i'm jane pauley. "face the nation" is coming right up. please join us when our trumpet sounds again next sunday mo morning. i'm margaret brennan in washington. this week on "face the nation," the supreme court wraps up its session with some blockbuster dec decisions dealing potentially serious blows to some younger voters when it comes to education.

[ crowd chanting ] some seismic yet not surprising decisions from a supreme court that's moved to the right in recent years striking down affirmative action programs in the college admissions process. siding with religious free bomb over an anti-discrimination law and overturning president biden's student loan forgiveness program. we'll talk with former vice president in 2024 gop contender mike pence about the conservative take on the court's decisions. plus, he's just back from ukraine. university of california president dr. michael drake will tell us how the uc system ensures a diverse student body following the state's own ban on affirmative action decades ago. and there were some supreme court wins for the left. we'll talk about those key voting rights decisions with obama administration attorney general eric holder. plus, turmoil on the travel front. it's been a miserable week for

millions leading up to the fourth of july weekend. will the trip home be any easier? >> i feel gross. i feel like i want to cry but i have nothing left. >> once your initial flight gets canceled and you have a connecting flight, you can forget it. >> we'll talk with pete buttigieg about the criticism of the faa and what's in the works when it comes to dealing with the impact of climate change on airline travel. finally, can you tell the difference between an artificial intelligence generated image and a real one? we'll help you learn what to look for to tell the real deal from the ai fakes. it's all just ahead on "face the nation." ♪ good morning, and welcome to "face the nation." on this fourth of july weekend, the flight cancellations and

delays that have plagued travelers all the last week have eased, but there are new threats of bad weather that will likely impact return flights. it's not just the severe weather, which has been and will continue to be exacerbated by climate change, it's problems with staffing shortages including air traffic controllers, airline and tsa personnel. there have been almost 7,500 cancellations and more than 50,000 delayed flights in the last week. we begin today with transportation secretary pete buttigieg who joins us from traverse city, michigan. good morning to you, mr. secretary. back in january, you also had a massive grounding of flights. why does it seem so chaotic? >> well, if you look at the overall picture, we've seen a lot of improvements, but we had a hard few days with severe weather at the beginning. the week, and that definitely put enormous pressure on the system. now, the good news is on friday we saw according to tsa a record

number of airline passengers, probably the most ever in america, and we saw those cancellation rates stay low. right now we're below 2%, but they really shot up at the first part of the week largely because of severe weather hitting some of our key hubs. i think most passengers understand that no one can control the weather, but anything that's under the control of the airlines and anything that we can do on the faa side, we need to continue pushing to make sure there's the smoothest possible experience for air passengers everywhere. >> well, and to that point, private industry seems to be pointing back to your office, jetblue's president said she was blaming the faa. united's ceo was sea clear saying the faa failed us. the d.o.t.'s inspector general said last month the faa has no real plan in place to fix the problem of inadequate air traffic control staffing in miami, new york, key hubs. so, how are you addressing that

particular issue? >> well, first of all, let me be very clear that even according to the industry's own data, air traffic control staffing issues account for less than 10% of the delay minutes in the system, but i would rather that number be zero, so even though this isn't the number one cause or even the number two cause of flight disruptions, it is something that is very important to tackle and we're doing exactly that. we're hiring 1500 new air traffic controllers this year. our plan is to hire another 1,800 traffic controllers next year. we're also working on staffing models that can better address the needs on the ground and cooperating where possible and where appropriate with airlines on things that can make better use of the same national airspace, remember, we have the most complex national airspace in the world, but there are things we can do to manage it more efficiently, opening up routes more direct using gps

