to college. poor kid, who the first the family gets the same test scores as a wealthy kid whose families have gone to philippe colleges in the past has been easy where the kid who pays -- is less they show more grit. it means examining where the student drew up and went to high school. it means understanding the hardships each student has faced, including racial discrimination. host: those are the markers the president spoke about. what do you think about those and can they be incorporated into a selective process? guest: think adversity can

struggle are definitely things that should be considered. race has been an issue in a barrier to entry and also looking at low income students, the background and diversity air arson things colleges can consider. i think reliance on that -- and diversity around things colleges can consider. they will offer guidance to universities that they can operate under that is in line with the courts opinion. the work will still continue.

it may be harder because of the supreme court decision and there it is a commitment on the part of the administration of institutions to receive diversity. host: what about you? guest: there is a lot more agreement in the country on this issue then you may think. if you send it to what the president is saying it is similar to what justice thomas was saying. i agree with what jarrett said. there are a lot of ways to look at the sum total of an individual's experience and what they have had to overcome and that should be considered. there are a lot of things we can do to open more opportunities to more people.

it is not just have to be college admissions. there is a reason to go to college and certainly some of the elite schools are prestigious and are an honor to be accepted to but ultimately people want to use that as a way to develop leadership skills are ultimately to get a job after they graduate. there can be a lot of additional pathways to create opportunity for people across different classes and races and looking solely at college admissions as sort of an end when the students think of it as a means to an end is a challenge. i am encouraged to hear agreement from justices on the court, and president biden and a

lot of people that have commented, we can look at the individual's background and the challenges they overcame and other characteristics to find out are they the right fit for this institution and will they exceed here and do they deserve additional consideration turning the extra challenges they have overcome and that seems fair to most people in america. host: the next call is from john in new jersey. caller: for many years there used to be a tracking district. in some cases blacks were put in certain classes. the tracking systems discriminated against black

people. one official told me i would never read about before the raid average but i am dyslexic. i was able to go to college and transferred. those are some of my experience. they are dealing with uncle clarence who is a self hating black man. they are very racist group that are very much supporters. host: the point he was making about his opportunities growing up and experiences and optimally overcoming them to go to a university. go ahead. guest: in the beginning, i think

makes a point that if we are only looking at college admissions, we are ignoring everything that happens up until college admissions. there has been so much tension over the last 24 hours on this case. i wish it was a fraction of that attention paid to just last week news course came out for math and reading for students across the country and do in no small part to covid, the scores were abysmal, the lowest in decades. the achievement gaps between racial groups has grown. there is more and more evidence at many schools and colleges that prepare teachers to teach in the schools are not teaching reading in a way that the scientific evidence shows is appropriate. that is the setting up many students for failure.

before we talk about college admissions and try to correct for the challenges in the k-12 schools we have to go back and look at the fact that there are still gaps in reading and math and across-the-board the scores are nowhere near where they should be to prepare the next generation to go to college and get into the workforce and whatever we are expecting from our youth. a lot of the critics of the outcome of this case, i understand where they are coming from. most of them are well-intentioned and wanting to see more opportunity for more people and yet a lot of the same critics of the outcome of this case are also opponents of school choice and other policies that forgive students who are

struggling and come from low income backgrounds and allow them to go to the same stools -- schools well for your kids can attend. so if we are going to ignore how we teach reading and not give orchids the same opportunities when they are younger as wealthier kids, it is hard to expect a different outcome than the challenges we are seeing and the disparities we are seeing. host: mr. bass? guest: to the callers point there is a troubling history of consideration of race in this country. i think we can't ignore that. and this has played out in talking about how in light of the history of discrimination to

operate as if we are colorblind in that fixing the underlying issues of race is important. the problem is we have seen a decline in representation among black and hispanic students and american indian students and the opportunities afforded to people who attend those universities that is troubling and an issue. we can do both. we can also address race based disparities by also considering race. it prevents us the opportunity to address race based considerations. there is also a chilling effect when supreme court cases: out

were higher education institutions do not to be sued. or litigation has been threatened already. i think that produces outcomes where it is hard to see how race is considered. and also what happened by an application shared where they hide information about the candidate from their admissions counselors because they are worried about the environment we may be entering into considering affirmative action in the ruling yesterday. we should be strengthening and

addressing race based disparities in higher education. we can do both. we don't have to pick and choose. host: david from new jersey on the republican line. caller: my first point is what should be the focus is on the school district, new york city, chicago, baltimore, even medium sized cities who have not compared -- prepared these kids to go to any college for decades. the left never holds their own people accountable. these have been run by like people but the preparation is abysmal. they can't read and write. the public schools in chicago are worse now than they were 30 or 40 years ago, even though they have more funding. i would like to hear you

criticize the unions and other people who control these cities. in chicago there has not been on -- a republican mayor in 100 years so you cannot blame it on the people republicans. why are we always focused on just the super elite colleges. the left always talks about berkeley and ucla. the university of california system has many campuses and the overwhelming majority of students go there and they come out and do well and they have a state university system. so quit talking about berkeley and ucla and what happened there . we have to come to the grips that these kids are not being prepared. host: to his second point it was the university of california that changed its ways for

recruitment. guest: the eighth admissions with down and that is an issue they are trying to overcome and reach the same levels they had prior to the proposition ended affirmative action which improves the point. institutions do afforded good opportunities and that is what we are concerned. if you look at the makeups on the judges on the bench is and the law school they come from that is what we are concerned about. at this why the court has always withheld that racial diversity was a compelling interest for means of based based emissions

