kristen: hi there. you are watching getting answers, live on abc seven. everyday we talk with experts on issues important to the bay area and get answers in real time. any mitten -- any minute now, we are expecting an update on the attack on paul pelosi at their san francisco home. federal charges were filed this afternoon against the suspect. now, the san francisco das office is set to hold a news conference any moment and we will bring that to you live. first, a primitive action and colored -- in college admissions. that is the -- the supreme court

heard today as they consider lawsuits against harvard and the university of north carolina. the ruling could have implications for california universities. joining us live is stanford associate professor of education anthony lysing antonio and stanford phd candidate sonja gable. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. kristen: these questions are for either one of you. harvard and unc are elite universities. one private, one public. both use race as one factor in making admissions decisions. what is the argument being presented today? >> the argument on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the use of race in any form in college admissions is unconstitutional. what they seek to do is reverse previous cases that said the use of race as one factor in

admissions is constitutionally permissible. it is permissible because race contributes to building a diverse student body. there is a mountain of research on the benefits of a diverse student body on all students, particularly white students. kristen: this student has come up that the high court several times but never with a 6-3 conservative majority. based on the justice's questions today, how do they seem to feel? >> i will take a stab at that. they have clearly exhibited the political leanings that we expect from them. there are a lot of questions, surprisingly not about the primary compelling interest, not to the benefits of racial diversity. they seem to focus on the use of race at all, and the way it can

be strictly tailored in an admissions process. i think there was not a whole lot of deep understanding about what holistic admissions really looks like. my colleague has been an admissions officer and can really speak to how race is involved in these decisions. kristen: maybe you can talk about that. for those of us outside those admissions offices, we know that race is used, where permissible, but how big a factor, or small, is that? how does holistic admissions work? what does it mean? >> that is a great question and it is central to the problem posed before the court. it suffers from a number of misconceptions. centrally being that there is a quota system, or that there are a certain number of points assigned to students from underrepresented backgrounds.

that is not the case. holistic review values a number of things. officers are concerned with meeting a number of different priorities when creating a class. racial diversity is one aspect, one institutional priority under consideration. i say we as admission officers, but we are thinking about making sure varsity athletics are fulfilled. they are making sure that they are bringing in students from all 50 states and are sufficiently international. race is not the only consideration during processes of holistic review and certainly not quantified in a way that a lot of people assume. kristen: let me ask, there are people who point out issues with admitting based on things such as legacy, if your parents went to the university come if you are an athlete.

waiters this fall in the debate on fairness? i know it falls a little out of the scope, but not for a lot of people. >> i will extend the same thread . a lot of times people say, is it fair to consider race? really what they are saying is, is it fair to consider the race of nonwhite students? the selective college admissions process already considers race in a much more implicit way but it is inscribed into the process. when schools allow for early decision processes when admission rates are higher and where wealthy predominantly white families are able to engage in those processes because they are not waiting for financial aid. when they prioritize athletics, that disproportionately recruit white students, those are ways in which whiteness is inscribed into the college admissions process.

the idea of asking whether or not it is fair to consider race is papering over an assumption of whiteness already embedded into the process. kristen: it is important to point out that no racial group feels the same way about everything. no group is monolithic. a study showed that 70% of asian americans support affirmative action in college admissions. but in the harvard case, the plaintiffs argue the bar is set on fairly high for asian american applicants, higher than other groups. does data on test scores, subjective scores, validate or refute that in any way? >> when you look at the expert testimony, and we are doing testimonies for harvard and s ffa, there is not great evidence there that there is discrimination against asian americans in the process.

it is a holistic process, a lot of factors are taken into account for admission. race is just one of them. i do not think the alleged bias in the admissions process against asian americans in the harvard case has anything to do with affirmative action. affirmative action is about thinking about plus factors. the same way we mate -- we might think about plus factors for special talents or geography. what's the court found was that in this process of evaluating a personal quality, that there was potentially some discrimination there. but, the court found there was not. they are disconnected in this case. kristen: i want to ask what is the upshot for those of us in california? we have a lot of factors going on. we have prop 209 which disallowed the use of race for public institutions, but it is still used in private schools

such as stanford and usc. depending on how they rule and what argument they hang their ruling on mattel us how that might affect us in california. >> what i am most interested in is the -- whatever the ruling says about the autonomy of educational institutions to, run there is -- run their interest to she as they see fit. all of the previous supreme court decisions acknowledge that universities, as experts in education, can run their universities as they see fit, including policies around admissions. they just say that with regard to race it needs to be tate -- depending on how they make this ruling, they could push back against that autonomy and that is what i would be worried about most.