which means less flight time and can contribute to less congestion. in the florida airspace we have enough commercial space launches taking place now that that can be a factor as that airspace gets closed down, especially on those busy travel days, so we've been engaging the space industry to try to keep the launch windows clear of when there is the most traffic. and when we have severe weather situations like we had a few days ago, have set up a very tight operational cadence working tightly and closely with airline operational managers to route aircraft in a way that always puts safety first, but also makes the most of the opportunities we have, so whether we're talking about day-to-day ops and tactics or the bigger picture of staffing air traffic control for the future, we're moving very aggressively on that, and now is the time for these conversations, because the faa reauthorization bill, which will cover the next five years is moving through the senate as we speak. > still waiting on a new permanent head of the faa. i want to ask you about the bipartisan infrastructure bill you were very prominent in

promoting the impact on the country for the better, but there's new data out there showing that while taxpayers are pouring in billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure, there is some reporting from first street foundation that recently came out showing the government is substantially underestimating the risk of severe rain in some of the city -- some of the largest cities in the country. do you fear that some of these projects are being built on flawed data and flawed numbers? >> you know, part of what we've been working to do is make our infrastructure more resilient for the future. you know, the hard reality doesn't care about political debates, and if you have what used to be a 500-year flood happening every other year and have a road that gets washed out and put it back and gets washed out again, it doesn't make any sense. >> i know you were outspoken with the supreme court ruling in favor of a colorado website

designer. you called it discrimination, justice gorsuch said this was a first amendment issue where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. what do you make of the argument that colorado was labeling free speech as discrimination in order to censure it? >> i think what's really revealing is that there's no evidence that this web designer was ever even approached by a same-sex couple looking for services to support their wedding. you're seeing more of these cases and circumstances that are designed to get people spun up and designed to chip away at rights, and i think the bigger picture here, when you look at the supreme court taking away a woman's right to choose, you look at friday's decision diminishing the equality of same-sex couples, you look at a number of the decisions made, they pose a question that is even deeper than these big cases and the question is this, did we

just live to see the high water mark of freedoms and rights in this country before they were gradually taken away? because up until now, not uniformly, but overall, each generation was able to say that it had enjoyed greater inclusion, greater equality and more rights and freedoms than the generation before, and those decisions have added up and affected so many people inc including me, of course, as i'm getting ready to go back to my husband and our twins for the rest of this morning thinking about the fact that the existence of our family is only a reality because of a one-vote margin on the supreme court a few years ago. these are the kind of things at stake and we have a supreme court that is very much out of step with how most americans view these issues. >> you know that conservatives are just framing this in a fundamentally different manner. senator ted cruz described the colorado law that would compel services be provided despite personal beliefs and put it this way, should a muslim artist be compelled by the government to

draw the image of muhammad, should jewish artists be forced to create art that is anti-semitic? do you see merit in those comparisons that have to do specifically with free speech and freedom of religion? >> you know, that's really not a comparison that is relevant to this case, but more importantly, i think it's really telling that you have to think of these far-fetched hypotheticals in order to justify decisions that are actually going to have much worse impacts in the real world, and i think this again goes back to the broader agenda of the culture wars that are being fired up. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your time this morning. "face the nation" will be back in a minute. stay with us. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and mainintained it.t. ozempic® lowers ththe risk of m major cardidiovascular r s such a as stroke, , heart atta, oror death in n adults also witith known heheart dise.

and d you may lolose weight. adults l lost up to o 14 poun. ozempicc® isn't for peopople withth type 1 didiabetes. dodon't sharare needles s or , or reusese needles.. dodon't takeke ozempic® if youou or your f family ever hadad medullaryry thyroid d cancer, or have e multiple e endocrie neoplasisia syndromeme type , or if alallergic to o it. stop ozempmpic® and g get medidical help r right awayy if youou get a lumump or s swelling inin your neck, severe stotomach pain,n, or n allergic r reaction. seriouous side effffects may include e pancreatititis. gallllbladder prproblems mayay . tetell your prprovider abobout n problelems or chananges. taking o ozempic® w with a susulfonylureaea or insuliln may incrcrease low blood d sugar risksk. sidede effects l like nausea, vomimiting, and didiarrhea mayay lead toto dehydratition, which may y worsen kikidney problblems. asask your heaealth care p pror about t the ozempipic® tri-z-. you may y pay as little as $25. one candidate getting travel in is former vice president mike pence. we spoke with him yesterday from a stop on his way back from ukraine and started with the colorado website's designer's