-- admissions. we should be concerned if we are relegating students and saying their opportunities at the lesser schools for you. i think preserving that and providing that diversity is the key. host: nine estates for their own initiatives have banned racial -- nine states have banned initiatives on using brace for admissions. guest: we can flip through k-12 and higher education. but the court is saying at the

individual and you can talk about the elite institutions. to get a few hundred african-american students each year and if they want to be nationally representative, they will not have a problem doing that. they will have to spend more time and look at the actual individual locations coming in. i do want to point out is that this does go beyond the elite educate -- institutions. there are a lot of ways we could be taking advantage of different pathways to get people from high school to the career they are looking for. it doesn't just have to be through traditional institutions . there are many great

institutions out there that people would love to attend and creating a fair admissions process is something we all should be striving for. i would love to see additional conversation about the fact that a lot of the jobs that required a degree maybe don't need to require a degree. let's look at maybe we would have a more diverse workforce if we weren't saying the single only pathway to be able to get this job is to go to one of these schools. you are baking in a lot of challenges when you get into the hiring process. the federal government has now removed college career requirements. a lot of employers in the private sector are doing the

same because i want to open more doors and want a more diverse workforce and want to ensure that there are a lot of paths people can take and some meat -- may be faster and more affordable than a traditional warrior pathway if you can learn on the job. as long as you can demonstrate you have the skills and abilities, i think you will end up with a much better situation and more genuinely reflective of the nation as a whole and is more fair in letting people show what they can do and not just background. host: all in new york, independent line. caller: first of all, my

understanding and it is great that c-span has these things online. my understanding is that the displacement of hispanic and black students at berkeley as well as white students also displaced was by asians which is what this case is about. the second thing is these are elitist exquisite institutions. exclusive is the positive of inclusivity. the remedies of a non-race-based remedies being suggested such as getting rid of legacy and other preferences that favor predominantly white people. these ashes is not what the universities want to do. this institutions seek students with elite backgrounds and that

means higher income backgrounds. as the crux. you have large numbers of people they want elite backgrounds and that is what they crave. the idea of substituting that with hitting large numbers of disadvantage people they like it for tokens but they don't want large numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. we should address that. host: what do think about this idea of legacy and elitist that the caller put in? guest: it is interesting that a lot of the institutions involved in this case were vocally

opposed to the decision yesterday and yet don't seem to be exploring their own admissions policies on things like legacy admissions. i think they should because they are not always aligning policies overall with merit. this is hopefully an opportunity not just to look at the one component the supreme court focused on but to look at the policies and make sure they are aligned with the merits of the individual. that is what they should be doing is trying to determine does this individual have the skills and abilities to meet qualifications. i think that is really what the country as a whole is pulling for. the country does want to correct for past wrong and polls show

this, but if it is just about things like race, there is a recent poll that came out, 70% opposed using race in admissions. and yet the same people went ask support things that are giving people a leg up based on prior background and challenges they have had to overcome. i think there is a way for these schools to get there in terms of having a diverse population but it does not have to be so explicit for school officials to say we are only going to look at this person's race. host: mr. bass? guest: i don't think is -- that is what they are doing. for over 40 years you can use

race as one of many factors. it is not just raise. it is academics, extracurriculars. but allowing race to be considered as seeing the whole person and after seeing the race. that is the case they have been making. and of until yesterday they were allowed under jurisprudence of the court. additionally there was a poll that was put out that said the majority of americans not want the supreme court to overturn affirmative action. and that is an important part here. on the issue admissions and legacy admissions and looking at test policies as a barrier to entry, all of those things are important but i don't inc. that

is the rationale for ending affirmative action. i think you can keep affirmative action and look at legacy and the totality of options for folks to get into a university. this is about reserving educational opportunity for black and round students and for the benefit of white students and other students as well. it is not just to the benefit of african-americans or hispanic americans but it is to the benefit of the whole student body to learn from each other and have cultural diversity. that is something that researchers found helps students in their lives when they are in leadership situations understanding various cultures. that is not to say other educational pathways aren't important but the institutions

should consider educational opportunities through for and apprenticeships. if anyone wants to go to college there is pathway. for the don't want to go to college to should be other pathways. but we should preserve racial equality and equity in both customs and once we do that i think we failed and we need to look at those. caller: i have two quick points for you. they are talking about affirmative action but when they started affirmative action we lost all of the lack schools.

went to white schools. the second thing is in america itself, its terrible and no one is learning. they should have sent that back to the states and make that decision for themselves. as far as jobs are concerned, they are not hiring college graduates. they've really done nothing. the black folks should be trying hard to compete. host: mr. bass, if you want to start. guest: the colleges and universities reflect educational discrimination in this country.

it comes out from being denied admissions to white institutions. so it is born out of the history of his termination. hbcus are alive and well today. the institutions will still continue and i imagine enrollment will go up at these institutions in light of yesterday's decision. it is also evidence of the problem. we cannot just look at making things fair in the fourth quarter without looking at the history. we also have to make sure we address the underlying circumstances and confront head-on the history of race in

america. we can't pretend we are colorblind and continue. we will do a disservice to ourselves. host: mr. brinkman? guest: hbcus, i agree with what jared said. i think there are a lot of ways -- we agree on a lot of this. it was good to hear you say what you did about the fact that some of these policies they should not be using quotas and they should not be doing some of the things the court was giving that were illegal before the case. justice gorsuch's opinion and

others said their work differences between the way they were characterizing their policies and that was evidence that there was an opinion that there were admissions officers saying his or great test scores and grades but they are from this race. that is the thing that is unfair to those students and often in those pate -- cases those work asians being discriminated against. i think it also, adding back to the discussion earlier, reflects a lack of going the extra mile on behalf of the institutions to look holistically at individuals. i think of a move beyond policies they have had in the past and look at the overall

totality of an individual's experience, it should include those things. if they look at those things and think they will end up in a place that makes for better policy and admissions practices and leaves everybody feeling it is a fair or just process. host: mr. bass, do you want to respond? guest: i think that we certainly agree when it comes to doing a holistic review of applicants. the departure is that holistic review should consider race and it won't anymore. race for money years was the standard for which universes were allowed to factor in. and there is a lot of ambiguity.

