>> building a better bay area, moving forward, finding solutions, this is abc 7 news. into the bay area and wiget answers for you in real time today. the cow palace, home of rodeos and gun shows, may become a tiny home unsheltered people, at least that's the plan of one san francisco supervisor.

our media partner dives into this idea and looks at whether it is realistic. but first, the u.s. supreme court strikes down the use of affirmative action and college admissions. in cases brought forward in cases against harvard and a university. saying it violates the 14th amendments equal protection clause. chief justice john roberts writes, in the majority opinion, both programs like sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race unavoidably employee race in a negative manner, and like meaningful in points. justice sonia sotomayor are rights in her dissension, and so doing, the court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an intimately segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. here's president biden's reaction.

>> i know today's court decision is a severe disappointment to 70 people, including me, but we cannot let the decision be a permanent setback for the country. we need to keep an open door of opportunities. we need to remember that diversity is our strength. we have to find a way forward. kristen: joining us live to explain the ruling, consider its impact, and offer us ways forward, three experts who understand the law, education, and civil rights. maria ledesma in the bottom corner, who is a professor of educational leadership at san jose, john on the left top, warmer council on the constitution and former dean of the university of san francisco school of law, and sally, education equity program manager a chinese affirmative action. thank you all three of you for coming on the show today.

i'm going to ask each of you to give me your quick reaction to today's ruling. john, i will start with you. john: thank you, i think the ruling is a real watershed on affirmative action. we have been at this for about 50 years since the decision back in the 70's. rather than debate the decisions, it's important to look at it as a cause for action to really deal with the root causes of educational inequality, racial inequality. sonia sotomayor is right, we not a race free society. we have to acknowledge it and act on it. kristen: both the root of the decision and what we can do going forward will be explored, but sally, let me get your reaction. sally: absolutely. the content of today's decision goes against history, facts, and their own president. we know the benefits of diversity are well documented in addressing restoring segregation

and the educational benefits documented by robust research. i should americans have consistently benefited from affirmative action. not a single student testified to being harmed by race conscious policies. in fact, i was one of the eight student alumni that testified to its importance. there's so much work left to do to address real barriers, but that was not seen in any of the decision that came out today. maria: i agree, it is disappointing but not surprising. i think that you have seen a trend not just with these two cases but the two cases that preceded it. it has been intent on overturning affirmative action and one of the things to remember that despite the ruling, the need for race conscious policies do not go away. what we are losing is a critical tool that has allowed us to

integrate these secondary institutions. kristen: i want to get a little bit into the history of affirmative action because i think there's a lot of misunderstanding about its genesis. didn't start with kennedy saying without regard to race, we need to ensure there's equal opportunities for people of color for example in the federal government. who wants to start us with a history lesson, really quickly? john: you are correct, that's one of the dangers of taking this to the supreme court, it jeopardizes using race employment under title vii. it's very risky strategy. this decision could've been far worse because the court with thomas and alito would have struck down a lot more than just what they did today. it still allows for race to be considered, just in a more meaningful and holistic way. kristen: can you break it down for us, maria, what exactly it

is that they said and how can race now be used not as a sole factor in itself, but as part of life experience. help us understand what they said no to exactly. maria: i think it is important to clarify, you mentioned race as a sole factor. race has been one factor of many that have been taken into account. kristen: i'm sorry, i meant standalone factor, so i'm glad you clarified. maria: i think the opinion, it's well over 230 pages, there is a lot to unpack there, but the major takeaways that we have from the chief justice is that you can still use race in your essays, talking about your experience, but i think that is disingenuous, because again, what we are losing is a holistic approach of the application which so many have championed up until today. so we will see what this

tangibly means, because we are in new territory right now. kristen: but isn't necessarily the case where if you don't check a box for example, but talk about how your race and your life experiences have impact and shaped you and maybe help you grow, and things you had to overcome, if that is considered as part of the ballistic admission process that most elite universities use. can it be that this will not sally: i can speak a little bit to affirmative action and its history, it was never meant to be the cure-all to higher education, and that there is actually so much more that colleges and universities need to do, needed to do before this

decision even came down, and have a greater call to action to do at this moment to actually invest in recruitment cohorts of students, to expand financial aid opportunities, to reassess all their levers within the admissions policy that they hold to really break down what is the root cause of in admissions, and take this moment to fully reassess. they should have been doing it already, but if not then, then now is certainly the greater moment as well. kristen: john, i think you agree on that point, don't you? john: i do, and particularly when justice so to my -- justice sotomayor or talks about qualified teachers, fewer ap courses offered around the country, that is really the heart of what needs to be done here. we can achieve greater diversity