supreme court victory. what do you say to americans who believe this opens the door to discrimination? >> from the moment the supreme court recognized same-sex marriage, the court had made a commitment that they would still respect the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience of every american and in lorie smith's case, she made it very clear that she would take all customers in her website design but said she could not create a website that would celebrate something that violated her religious beliefs, and as you know, i'm a bible believing christian, i believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and i believe every american is entitled to live and to work and worship according to the dictates of their conscience. >> i understand you see this as religious freedom but in other words you say you would not refuse services to people on the basis of their sexual orientation? >> no, look, i think this is not

about the law of public accommodation, and this is -- both of these cases came from colorado where the heavy hand of government came in and said, look, if you have a public accommodation, whether you're a cake baker or a web maker, that you're required to take all customers. that's what a public accommodation is, margaret, but what the supreme court said here and as they did in the jack smith case by a 7-2 majority is that you can't compel the american people to create products that violate their conscience or religious beliefs. >> but to the public for those who do hear some concern here, as president, how do you assure them that you will provide equal treatment to all? >> well, look, i believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience of every american and in this case i think the supreme court drew a clear line and said, yes, to religious liberty. >> the ruling on affirmative

action, fundamentally do you believe that there are racial inequities in the education system in the united states? >> i'm so grateful that the supreme court of the united states here recognized what, frankly, justice sandra day o'connor said back in 2003 was that affirmative action was a temporary solution. it was designed to make sure that we open doors that hadn't been opened before but she herself said she expected it to go away within 25 years. it went away more quickly than that. i think that's a tribute to our nation. it's a great, great credit to the extraordinary accomplishments that minority students have had on our campuses and i really do believe that we can move forward as a country and embrace the notion that we're all going to be judged not on the color of our skin but on the kong tent of our character and in this case on our gpa. >> am i understanding you do not believe there is racial inequity

in the education system in america? >> i just -- i really don't believe there is. i believe there was, i mean, there may have been a time when affirmative action was necessary, simply to open the doors of all of our schools and universities, but i think that time has passed and we'll continue to move forward as a color-blind society which is really the aspiration i believe of every american. >> the court also ruled that president biden lacks the legal authority to forgive student debt for 40 million americans as he had tried to do. in response, the president made the political argument that republican officials couldn't bear the thought of providing relief for working class middle class americans. how do you respond to that? >> first it's factually wrong. the majority of people that would have benefited from this student loan forgiveness are people with multiple graduate degrees so you'll say to working americans, to truck drivers, to people working in the trades, we're going to take your taxes

and pay down a part of the student debt of doctors and lawyers and ph.d.s. nothing could be further from the truth. this was not about the middle class. >> you still have to get young voters to turn out and vote for you, sir. this is very politically popular for democrats. what is your pledge to young voters? >> well, my pledge so young voters is that we're going to get the economy moving again. they're worried about this economy, and unconstitutional government handouts are not what young americans are looking for, they're looking for a growing economy, and they know by putting into practice the policies that we did in our administration by extending those trump-pence tax cuts, ending the war on energy, securing our border, we're going to set the table for a balanced american future for them. >> there was some reporting in "the washington post" that president trump back in 2020

after the election repeatedly asked you to call the governor of the state of arizona, doug ducey, to get him to substantiate president trump's claims, false claims of fraud. "the post" is reporting you did call the arizona governor multiple times to discuss the election. is that reporting accurate, and what did you tell governor ducey at the time. >> i did check in with not only governor ducey but other governors in states going through the legal process of reviewing their election results, but there was no pressure involved, margaret. i was calling to get an update. i passed along that information to the president and it was no more, no less than that. >> you are clearly saying you did not pressure the governor, but were you being pressured by mr. trump to get those -- to influence doug ducey and did you talk about this with the special counsel? >> no, i don't remember any pressure. look, the president and i --