institutions will have to parse it out to see if it is just these institutions or if there are other systems where there is racial preference and i think that the -- those are the options are there should be a holistic review and now it seems the court is coming down and sing race can no longer be a part of that holistic review that is the problem. we have -- guest: we have talked in the past on issues where we agreed. maybe the only difference is just that race certainly can be considered if it is about an individual overcoming adversity they experienced because of their race and a lot of the

justice talk about that if they overcame racism, they should consider it. host: but hear from kathy in california, democrats lined. -- line. caller: i don't think affirmative action has benefited minorities very much anyway. i am looking at several articles from various publishing companies that state that white women benefit most from affirmative action. i would like to know why we are always talking about the racial portion of it and why we never talk about how white women have gotten further ahead than anyone else effective by affirmative action. thank you. host: can i expand that if i

make. does the court's decision on affirmative action when it comes to education, do you think it leads into other actions where affirmative action is applied? guest: we have to wait and see. there could be additional cases in the future. host: esther bass -- mr. bass? guest: very unclear. it is unclear what this holds outside of the confines of higher education admissions. gender-based affirmative action does not to be considered. host: want to ask both of you about another education based decision set to be made at the supreme court today taking a look at president biden's

student loan forgiveness debt program. what could the court do and how does it impact those who have paid for college russian mark -- college? mr. brinkman, your thoughts? guest: this is a situation where president biden campaign on the idea of forgiving student loans and ask the democratic-controlled congress when he took office to enact legislation to forgive at least $10,000 in debt for students. they decided not to do that and now -- so instead he used executive authority and said we

are going to forgive $10,000 for most students and $20,000 for those who received a pell grant. the cost of this is absolutely extraordinary, at least $300 billion is their own estimate but likely heading up towards trillion dollars in forgiving these loans. i certainly feel for the students who told these loans were going to be forgiven and now there is uncertainty. the court seems to be leaning towards not allowing this to go through because the president far exceeded his authority and in fact congress in recent weeks has on a bipartisan basis rejected the president's plan. the only problem is the president vetoed the bill that was passed by congress saying we don't have the authority to to

this. if you look at this from a basic civics lens, you have one branch of government, the executive that unit -- unilaterally enacted this with powers it didn't have. the legislative branch has rejected that on a bipartisan basis and now we are left with the supreme court and we are not sure the third branch of government will be able to weigh in on the merits where it seemed clear and oral arguments that there was a majority of justices that think with the president did was illegal, but there is the question of standing in the states and individual borrowers and students have the ability to bring this case legally and that will be the challenge to see if the technical threshold can be met and if there is a case that

can move forward. it seems striking that if the president can spend hundreds of billions of dollars without the authority to do so and neither of the other branches of government cannot stop him, it could open the door to a lot of other policies or supporters of the loan forgiveness. they like the loan forgiveness but not the door it would open to future policies where it a stroke of his pen he can spend hundreds of goods of dollars for purposes they may not like. host: send question about the president's plan for student loan forgiveness? guest: we will see the plan will be upheld. the court may strike it down.

we will see whether or not the plaintiffs will be able to satisfy standing requirements. i would say the president stated he does have the authority to enact the decision passed by congress on a bipartisan basis. it put the covid-19 and national emergency so it does fit the bill for use of the heroes act there. and that is the issue at question is the heroes act, the case presented to the solicitor general that the president did not exceed his authority. also using constitutional

authorities. i think that follows our civics lesson as well. host: looks or -- let's hear from alex on the independent line from california. caller: after two more decades of the current demographic change with hispanic culture becoming the dominant culture, the future supreme court will surely reinstate affirmative action. that leads to my question, would it be possible for the senate to ratify the european convention on newman rights so that we replace the supreme court on issues regarding civil rights so

that european american or asian americans can then appeal to the european court of human rights if the supreme court should reinstate affirmative action? guest: that is a little outside my expertise. i would have to read up more on that. what i would say is the law that the president is relying on the heroes act. the idea was to give flex ability for student borrowers, particularly those in nila terry families if there is suddenly a need to call on service members or another national emergency. congers was clearly thinking of terrorism and that moment. you could interpret that as covid was a national emergency but the president himself was

already saying it was nearly over and then said the emergency is over. at various times, president biden admitted they couldn't just give flexibility for borrowers unless there was ambiguity. congress explicitly said this is not what we meant and they passed a law to say so then president biden vetoed it. he spent hundreds of billions of dollars and congress is powerless to act unless they get a super majority of two thirds. by the constitution, the supreme court will get past the standing issue and way in and shed some

clear and reasonable limits on what the president is allowed to do. guest: there was a 30 on the books due to the heroes act. that was passed in 2003. but that was a different congress than now. also the effort failed into the constitution it provided for if there is possibility for an override and did not meet that threshold. i think we are following the constitution and it has been set for it. i would also say it clearly says in the heroes act that it covers

national emergencies and there are amicus briefs out there interpreting what the 2003 intent was. and you are saying that is not the intent and also members coming down and saying that was the intent. we have to take those issues with a grain of salt but it is not include national emergencies. that is what i think we will see decided later today hopefully is whether or not the president did -- whether or not the debt cancellation plan was in keeping with the law. host: gina, virginia, democrats line. caller: a concern right now is

the public department of education is being threatened, the budget is being threatened and i don't know how competitive that will make our students compared to other countries where there department of education is top and they are getting a good education. are our children going to be able to compete with international students'grades. a lot of these countries don't have any military budget at all because we defund them. host: we have talked a lot about the court's decision yesterday. final thoughts? guest: i think the overall point is we should be focusing on

opportunity. money is one way to get at that but we are spending sums on k-12 but this course are abysmal doing -- due to covid -- but the scores are abysmal due to covid shutdowns. a lot of attention is put on the court cases but we need to focus on areas of agreement and there are many, to provoke -- promote opportunity to make sure everyone has a path forward no matter their background. host: mr. bass, you that the last word. guest: through our legacy and expense with education and opportunity and preserving educational opportunity for all americans, including black and

brown americans in the opinion that came out yesterday was the potential opinion that might come out today into the debt and some of the burdens that black and brown students have in like of the decision yesterday. we have to recommit ourselves to work harder to address educational opportunity and educational equity in this country to make sure all students succeed regardless of their race. i agree we should be focusing on k-12. we may share a difference of opinion how that will continue after this program. we need to focus on higher education and the issues in front of us, really the blow to higher education admissions. we have to look at both systems

and areas to make sure we are preserving educational opportunity for all americans, including our black and brown students. host: jared bass and michael brickman. to both of you gentlemen, thanks for giving us your time today. guest: thank you. host: we will talk about the new economic figures yesterday and what they might mean for the stability and strength of the u.s. economy. victoria guida of politico joining us next when "washington journal" continues. ♪ ♪ >> book tv every sunday on

c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. live at noon eastern, professor ancis --author of in the history rernto book tv's in-depth to take pause about politics, inrnional affairs and liberalism. seven got p.m. eastern, journalist bethany brookshire explores human and animal relationships and what it means when we villain eyes certain animals with her book. find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. ♪ >> order your copy of the 118th congressional directory available at c-spanshop.org. it is or access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate amber and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, and state governors.