by dealing with and addressing the inequities that are at the k-12 level. that is a way of changing the demographics of higher education. so that is the work that needs to be done. and as sally points out, the legacy admissions is something that should go, rather than doubled down on what it had, harvard could've adjusted its policies to get rid of the extra points for children of at least put it on the alums and say, ok, so you have the benefit of having gone to harvard, the educational, the economic, the social benefits. you still need a leg up for your child, make them prove that they needed. that would've changed the demographics of the incoming classes and could have avoided this lawsuit, but we are now here and we need to focus on the k-12 students. kristen: i think justice or such

talked about the legacy preferences that may also need to go. what i want to ask you, in terms of not having affirmative action, was that the best proxy out there for life experiences? if the goal is to create a diverse college campus with different things to offer, different life experiences, and to bring people who haven't had opportunities to the college experience to equalize things in society, are there other means to achieve that? i know the uc system has had to look at socio-economics. do you think socioeconomic's is a good tool as a way to still achieve the same goal? maria: one of the things we learned from looking at the literature and looking at what has happened is that there really is no placement for race conscious policy. yes, socioeconomic status, income is one consideration to

-- geographic diversity is another. at the end of the day, you're not going to get the results that you would with race conscious policy. kristen: the results meaning a more diverse campus, right? one in which all students can learn from each other. i'm going to take a short break, but please stick around and we will continue our conversation on what is next now that this

>> the disappointment is because this is now a moment where the court has not fully understanding the importance of

equal opportunity for the people of our country. and it is in so very many ways a denial of opportunity. kristen: now we are back with our experts to discuss today's landmark supreme court ruling banning the use of affirmative action in the college admissions process, saying the practice is unconstitutional. here again maria ledesma, john, and former dean of the university of san francisco school of law sally on the right top there. we plus disappointment there. i want to explore a little bit more with you, i know that some of you are very disappointed in this as well, but in terms of just the length of using affirmative action, i believe justice o'connor had given it a timeline so to speak to use what she thought was a wrong to right

a wrong. do you see the court as saying times up, that's it, things have been equalized? i really see this as a shortsighted, narrow interpretation of what was being said. in essence, i want to hammer home the point that addressing racial inequity, addressing segregation is not the factor racism, that you actually need to be looking racial inequities dead in the eye. you cannot be blind to the realities of these systems. and the prompting to assess our progress toward these goals, to actually look at data, to actually look at when we may be making progress toward these goals, those are all important metrics. we shouldn't be getting rid of those metrics in our ability to see progress or lack of progress, especially when we know we haven't met the goal.

maria: i w would agree, i think there was a lot of speculation about what justice o'connor truly meant in that sunset clause, as it has been called. after having retired from the court, she herself had said that that statement was really more aspirational than anything else, but i think some people have seen it as a deadline. contrary to that what you have an justice sotomayor and justice jackson's dissent are a reminder about the importance and continued significance of race that matters to this day. john: i would agree with maria. the court intentionally twisted justice o'connor said 25 years ago. as she said, we expect years will pass and affirmative action will no longer be needed, unless something else happens. it's like saying i expect you to

pay me by tuesday and tuesday comes along and you say you paid me. that's not what happened. the problems are still there. and this decision, the decision has now been made, right or wrong, and it is now a time to act. acting is getting back to what is going on in cities and towns across the country, here in san francisco and elsewhere, of really achieving academic progress for all students. kristen: and it calls for more investments at a time when states are slashing its budgets, and possibly a lot more recruitment to where they can get more applicants to apply and increase that pipeline in the applicant pool. those are challenging things, but no doubt universities will be doing it. where do you think the impact will be most deeply felt? is it going to impact the private schools, is it the elite or second or third tier schools?