things came to a head at the end, margaret, i've spoken about it very openly, and the president and i continue to have a strong difference. i'll us believe that by god's grace i did my duty under the constitution that day in presiding over a joint session of congress in the aftermath of the mayhem and the rioting, but in the days of november and december, this was an orderly process. you'll remember there were more than 60 lawsuits under way. states were engaging in appropriate reviews, and these contacts were no more than that. >> you did just make this trip to ukraine. you are the only republican presidential candidate to have done so and you met with president zelenskyy. he is being very clear that when nato leaders meet this month, he expects clear steps and an invitation to join the western military alliance. if you were president, would you

make that pledge to a country that's currently at war with russia? >> i'm someone that believes that it's absolutely essential that the united states continue to provide military support to the ukrainian military to push back on russian aggression, because if russia were able to overrun ukraine, i think it would not be long before vladimir putin ordered his troops across the border that under nato we would be required to send men and women in uniform. it is not in our interest to send american forces into ukraine, and i would never support it and as i met with president zelenskyy he made it clear that he's not looking for that. and i have reason to believe, margaret, that when nato meets in a few weeks that president zelenskyy would be open to a conditional invitation to membership in nato, namely, saying that ukraine will be a member of nato. once the war is over, once the war is won. i really do believe it's

essential that america continue to lead, that our allies provide ukraine with the support they need. >> on the afghanistan issue, the state department just released a report friday, an after action report that faulted the biden administration for a number of missteps but named the trump administration saying they had insufficient senior level consideration of worst case scenarios when it agreed to the withdrawal from afghanistan in 2020. president trump signaled his desire to end the military presence before even reaching a deal with the taliban. there was no plan or effort to help at-risk afghans or plan for what to do with diplomats after withdrawal happened. just a lack of planning. do you accept that the trump administration bears some responsibility for this chaos? >> margaret, i don't, because i know what the deal was that was negotiated with the taliban. i mean, it was made very clear, i was in the room when president trump told the leader of the

taliban, said, look, you're going to have to cooperate with the afghan government, you don't harbor terrorists and you don't harm any american soldiers. we went 18 months without a single american casualty to the day at that kabul airport that we lost 13 brave american service members. the blame for what happened here falls squarely on the current commander in chief and under our administration, i promise you, that while it was our -- it was the ink tension of the president, the former president to pull our troops out, when the taliban broke the deal and moved in and joe biden did nothing, that set into motion the catastrophe that became afghanistan. >> are you saying that you would have kept the troops beyond the 2020 deal? is that what you're saying? >> well, look, candidly it was always my belief that it would be prudent to keep a couple of

thousand american forces there to support our efforts against terrorist elements both in afghanistan and in the region, and i think we ultimately would have done that, just as the president announced we were -- the former president announced we were pulling troops out of syria, you remember i was sent to turkey to negotiate a cease-fire and ultimately there's still american forces in syria today. i think we would have landed in that place. >> i want to ask you about china as well. do you agree with president biden that xi jinping is a dictator? >> i think it's a statement of fact, margaret. but, look, i also want to say with regard to ukraine, because a lot of people will say, china's the real issue. there's no more effective way to send a deafening message to communist china to check their military ambitions in the asia pacific than by giving ukraine what they need to repel the russian invasion. i know china is watching.

they forged this unlimited partnership with russia, but i got to say i met president xi and president putin. i guarantee president xi is watching what is happening. we give them what they need to win this fight to repeal the russian invasion, i think it'll lay a strong foundation for restraining the military aggression and ambitions of china in the asia pacific like almost nothing else. >> to be clear you as president would commit u.s. troops to defend taiwan against a chinese invasion? >> i would say to you that i'm somebody that believes that it's no advantage to say what you would or wouldn't do. i thought one of the catastrophic errors that president biden made before the russian invasion in ukraine was he signaled that if it was just -- if it was just a small