scan the code on the right to order your copy today or go to c-span shop.org. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. july marks the 100 60th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. saturday beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern, gettysburg college posts its -- six clock p.m. eastern that is bird battlefield guide and penn state university professor give insight on how weather impacted the battle. 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, historians lucas merrill and richard brooke heiser along with princeton's allen gal so re-examine the second edition of mr. gals owes 1999 book abraham lincoln, a

reflection of the 16th president over politics, religion and culture. exploring the american story. watch american history saturday onn2 and watch the program on c-span.org/history. ♪ >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: victoria guida covers

economics for politico enjoins us about the news of economics, particularly out of yesterday, we figuring of where the economy is. what happened yesterday? guest: the census bureau puts out information about how the economy is doing on gdp, which is a measure of the overall growth of the economy. it gets revised as they get more information. what we found out yesterday is the economy grew faster in the first quarter in the first three months of the year than we initially thought. it was a significant upward revision, originally 1.3 annualized rate which means if it grew at that rate for an entire year that is how much the economy would grow. it grew 2% annualized rate, .7%. increase this posters the idea that if we are headed into a recession, we are not there yet. host: that is the question. there was talk about it last year going into this year, does

it bolster the idea we are out of it or the potential for it? guest: it is a tricky question to answer. the federal reserve is still trying to fight inflation. they have raised rates high and are planning to hold them there, probably raise them a couple more times. even though the economy in of itself is still strong, the fed is trying to weaken it to bring down these price hikes. host: you have been on before and you say jerome powell looks at a lot of data to determine these hikes. i figure he weighs them into what the fed alternately does. guest: one of the things we saw yesterday is that consumer spending rose, one of the things that helps keep prices rising. if prices go up and people pay them, maybe it encourages businesses to raise them further. host: consumer spending was one, also exports. can you give anything to that? guest: exports jumped a lot

after they had gone down in a previous quarter, in the last quarter of 2022. that is an interesting sign about global growth, that has to do with the ability for spending abroad. it suggests there are still -- there is still demand abroad which bolsters prices. guest: our price about matters of the economy in light of these new figures if you want to ask her questions about the current state of it. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. jerome powell was in portugal yesterday, talked about the feds's 2% target and gave words of where the fed is at. i want to play what he had to say and get your thoughts. [video clip] >> i do not see us getting back to 2% this year or next year. ics making steady progress on

core inflation . core inflation, i do not see us getting to 2% this year or next year. the year after. >> core inflation, 2025, 2%. you are going to be restrictive for a long time. >> we will be restrictive as long as we need to be. if inflation is coming down sharply and we are confident it is on a path to 2%, that would be a different situation. you would begin to think about loosening policy. we are a long way away from that. host: those are comments from yesterday. put those into perspective for the average consumer. guest: first of all, the feds target is 2% inflation and that is measured by the personal consumption expenditures index, pce.

a lot of people pay attention to the consumer price index. pce tells us at -- inflation is at 2.8%. we are a little below twice what they feds target is. what he says there is that he broke down this idea that headline versus core inflation, to explain that a little bit, basically --headline inflation is all prices and core inflation strips out food and energy. food and energy prices are traded on commodity markets, they are more volatile than prices set by businesses. core inflation is often seen as a better gauge of the long-term trajectory of prices. one of the reasons why inflation has come down so much is because of food and energy. particularly, we have seen energy markets stabilize after the war in ukraine led to a significant price and energy.

we have seen goods prices also calm down as supply chains have east. what he was talking about there in terms of core prices being a little more stubborn, particularly in the service sector of the economy which is most of the economy, we are still seeing strong price increases and we have seen inflation come down a lot. it has come down by over half since it peaked last year. the fed basically thinks it is going to need to keep rates restrictive, which means at a rate that is slowing the economy for a while because they want to gradually bring it back down to 2%. he does not think it is going to happen this year or next. what they want to see is we are steadily making progress towards that goal and not staying where we are at. host: wise 2% the magic number? guest: [laughter] the answer is not really.

the reason why central banks settled on this number is they see it as a proxy where they think some level of inflation is good for the economy because if the fed -- the way the fed keeps inflation low is by raising rates. the concern is that if you try to keep inflation at 0%, that would lead -- you would restrict growth to much. you would restrict the labor market to much and you would run the risk of falling into deflation, which is when prices drop and that has implications for growth. 2% is this idea where it is a low level of inflation and hopefully, low enough that it is this low-grade price increase we do not notice much. but, it helps increase growth, is the thinking. there is no magic reason why it is 2%, that is what central bank have settled on. host: you talked about those new

inflation numbers today, the pce they are described as. what is it and why should people look at it or how should they look at it? guest: pce is a measure of inflation and the reason why the fed likes pce better than cpi is because there are some ways where it is viewed as a more accurate reflection of what people are actually paying for. for example, factors in the fact -- it factors in the fact if the price for some thing goes up, you might substitute something else. you might not pay the same price for that same good. you will buy something else. if car prices are too expensive, maybe you will ride a bicycle. it factors in things like employer. health care the reason people should care about it is the fed cares about it. when you are looking at the progress towards 2% inflation, that is the number they are closely watching.