maria: i t question. you are right, and california the impact be lessened because we have existed without a race conscious tool for close to 30 years, actually. there are institutions that are entering new territory in terms of how they will move forward. but impact, i want to unpack that a little bit more. i think the focus today, rightly so, has been on undergraduate admissions. however, the impact goes well beyond that. undergrad admissions are the entry point professional training of our future leaders. so we will see an impact in terms of who are the future teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc., and that will have a ripple effect across the entire community. john: but you can have programs that focus on dealing with medical disparities, health outcomes in different communities. you can have a program at a university where you're saying

here you have some bilingual high school students who may have some experience in science. they ought to be admitted ahead of others because of their commitment to addressing particular societal problems, not just because they are one background or another but because of what they have actually done. the supreme court decision allows that, and really the gateway to higher education is far prior to grade 11 or 12. it is much earlier, and that is where we also need to focus. kristen: there are couple o questions i want to get to, could this affect other things such as scholarships, for example? some people may have endowed them for specific or -- ethnic or racial groups. could they go next? this. unfortunately, lacking citation of references to its own

precedent, it opens a lot of difficulties for colleges and universities that might bring lawsuits because of programs are not allowed to be too specific, and yet are told to get more specific without any clear guidance from the supreme court. what i really want to uplift here is some of the work that chinese for affirmative action is doing, our open letter on her website for folks to sign on to see how we're trying to show support for colleges and universities to double down and invest in these programs while also showing the need for accountability, for them to stick to it, which i think is a difficult situation for them to navigate, given how unprecedented this decision has been. kristen: unfortunately we are out of time and i will have to leave the conversation here. sally, john, and maria, i can't thank you enough for coming on to share your insights with our viewers. i really appreciate it.

coming up, we looked for a tiny house problem to solve a big challenge. the pitch to put san francisco's un-house people in homes, and white is a whole lot easier said than done. our media

kristen: the cow palace has long been home to rodeos and expo events but now it's being eyed as a solution to one of san francisco's biggest challenges, homelessness. our media partner is out with a new article about a proposal to turn the cow palace into an rv and tiny home village for unsheltered people. the idea has some major hurdles. garrett, thanks for coming on the show. give us a little history of the cow palace. it has been around a wrong time. >> yes, it has been around for decades and has been the longtime home of a livestock expo and rodeo show as well as

concerts and other live events, as you mention. it's a pretty massive site, around 68 acres, 15 of which are parking. francisco. kristen: so if it's in daly, wire san francisco's supervisors deciding what to do with it? >> i've spoken with a when i saw his june 4 blog writing about his support for that idea, and another the first person to have the idea at least in san francisco. i've also spoken with the local supervisor who represents an area in daly city. originally the san francisco county supervisor was not aware that this idea had hatched among san francisco's supervisors, but he has since been contacted and said he is open to exploring the idea.

there's nothing super firm or in place. it just remains an idea, first san francisco supervisor to suggest using the cow palace as a site for rv parking and tiny home said they had a lot of space down there that we don't necessarily have here in san francisco. the site is 68 acres, 15 of which are parking. so they are interested in approaching cow palace and approaching san francisco county officials to explore having this site developed with tiny homes and rv parking to address san francisco's housing crisis. kristen: can you flesh out their ideas a little bit more, on how many tiny homes are they talking about, how many rvs? who will be eligible? are there any concerns? >> i asked for more details on the number of rvs that people would be seeking to park there, the number of tiny homes, and i

was met again with being told that the idea is basically preliminary. the supervisor in that area mention to me that he is not aware of any real funding that is already earmarked for it. i know there is a bond of a couple hundred million dollars which they expressed interest in trying to tap some of that funding to expand across san francisco and potentially to cow palace, should that approval from san francisco county of any state partners, because the state owns the site, should that be granted, and this comes as governor newsom has expressed support for the tiny homes model across california to address homelessness across the state. kristen: that is something san francisco is having a hard time addressing. can you talk about their efforts to clear out encampments and

what is barring them from doing that, and whether this fits into that picture? >> this comes as san francisco the city attorney is working to appeal a court order that was handed well -- handed down by judge back in december. what the court order says is that san francisco cannot actually do encampments, clear out tents unless they are blocking the public right-of-way , so long as the number of housed people in the city is larger than the number of available shelter beds. so when he wrote june 4, he was saying it would be a way of addressing the homeless crisis directly and also try to comply with the court order by having more available shelter beds. when there are no shelter beds in the city will be able to resume what it is doing with the court order still in effect. kristen: i hope folks will check

out

tonight, the supreme court strikes down affirmative action for college admissions. president biden saying, this is not a normal court. also, the officer at the parkland school shooting who stayed outside with the gunman in that school, the verdict in his case tonight. first, the end of affirmative action as we know it. the supreme court overturns four decades of precedent in a 6-3 decision. the conservative-leaning court ruling admissions poll sills at harvard and the university of north carolina violate the 14th