invasion maybe we wouldn't send troops or we wouldn't respond. look, margaret, we never say what you'll never do. the united states of america should continue to be providing to taiwan with military means to defend themselves. what we want is a policy of deterrence. >> thank you for your time today, mr. vice president. >> thank you, margaret. our extended interview with the former vice president is available on our youtube page. we'll be right back. thanks to golo, i've lost 27% of my body weight, and itit was easy.y. (soft musisic)

i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got

this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 9 99% of peopople over 50. and d it could s stre at anyny time. thinink you're n not at risk? wake u up. bebecause shiningles could wawake up in y you. if youou're over 5 50, talk o yoyour doctor r or pharmacact about t shingles p preventio. gunfire interrupted a block party in southern baltimore early this morning where police say two people were killed and 28 hurt. no one was arrested immediately after the shooting. according to the gun violence archive, it was the 338th mass shooting this year.

we'll be right back with the former u.s. attorney general eric holder and the president of the uc system, dr. michael drake.

stay with us.

welcome back to "face the nation." we want to go back to the supreme court. joining us now is former u.s. attorney general eric holder who is now head of the national

democratic redistricting committee, which was involved in two election-related cases before that court. good morning to you. you know, i'm sure there are a lot of things to talk about in regard to what you don't agree with the court on but you did have two victories here, sir. the state of alabama will now have to redraw its congressional map to include a second majority black district as a result of this 5-4 ruling that the state discriminated against black voters. what's the political and legal impact of this ruling? >> well, first of all, i think it's an affirmation by the court that there is still a need for a vibe broepts voting rights act, section 2, what the republican legislature did in alabama was inconsistent with precedent and the way in which the voting rights act had been interpreted. alabama has about 27% of its inhabitants who are african american, and yet if you look at the math they only got about 7% or 14% of the congressional

seats. that decision will have an impact beyond the state of alabama. if you look at georgia, louisiana, texas, they also have instances where the lines have been drawn in sump a way to dilute the voting power of african americans and, again, inconsistent with the voting rights act so i think you will also see courts rule consistent with the supreme court's ruling that those lines will have to be redrowning in those states, as well. >> in moore versus harper, the supreme court societied 6-3 to reject the theory that state legislatures can decide the rules for federal elections. democrats had feared republicans might use that to overturn results in 2024 like the former president attempted to in 2020. does this ruling from the court, does the fact they took on the case at all make you more confident about the integrity of the upcoming 2024 election? >> yeah, it makes me a lot more confident that we're going to have a fair election come 2024.

and that this ridiculous notion, this independent state legislature theory will hopefully just go away. that was as fringe a theory as ever been heard by the united states supreme court. the only disappointment i have in that decision is that it was not a 9-0 decision. the notion of the independent state legislature theory was that courts, that the legislatures had the final say without any involvement of court review and that's inconsistent with our notion of checks and balances. but it will mean that we will have the ability to go before state courts to look at what legislatures and sometimes gerrymandered legislatures are doing with regard to redistricting and just as in any other case have courts have the final say. that's the way our system is designed and that is what the court affirmed through that -- through the north carolina case. >> the supreme court did warn state courts, federal courts could still overrule on cases

involving federal elections. does that concern you? >> no, not at all. i mean, i think you want to have that backstop so that if a state court does something that is, you know, egregiously wrong you want to have the united states supreme court have the ability to come in and correct that wrong. >> i want to ask about affirmative action. in this decision that race cannot be used in college admissions, there was also written by chief justice -- the chief justice's opinion some detail here that seems a little confusing, frankly, because it says nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life through discrimination inspiration or otherwise. in other words, the student must be treated on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race. so you can discuss race in a college application. but it can't be -- how do you

understand this? >> i don't really understand it. it seems to me that exception or that caveat is a little inconsistent with the rest of the opinion and the other footnote that says, well, this doesn't apply to the military academies which are in essence nothing more than colleges, colleges with a specialized mission, again, it seems to be inconsistent with the holding. you know, the thing is that, you know, this nation continues to grapple with issues of race and to say that race is not a negative factor for too many people in this nation is inconsistent with what the facts are. the notion of affirmative action is to take into account just one of many things of -- when you look at qualified people, qualified students who are applying to colleges, look at one of many things and say, you know, for the sake of diversity we're going to take into consideration the fact that we want to have this black kid be a part of our university.