of course they are watching all of the economic data. host: let's hear from georgian, illinois, republican line -- george in illinois, republican line. caller: good morning. i am an 83-year-old guy who because of my back has sat at home. i watch fox and all the stations and hear all the numbers. and every saturday, my wife goes shopping and she comes home with -- from the grocery store, the prices on the products, i might ask her about. we already know that gasoline started two years ago and it went way up. now, it is coming down from where it should have been maybe if we had a different president. my question is, when i look at things every week, my chocolate cake is not nine dollars anymore, it is $11. everything i pick up seems to be

two dollars higher than what it was if it has a price on it. i do not understand all these numbers people are throwing at us. i see this every week. what do people do, just grin and bear it? thanks so much. guest: inflation is not fun, as you said. we have had the highest inflation we have seen since the 1970's and 1980's. the is raising interest rates in an effort to try and prevent prices from rising as aggressively as they happen. -- as they have been. a lot of things have factored into why this is happening. i mentioned the supply chain issues earlier which, you will remember the pandemic and how it led to a situation where not only did you have factories shutting down, but you also had energy prices, biking which made

transportation works vincent. you had all these different things factoring into the supply chain issues aside. in the meantime, we had a lot of spending that will start government spending that bolstered people's ability to spend. that led to a situation where people were buying a lot of stuff and particularly good. that is one of the reason why we have seen prices of goods and come down -- goods come down. people are buying stuff, it has made it easier to ship things more cheaply. because the economy has reopened, people are spending more money on services because they can go out and do things. proportionately less of the money is being spent on goods. inflation is not fun. host: i read yesterday part of the consumer growth spending came from the increase in social security cost-of-living adjustments. is there anything to that as to

where the fisheries got their money and how they are spending it? guest: social security is tied directly to the cpi. there was a big jump in benefits. it is one of those things where we think about prices versus income, you ideally want income to be keeping pace with prices so people are keeping their heads above water. it doesn't lead to a tricky situation where if -- it doesn't lead to a tricky situation where if prices keep rising they can push each other up. in terms of the proportion of spending that is from social security benefits, i am guessing it is not that large. i do not know off the top of my head. you are seeing across the economy workers demanding their wages relatively keep pace with inflation. they want to keep their heads above water. we have the growth grow a lot.

because inflation has been coming down, particularly because of these food and energy prices coming down, we are seeing wages outpace inflation. earlier in the pandemic, it was only the lower income workers that were seeing their wages outpace price increases. very complicated picture there. host: you wrote a piece, low income workers scored in the covert economy. is that changing because we are post-pandemic? guest: as i mentioned, now we are getting to a place where inflation adjusted wages are above inflation for everybody. from 2020 to 2022, income equality dropped because we stopped low income workers and a lot of sectors like restaurants and hotels where at first they were -- there were shutdowns but when they opened back up, some people may be had decided they did not want to have that line

of work , maybe they did not want to put themselves in danger, maybe they had a different opportunity. they were able to advocate for higher wages. we -- i focus on the 10th percentile there. they saw their wages significantly outpace inflation, whereas the median worker, it was mostly a wash where prices and wages grew about the same rate and prices grew a little bit faster for those workers. for the higher earning workers, they saw their inflation-adjusted wages drop a lot. even though everybody was technically getting pay increases, it was a different story as opposed to whether prices were going faster for them. we saw an come in equality dropped during the pandemic. host: you can find that piece on politico.com. let's go to clyde in oklahoma, democrats line.

you are on, go ahead. caller: i was trying to figure out how come the last six days or more the oil has been on the market been down when they dropped? gas. guest: so, gas prices have been down. energy prices have come down significantly. it is below $80 a barrel now, whereas right after the war in ukraine started i think it peaked above $120. there is a lot of things that factor into that. a lot of the players have worked together to figure out how to stabilize the market. one of the things that is a contributor is, europe and the u.s. negotiated a price cap on russian oil. the idea was basically that they wanted to keep the russians

supplying oil to the global economy, so they needed to have it at a price where it was slightly above the cost of production, but not in a way they were overly helping fund the war in russia. people who are much more expert in energy markets then me wo uld have a better sense to the extent it is working. it does seem like oil prices have stabilized in a way that i think a lot of people were not sure what was going to be possible. geopolitical shocks are always possible, but for now, it does not seem like there is going to be anything that makes them jump significantly as the day to day fluctuations in gas prices. it is remarkable, the extent to which that market has stabilized. host: james in chicago, independent line.

caller: good morning, victoria and pedro. question for you, ignoring the covid years and the temporary benefits we saw, i want to ignore those for a second. would you agree that real wages and this poseable income have not significantly changed whatsoever in about 20 to 30 years? guest: it is a complicated picture, because -- or a very long time, wages had been really stagnant. right before the pandemic, if you remember, it was the longest expansion in u.s. history. that was partially because the economy was growing slow and steady, it was not skyrocketing up. eventually, we saw the economy gradually improve and saw unemployment dropped by the

trump years down below 4% and we were seeing healthy wage growth above inflation. it fluctuated a lot, but yes, i think in general, if you look at real wages which is inflation-adjusted wages, they have been pretty disappointing over the last several decades. one of the interesting things about this post-pandemic economy, the unemployment rate is very low and we also have had a ton of competition for lower income workers. it will be interesting to see whether that worker power is able to be sustained and lead to a significant change. that depends on inflation dropping. the more inflation drops, the more this level of wage growth stays in people's pockets. host: we saw the president traveled to chicago and talk about his bidenomics package.