the admissions process takes into account a lot of different priorities and goals for the university to curb the authority to do as they wish i think would be catastrophic. kristen: if this conservative majority rules in the way that analysts expect and if affirmative action is struck down in college admissions, what can universities do to preserve diversity, or even grow diversity? i wonder if we could look to the uc example after prop 209 got rid of affirmative action, how successful it has been or not in maintaining diversity of backgrounds including race. >> to say something quickly, after proposition 209, uc put a lot of resources into

recruitment and had a hard time bringing the racial diversity numbers back to pre-to a nine levels. it is going to take more than just heavy recruitment. it is going to take investment and development of educational pipelines to higher ed with the schools and communities that are most feeling the effects of racial and economic kristen: are there things universities should be doing right now to prepare for that possibility? how might they be able to preserve diversity should that happen? >> sonya? >> i would build off of what anthony was offering. some of the strategies that the university of california have employed is about raiding a more diverse applicant pool. if students from underrepresented backgrounds do not apply, they cannot be admitted. that is one avenue in which universities can at least try to

include diversity or increase diversity of their applicant pool. without being able to intentionally consider race in the way race conscious admissions currently allow for, universities are in a difficult position in terms of trying to maintain the diversity that they have been able to support at this point. there has been prior research about trying to run lotteries. set a threshold, then any applicant that meets the threshold is inducted into a lottery pool. results have shown that even when you run a lottery type admissions, racial diversity falls considerably when compared to race conscious admissions. kristen: thank you both very much. professor antonio and sonya for your insight today. i appreciate the conversation. in the meantime, we want to take

you to that san francisco district attorney news conference about the attack on paul pelosi. >> we are praying for a speedy recovery on his part. i want to start by thanking the san francisco police department for their immediate and swift investigation. i am here today to formally announce charges against mr. david depape in connection with a violent attack on mr. pelosi. the charges we are filing today include attempted murder, residential burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, false imprisonment of an elder, threats to a public official and their family. these charges are based on the following facts. many of which are contained in the federal affidavit that was filed today and will be contained in the motion to detain mr. depape that we will file tomorrow. mr. depape specifically targeted

the pelosi home to confront speaker pelosi. he forced his way into the home through a rear glass door by breaking the glass. the defendant made his way upstairs to the second floor of the home, locating mr. pelosi in his bed sleeping. he woke him up, confronting him about the whereabouts of speaker pelosi. mr. pelosi, who was sleeping, was wearing a loosefitting pajama short -- pajama shirt and boxer shorts. he was forced to get out of bed. at some point, mr. pelosi attempted to access the elevator in the home that has a bone. the defendant blocked mr. pelosi's access to the elevator. at some point after, mr. pelosi asked to go to the bathroom, which is where he was able to call 911 from his cell phone.

the defendant, realizing mr. pelosi had called 911, took esther pelosi downstairs near the front door of the residence. two police officers arrived at the front door, two minutes after the 911 call. when the door was opened, the defendant was holding his hammer , which mr. pelosi appeared to be attempting to control by holding a portion of that hammer. the defendant pulled the hammer away from mr. pelosi and violently struck him on top of his head. the police then immediately apprehended the defendant. we have also learned that the defendant brought to the location a second hammer, zip ties, rope and a roll of tape. what is clear based on the evidence we have thus far is

that this house and the speaker herself were specific targets of the defendant. as for next steps, the defendant is expected to be arraigned tomorrow afternoon. my office will be filing a motion to detain him without bail, based on what is obvious and severe public safety risks the defendant poses to san francisco, as well as the outer community. violence has no place in this city. we will work vigorously to hold the defendant accountable. one last thing, as leaders and citizens, it is incumbent upon us all to watch the words we say and to turn down the volume of our political rhetoric. we should be able to all engage

in passionate political discourse, but remain respectful of one another. violence has no place in san francisco or in politics. thank you. >> and now we will open up for some questions. slow down. i would like to keep this orderly because i want to make sure we are able to get through without free-for-all. >> thank you for this. who opened the door for the police officers? how many times was he struck? >> at this time, it is not clear which of the men opened the door. we are still flashing out how many times he was struck. >> i am wondering how an individual was able to access the home of someone so dominant. was there next so prominent.

was there security there? >> i can't tell you there was no security present and he was able to break the window to a glass door. >> did the defendant have prior contact with law enforcement? prior arrests? >> all of that will come out in court tomorrow. >> we are trying to do this orderly. >> if you could let us know how this investigation is going to work in conjunction with or what operation with federal authorities. >> what i will say is that thus far both san francisco police department as well as the federal bureau of investigations have been simultaneously cooperating well. we have been in touch with the u.s. attorney's office. these will be parallel prosecutions and we will make sure both move forward

successfully. >> given the intense national focus on this case and some of the theories that are already out there, how important is it for your office to paint a clear picture including the evident political motivation? >>t is pamount that the nground.certainly not in a mannt is further traumatizing the family that has been traumatized enough. >> could you cover some of the things that police found in the interview with mr. depape in terms of his attempt to go after the speaker and what his plans were for her? >> i have covered as much as we are going to cover today. more facts will be covered in our motion to detain that we will file tomorrow in court. >> can you talk a little about his current state?