but there's not attention between the use of affirmative action and excellence. i think people need to understand that. affirmative action doesn't mean you get into a school simply because you're black, it means that you're qualified and that one of the factors that's taken into consideration of a qualified student is that person's race. >> one of the complications here in terms of the cases brought was the argument being made that affirmative action at harvard in particular was hurting asian americans. jay caspian-king writes, affirmative action, it was righteous in concept but hard to defend in practice and i want to quote, if a society should make decisions with a clear eye toward history, a sentiment i agree with, shouldn't it also follow that a group who was expelled from the u.s. would at least have the right to not be lumped in with the people who kicked them out? he's referring there to historic mistreatment by white people of asian americans, chinese exclusion act, japanese

internment. how do you respond to that argument? >> well, you know, first off you're looking at the asian american community as a monolith and they're a whole variety of groups that make up the asian american population in the nation. and, you know, what the proponents of this lawsuit did was to try to use -- pit one minority group against another so that they could ultimately reach their goal, they've been trying to attack affirmative action since the decision back in 1978. you know, this notion that somehow some way i guess you think everybody who has 1600 on their board scores, 4.0 ought to be admitted to a particular school. reality is, if you just use that as a determinant there will be way too many kids trying to get into elite schools and you still have to make determinations based on other factors. and it seems to me that making race one of those factors, just one of those factors again with regard to qualified students is

wholly consistent with our constitution. >> i want -- before i let you go, i want to ask you to put on your attorney general hat. would you counsel president biden or the next president whoever it is to consider a warning of the 45th president of the united states either before or after a theoretical conviction? >> i think i'd tell the president, the next attorney general to let the system do its work, try the cases, see what the results are and then treat that convicted president or anybody else who is convicted as any other person would be treated. pardons generally are for people who express remorse and then who have done things that shows that they have turned their lives around. if those kinds of determinations can be made with regard to the former president or anybody else who is convicted, yeah, i would support that. in the absence of something like that, i don't think that would be a wise thing to do.

>> mr. eric holder, former attorney, thank you for your time. we'll be right back. only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. hi, i'm m michael, i've l lost 70 pounds on golo. i i spent thouousands on other diets that didn't work. on golo, i spent a couple hundred bucks and got back down to my high school weight.

you're not gonna believe thihis thining is possisible but it i.

prior to last week's supreme court ruling there were nine states with bans on affirmative action in college admissions, california was the first to ban it following a ballot initiative in 1996. joining us is the president of the university of california system, dr. michael drake. welcome back to the program. we want to tap into your experience here. the school system has spent $500 million since 2004 to try to drive diversity. is it possible to have a diverse student body without affirmative action, and how do you define diverse at this point? >> well, thank you very much. you know, we've had efforts since the '90s and before to try to do everything we could to through outreach contact those students we wanted to see applying to our universities. we use a comprehensive

admissions process to look at all the factors that led to this person's life and their interest in being educated with us and think that could be done very effectively, affirmative action was one tool that we and others used in the past. we've read the court's decision and had the laws in california that changed in the 1990s and we are very pleased at our ability to be able to attract students from a wide variety of backgrounds. >> does this affect you at all? >> we'll have to see how it plays out, in fact. when we had the law change in california in the 1990s it affected us quite profoundly in a couple of ways. in one way it limited the way we were admitting students but in another way it told students california and the university of california were not interested in them. this was something that came from action from our regents. students we would have loved to admitted, fully qualified felt unwelcome and found went to other schools, to private s schools in california and others across the country.