the creation of 13 million jobs under this administration, can he take credit for these jobs and are there other factors working? guest: there are definitely other factors. we closed down the economy, right? not entirely, but significantly. you have had a bunch of places and businesses not open. when they reopened, you saw the economy adding those jobs back. one thing i think the biden administration would say there is a fair case for his that -- is that the rapidity of how much the economy has come back can be partially attributed to the fact they decided to spend more. there is a trade-off, because helping the economy grow more quickly also contributes to

inflation. it is a double-edged sword there. they learned a lesson from after the 2008 financial crisis when the obama administration was focused on deficit reduction and spending within their means. that is one of the reasons that people think the economy grew disappointingly for so many years. there is a very interesting policy question there of, is it better to recover more quickly, have less scarring of the labor market and the economy in order to get back to where we were more quickly but also have more inflation as a side effect? or, do slow and steady and take many years before people get to where they were? host: let's hear from ingrid in

florida, democrats line. caller: good morning to both of you. victoria, maybe you can give us an estimate on a scale of one to 10 on inflation how much the iraq and afghanistan war and the tax breaks the republican presidents have dished out and have not been paid for. how much does that add to inflation, please? guest: the iraq and afghanistan wars were older wars. what we were spending the most on those wars, we did not have significantly high inflation. one of the things that contributes to inflation in terms of government spending is deficit spending. we have seen over the years rising deficits, and part of

that is military spending, part of that is tax cuts. it happened when it happened for a reason, and it was because of all of the -- well. as i mentioned earlier, it was a combination of things. it was the pandemic and economy related factors and the aid intended to help get the economy out of that funk. there were pros and cons to that. there is a argument around the extent to which increased corporate profits, which probably is at least partially attributable to a lower tax rate, the extent to which that is a driver of inflation. i think the immediate factors that led to inflation are more of a pandemic era story.

host: brian is in washington state, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, "washington journal." victoria, a couple things i would like you to comment on. one, jamie dimon's comment a while back on what a predicament we are all going to be in on the price of gas. can you remind the viewers of the outlandish claims jamie dimon made previously, which are not close to being a fact, and why the supreme court is going to rule in favor of wall street's investment into the student loan as a commodity, instead of being realistic about having education affordable for everybody on a level playing field. i am listening anxiously. guest: i am not sure specifically which comments by jamie dimon you're referring to.

i know there were some comments he made last year about how their was bad times ahead coming for the economy, i think the term he used was a hurricane. this is reflective of how much up and down the predictions about what is going to happen to the economy have been. when you listen to economic commentary month by month, it is like, we are probably going to have a recession, maybe we are not going to have a recession. you can point to a lot of comments that have been made by financial economist type people that have not worn out. certainly, that is one of them. as to the student loan, i think that decision is due out today. we will have to see how the supreme court rules on whether

president biden has the ability to forgive those payments. regardless, it is going to have an impact on the economy that later this year, those student loan borrowers are going to have to resume those payments and that is something that could eat into a lot of these nice savings people have built up during the pandemic. that could be a drag on the economy. host: we have heard a lot about big banks over the last few months. yesterday, information coming out when it comes to banks and how it looks at commercial real estate and potentially if that started the drop rapidly. can you tell us what the fed said? guest: every year -- the fed regulates things and every year the fed conducts tests where they look at hypothetical, severe recessions that have particular characteristics that change year to year. they look at how the big banks would do. one of the things they had in

their hypothetical scenario was a commercial real estate prices dropping significantly, which is not a forecast by them, but something that is on policymakers minds, particularly because downtown office spaces in many cities are not doing very well. host: people are working from home these days. guest: exactly. basically, what we saw is that they would be fine. they would be able to weather that. one thing i will say is, a lot of the commercial real estate loans held by banks are held by smaller banks. regulators have been working with those banks to make sure they are doing what they need to do and ensure they are insulated against that. host: you can find that and more of the work of victoria guida on politico.com. thanks for your time. we will spend the last half hour

in open forum if you want to comment on things you have heard during the course of the show or other things. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> ♪ in 1814, francis scott key wrote a song that would go on to become the national anthem of the united states. sunday on q and a, american culture professor mark flaig discusses his book oh say can you hear about the history and cultural impact of the star-spangled banner. [video clip] >> one of my big insights or at least beliefs about the song is it is a living document. it is not a frozen icon. it is not something that is static,, it is constantly changing alive and brought to

life and performance by people like jimi hendrix. every time we sing the song we elevate the questions and the tension and the crisis and the hope that is in that song a new. >> mark calabria this book, oh say can you hear? sunday night at 8:00 he spurned -- eastern on q and a. ♪ ♪ >> the c-span bookshop podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to podcasts so you can discover new authors and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing current events and culture. about books, afterwards, book notes plus and q and a, listen

to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find our podcasts on the free c-span now apple or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website c-span.com/podcasts. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: c-span cameras outside of the supreme court, a busy day yesterday, a busy day pending

today as to decisions come down. some of the things happening as you see what with his going on, there is a man outside dressed as a bible with a sign, use me not for your bigotry. that is one of the things you are seeing is the court finishes up its current docket of cases and giving opinions yesterday. affirmative action and higher institution places, you can comment on that in this open forum. two other cases to be heard and opinions given by the court today, the first politico rights is biden versus nebraska in which six state generals argues the student loan policy separates the -- new power student loan borrowers who do not qualify for relief are suing to vacate the program. still pending is a case brought by a colorado web designer who

argues she has the first amendment right to refuse to design same-sex wedding websites despite a law that bars businesses from discriminating against lgbtq people. you can comment on those things. if you are interested in hearing oral arguments for some of these cases, go to our website as audio is released of these cases , we process them and give you the ability to hear some arguments. you can see that at c-span.org. open forum until 10:00. otis in detroit, good morning. caller: my name is otis and i live in the southwest part of detroit. the community is called african town --the largest area primarily in detroit for the history of detroit, very small black community.

i am a vietnam war veteran. i worked at the -- i was elected official, working at wayne county commissioner. i think affirmative action, i feel the courts made the wrong decision. when everyone look at, bring up that biden picked a black woman to be a supreme court justice, most people, even some democrats, and republicans do not say that. ronald reagan picked a woman and you assume it was going to be white because back then there was only judge marshall. they were always going to be white, i do not care if it was italian and white, if it was polish it was white.