our understanding is that he is still being held in general hospital. >> i am not aware of where he is currently. he has been booked on charges. we expect him to be in court tomorrow. >> [indiscernible] when wills -- when will we see the bodycam footage? >> when it is made available iwie publ? >> is play in a court proceeding, it will be public. >> some details on federal charges today talked about finding a journal on the scene that he had brought, saying he wanted to use nancy pelosi to >> we are not revealing any other details at this time.

this investigation is still ongoing. what we have offered is what we believe the relevant facts are. >> does he have legal representation yet? if so, who? >> we will find out whether he has representation tomorrow at the arraignment. >> can you definitively say this was politically motivated? >> yes. based on his statements and comments made during the encounter, this was politically motivated. >> was it an assassination attempt? >> he was looking for the speaker at the time he entered the home. the federal affidavit contains more information about other motivations he has expressed. he certainly did enact what we believe is an attempt to murder her husband. >> are there plans to increase

security around the pelosi house or any other prominent -- >> we are working with capitol police. as of now, san francisco police are assisting with security. we will do whatever necessary and sort out whatever we need to sort out in terms of what happens long-term. right now, we need to make sure people feel safe. this has shaken a lot of people. we want to make sure we do what we can. we are working with capitol police on that and then -- there is a san francisco police department presence right now. >> keep>> this orderly, guys. one follow-up, then ap, then back to you. >> can you speak to how the responding officers are doing?

you mentioned this was an event that would shake people. >> they are on a day off getting rest. officers unfortunately are exposed to this type of thing day in and day out, throughout their careers. it is traumatic for us as well, but the officers did their job they did exactly what they were supposed to do. i commend them. this was a terrible tragedy, but think -- thankfully there was a quick response. they did what they were supposed to do. >> is there evidence that he plans to target other democrats? if so, who? has he threatened the pelosi family before? >> this investigation is ongoing. we are not revealing every single fact.

more will come out as this continues. certainly during the course of the prosecution. >> julia -- with cnn. do you see this as the mystic terrorism? >> all i can comment on is what is before me, which is an attempt to murder mr. pelosi, as well as the other charges, which were politically motivated. this is very much still an ongoing investigation. it has only been a few days since this has happened. more will come out to the public and to us as the investigation continues. >> how was he injured? what were the injuries? >> i cannot comment specifically on his injuries. >> chief scott, why is tofbetwel

police? >> there may be in the future but currently there is not. we have worked with capitol police before. if they have a need and we can help, we have in the past. right now we are there to assist, we are there helping capitol police. >> can you describe how you helped in the past? >> we have had postings at the pelosi residence in the past. these threats are not new, let's be clear. unfortunately, this is the era we are in. we have worked with the chief and we are assisting right now. i will leave it there. capitol police have asked us to refer security questions to them. i want to be transparent about a clear understanding that we are assisting. >> thank you. we are going to go to you, then

two more. >> [indiscernible] >> current to life -- currently he is facing 13 to life. >> it is not just targeting her, it's family. can you offer any assurance to people in the city? we have senators and others, vice presidents, family members. >> it is something that i will tell you, unnerved me as a political figure in this city. >> we have got -- we know there have been tragedies in this very city of political leaders in the past. it is something we have to take very seriously and it is very sad to see that we are once again in a ointment history where people believe it is ok to express political sentiment through violence.

it demonstrates that we have to calm things down. we have to decide that we are going to be more respectful as a society. it is ok to disagree, but it is something that has unnerved us all. >> can you walk us through a little more. you mentioned him trying to access the phone in an elevator. how long before 911 was called was depape in the house? >> that is not a detail i am able to give. this investigation is only days fresh. we are still flushing the details out. >> thank you. that was the last question. kristen: you have been watching a live news conference, san francisco da brooke jenkins announcing charges against paul pelosi's attacks aspect. david depape is at sf general

right now. she would not go into details to whether he is being held her psych evaluations. police chief bill scott was there, but she made it clear the charges that will be filed, saying he is facing 13 years to life in prison in that hat or attack on paul pelosi -- the hammer attack on paul pelosi. reporters did ask why sfpd does not seem to have an official working partnership with capitol police. chief bill scott said they might

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ get exclusive offers on select new volvo models. contact your volvo retailer to learn more.

kristen: thanks for joining us.

we will have the latest at 4:00. tonight, new reporting, the chilling allegations against the suspect charged with attacking the husband of house speaker nancy pelosi with a hammer. tonight that suspect now charged with attempted murder and federal charges. what authorities said just moments ago. and what he allegedly told police. what he was planning to do to speaker pelosi. allegedly saying he hoped it would set an example to other members of congress. authorities say he was armed with a hammer, zip ties and rope. confronting her 82-year-old husband instead, mola lenghi in san francisco tonight, pierre thomas with what federal authorities are now saying. tonight the halloween tragedy overseas in south korea. two american college students among more than 150 people killed during a halloween celebration in seoul. a massive surge in the crowd of

about 100,