there thing was, first of all, biden said woman. he only added one word, black. you do not have to say white when you know it is white. host: john is next in connecticut. republican line. caller: i wanted to speak to the economist a little bit and clarify the definition of inflation. people talked about wars, oil prices, etc. none of that causes inflation. the only cause of inflation is one place, that is going to be the federal government increasing the money supply. that is what happened through the covid money being given out and more money in people's pockets, more money in circulation reduces the purchasing power of each dollar. i would like the economist to clarify inflation. it is not some ethereal thing that happens. the only place and cause it can

be generated from is the federal government increasing the money supply. they turn around and say, the only way to stop it is to increase interest rates to cool off the economy. whereas, they were the ones that caused it. decrease the money supply and you will drive down inflation. host: our guest we just had previously has finished up her segment and is out. you can watch it on our website at c-span.org. we are watching the supreme court today at 10:00, that is when decisions usually come down. some decisions i told you about will come down today. we already see crowds gathering at the court, carrying various signs depending on positions they are taking. let's hear from conrad in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: i am -- my failing health. there is something i would like before knowing to the grave and beyond.

why do you people keep repeating ad nausea him 202-748 with every number? host: we only do those two benefit those who may come onto the program and are not familiar. we do get people who watch and one them to know what numbers best represent them. people call in on the wrong lines sometimes. we pick the numbers we do and ask people to best pick the number that represents them. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. dan in new jersey, republican line. caller: i am very worried about how people are reacting to the supreme court decision, race

quotas, race entry value into colleges. i think optimistically, by no longer allowing race to be a special factor in entering college, we can now stop to look at why -- was needed, the parsley of education provided at lower levels. perhaps the public schools are state run. we could look to the state for its responsibility for the quality of education for the way schools are run and the way state colleges and state universities, which have to come up with a system that allows all citizens to get a college education one way or another because all citizens are paying for it. to focus this way on a place like harvard -- as if there is something special about -- is a

way of denying people education that they need. host: that is dan in new jersey talking about reaction to yesterday's decision on affirmative action, one of the people responding to that action was president biden who gave several comments on it at the white house yesterday. [video clip] >> when i propose consideration is a new standard, for college takes into account the adversity student has overcome when selecting among qualified can't -- qualified applicants. students first have to be qualified applicants. they need a gpa and test scores to meet the school standards. once that test is met, adversity should be considered, and that includes student flakka financial needs. too few students of low income families whether in big cities or rural comet -- rural communities get the opportunity to go to college. maybe a poor kid, the first kid

to go to college and a family gets the same test scores as -- his path has been easier. the kid who faced tougher challenges has demonstrated more great and determination and that should be a factor. colleges should take into account in admissions and many still do. where a student group and went to high school means understanding the particular hardships each individual student has faced in life, including racial discrimination. the court says "nothing in this opinion should be construed as per happening universities from considering an applications discussion on how race has affected his or her life, but be it through discrimination or inspiration or otherwise." the truth is, discrimination still exists in america.

discrimination still exists in america. discrimination still exists in america. today's decision does not change that. it is a simple fact. if a student had to overcome adversity on their path to education, a college should recognize and value that. host: president biden from yesterday. find that full comment on our website, c-span.org. that is the shot of the supreme court as decisions have yet to come down in about 18 minutes from now. rachel in forney, texas, independent line. caller: -- credit for obama's economy and as far as prices, that is corporation greed. they have admitted to that. when president trump ran for office, when he came out and said i can send somebody to knock the hell out of that

person i will pay for their lawyers, they said he is not like any other politician. when he come out and said he grabbed somebody on that access hollywood tape, that was locker room talk. now, he made fake, electoral votes, and that has been proven. now, what they say? they are all corrupt. he -- a month ago, he was charged with sexual assault and paid $5 million. i do not understand how people can still stand by this man. host: that is rachel in forney, texas. the wall street journal reports the united states is -- has been considering approving a long-range missile system for ukraine. the army tactical missile system has a range of about 190 miles to offer ukrainian forces to hit russian forces behind lines.

amid the domestic turmoil in russia, european officials indicated now might be the time to provide the weaponry. a senior ukraine defense official reported kyiv had positive insight in weeks. irene illinois on this open forum. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am calling in about affirmative action. i am 72 years old and i went through school with affirmative action. this misconception that these people are not qualified, what they do is take the top students in their classes and maybe, they could have a hired gpa than anyone else. maybe the act score was lower than that.

they look at all of that when they admit --for affirmative action, they do not just accept anybody into their colleges. if you do not graduate, that is not a yes to college. when you get into school, there is no affirmative action class when you are taking the same classes everyone else. it is only giving you access. at the time back in the 1970's, diversity -- host: that is irene talking about that affirmative action case at the supreme court yesterday, one of the groups that brought the cases held a

press conference about the decision. the group's who spearheaded the effort gave comments on the court's decision from yesterday. [video clip] >> the opinion issued today by the united states supreme court marks the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind, legal covenant that binds together our multiracial, multiethnic ration. the polarizing, stigmatizing and unpaired jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a students race and ethnicity as a factor to either admit them or reject them has been overruled. these discriminatory admissions practices undermined the integrity of our civil rights laws, ending racial preferences

in college admissions is an outcome that the vast majority of all americans of all races will celebrate. a university does not have real diversity when it simply assembles students who look different, but come from similar backgrounds and talk and act and think alike. moreover, these opinions reestablish the founding principles of the 1964 civil rights act, which clearly forbids treating americans differently by race. let me quote, at the signing ceremony of the act on july the second, 1964, president lyndon johnson made these remarks. "the purpose of the law is simple. it does not restrict the freedom of any american as long as he

respects the rights of others. it does not give special treatment to any citizen. i am going to read that again. it does not give special treatment to any citizen. it does say, the only limit to a man's hope for happiness and for the future of his children shall be his own ability. beginning today, america's colleges and universities have a legal and moral obligation to strictly abide by the supreme court's opinion. these obligations compel the removal of all racial and ethnic classification boxes from undergraduate and postgraduate application forums. host: those events and more available at our website and our app. virginia, independent line. caller: maybe this affirmative

action ruling will eliminate racist colleges such as all black colleges, and end the discrimination of gender discrimination of all women's colleges, too. and such organizations such as the dub you ao, women's advancement organizations and the naacp. host: columbus, georgia. democrats line. caller: hello? host:.you are on caller: i just wanted to say that everything going on right now is stemming from race. all the rulings, basically boiling down to race. the biggest thing going on right now as far as the racist people is people like sean hannity.

he is ahead of donald trump. he has this every night on his show and this is causing all of this. we wouldn't be like this if we didn't just have regular republicans. we cannot have a conversation with people without being so blatantly racist, it is awful. host: the new york times highlights the efforts of the coke brothers. you have probably heard about in political circles, things their network to raise $70 million to push back against candace the effort of donald trump, saying with some of this large sum to start the network americans for prosperity plans to throw its way into the presidential nominating contest for the first time in nearly 20 year history, the network spent nearly 500 million dollars supporting republican candidates and conservative policy or the 2020 election cycle alone.

the two groups affiliated with coke -mr. coke is a major shareholder and coke industries which contributes millions to the americans prosperity action. the federal election commission filing another to $1 million -- let's hear from catherine in michigan, republican line. caller: good morning. i think the affirmative action right now is good. because, when it first started, i was in college in the 1970's. i won a scholarship. i can remember my advisor telling someone who was black that was coming out of her office --remember, you have to maintain a d average to maintain

your scholarship. i went in and she was talking to me, you have to maintain a two point. a c average. i said, you just told that person that walked out that they had to maintain a d average. that is a one point. she said, yeah. i said, how can that be? she said, we have to lower our standards for blacks. so they can get into colleges. i said to her, i was sitting there and i was getting upset and mad. i said, if i were a black person, that would be a slap in the face. that you have to lower your standards for them. i do not know if most people know that, that when that affirmative action started, the colleges had to lower their standards to get in minorities. host: robert in michigan, independent line. caller: hello, how are you? host: i am well, thank you.

caller: as far as affirmative action goes, i kind of agree with the lady that was before us. and the fact that it is not so much race as it is poverty when it comes to our education and those advances. the -- will adjust the grade point average for children who have a harder time learning so they can graduate. so when you go to take your test down the road, sometimes it is a little harder to complete those acts or whatnot. as far as the military side with the ukraine and the tactical use, i do not know if i agree with that. if we allow an extended range weapon, we are looking at attacks further into russia from

ukraine, or the possibility of that could escalate more into something more than we really want. when we take the patriot system over there to protect ukraine, this is something the attack comes in with offensive weapons. host: ok. robert in michigan. hunter biden gaining another round of interest from house republicans, this is the washington post this morning saying the letter to the justice department obtained by the washington post includes a request from nine doj and two fbi officials to face questions over the investigation into president biden son, the request comes after two irs agents who supervised the investigation told lawmakers on capitol hill justice department officials stymied the investigation into hunter biden's finances. it goes on to say among officials included in the letter is david weiss, delaware u.s.

attorney oversaw the case along with former president trump. one of the irs agents involved in the investigation into hunter biden, gary shapley, argue testimony that weiss had -- into biden. this is leanne, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i am two generations from slavery. i am a product of affirmative action. i went to a private, catholic university, the university of detroit. my acts -- sat scores were not the best. i am thinking just because of those scores, if i was not allowed to go to school, i would not be a teacher today. i do not think colleges lowered the standard, they gave others the opportunity who just probably did not live in an area with the best schools.

i came from a middle-class neighborhood where our schools were not the best in detroit. that does not mean they lower -- i disagree with the young lady who said they lowered the standards. what they did was give people opportunity, not looking at black-and-white on paper,.but the person you have got to invest in the person. as a teacher, i do not lower the standards. my sixth graders from last year can tell you about world war i, world war ii. i did not lower my standards just because i am at a title i school. host: jim is in indiana, independent line. caller: with regard to the clip you just showed a few minutes ago of president biden, he said a poor person should be allowed to enter harvard. realistically, those two things do not go together. if you are coming from a situation of limited means,

trying to go into harvard, even if you have the grades puts you in such a situation where you are competing against very high standards, number. one number two, when you are poor, the debt that you incur is overwhelming, yes, you wind up with a harvard. education and perhaps a job but, what you saddle you self -- yourself with coming from the background you do is challenging from that point on. you also had the pictures of people waving signs in front of the supreme court, saying student debt relief is legal. all of that is tied together. i think people are viewing those two rulings by the supreme court as separate. the whole thing is interconnected. a person who comes from a poor background, if they are

realistic about their situation, perhaps like the woman suggested from detroit going to that catholic school, is, you are better situated if your schools were not good as others to find a college perhaps close to home that is state-funded that does allow you to get an education but does not put you in crippling student debt. host: let's hear from andrew in florida, democrats line. caller: hi. i wanted to go back to affirmative action. i think that is the general topic, right? the problem seems to be that people think that somebody is getting preferential treatment because of the color of their skin, but that is not the case. the problem is, the people that

should get affirmative action work scrim and aided against officially -- were discriminated against officially during slavery and afterwards. we owe it as a nation to give them affirmative action, so that they can come back and come to the general public. i do not know. host: the topic when it comes to racial equity and policy. the discussion also involving human right will be strategic. it is the one year anniversary since creation of president biden office for racial and equity justice. you can see that on c-span now, our app, or on c-span.org. and we have the decisions coming

down from the supreme court. that is it for our program today. another addition of washington journal comes your way at seven october -- at 7:00 tomorrow morning. have a good day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: announcer: celebrate independence day during our july 4 sale going on at c-span shop.org. save 75% on all c-span red, white, and blue auto x. every purchase supports our nonprofit operations.

scan on the right to shop the july 4 sale. as c-spanshop.org. announcer: a discussion with the nations highest military officer, general mark milley, he will talk about democracy and strategy. at 3:00, human rights and race discussion on u.s. foreign policy hosted by the center for strategic and international stories marking the one-year anniversary of the creation of resident biden special office for racial and equity injustice. watch the live coverage here on c-span online at c-span.org or on c-span now our free mobile app. announcer: former vice president and 2024 presidential candidate mike pence reedley visited ukraine and met with ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy. he was traveling with a