this is the entire nation. so it's not -- students aren't hearing we're not interested or that colleges aren't interested in them and i think that -- so will have less of an effect on us because of it affects the whole country. >> you've used other metrics or tools to recruit. there's a piece i just read about the socioeconomic disadvantage scale, the sed that the university -- that uc davis and 9 medical school uses. what is an adversity score, and how does that work? >> essentially what davis is doing, we applaud this and our universities and campuses in our university do in a variety of ways look at the life circumstances of those who are applying to come to us and weigh those in a comprehensive fashion and look at the quality of the application and make a decision. actually we do this for every student. we look at who you are, what you've done, what makes you a qualified applicant as we're recruiting and admitting you to our colleges and universities. >> so how do you define

diversity? we looked at the undergraduate makeup before affirmative action and then this past fall. and the percentages which we can put up on screen for different groups there have shifted, the state's demographics have also shifted. the one thin that stands out the percentage of african american stu students held fairly stable at 4% or 4.5% level. why was that unmoved really? >> yeah, i think that the issues of racism and lack of opportunity that we find in our society are persistent and ubiquitous and have been fighting to create opportunity fighting against those for all of these years. affirmative action was one tool that we used in the past. that was removed. we still are fighting the legacy of the centuries of oppression and denial this country has applied and doing our best to try to create more opportunity for students who come from this unequal society.

>> how do you -- because you're being asked essentially to quantify in some way a diverse student body, do you try to match the demographics of the state? i mean, how do you know if you're succeeding or failing? >> we don't do anything prospectively. what we do is try to create opportunity in a comprehensive way to evaluate the quality of every application. we can look retrospectively and see how the students that we are admitting look like the students that are graduating from california high schools and we certainly notice if there's a great disparity there and we work on closing those gaps by doing more outreach to high schools that haven't been sending us students, more support programs to students to make sure they will apply to us, a number of financial aid programs that help students from low-income backgrounds, a variety of things meant to open up the access to the university that we feel is good for us and good for society. >> i'm interested in which part of that you think works the best and also, you know, the last time you were with us back in

2020, the school system was ending standardized testing in admissions. you've now had that in place for awhile. does that work? should other schools look at it? >> yeah, what we found out, we eliminated the s.a.t. in 2020, we did that just before the pandemic but it happened to be implemented during the pandemic so it's a little difficult to know how much that's affected things versus the pandemic. what we did see is an increase in applications from students who came from diverse backgrounds who were reluctant to apply in the past even though we may have admitted them so we're pleased to see an increase in applications from those people and our classes are extraordinarily strong. today our students are doing quite well, so this has been quite a positive thing for us. >> so you're keeping it in place, it sounds like. >> yes. >> all right, dr. drake, thank you for sharing your insights and your experience. we'll be back in a moment.

with the convergence of artificial intelligence and politics, it is increasingly difficult for voters to differentiate between real and fake. we asked lindsay gorman, a

technology expert with the german marshall fund to help us discern between fact and fiction in political images. let's play a first video of hillary clinton apparently on msnbc. >> people might be surprised to hear me say this but i actually like ron desantis, a lot. yeah, i know. i'd say he's just the kind of guy this country needs and i really mean that. if ron desantis got installed as president, i'd be fine with that. >> so this is a classic deepfake video where someone has said some of these things and juxtaposed it with hillary clinton's likeness and her face and her hair to make it seem like she's now endorsing ron desantis for president in 2024. does it look realistic to you? what do you think? >> that does sound like hillary clinton's actual voice, but i notice that the synchronization was not there between the audio and her mouth.

there was a disconnect. >> absolutely. looking at the mouth is a really good starting place to see if it is, indeed, matching what the audio is matching. the same thing also when we played it, her head sort of shook in a somewhat mechanical way and felt a little off, same thing with her eyes and here they're a little blurred out and so that's i think one way of spotting how we can tell this i a manipulated image. here's president biden. this is what i'll ask you about. >> you can't be pro-insurrection and pro-cop. you can't be pro-insurrection and pro-democracy. donald trump lacked the courage to act. the brave women and men in blue all across this nation should never forget that. >> so what did you think of this one? >> he didn't blink. >> not at all, right? so that suggests it's fake. >> this one is actually real. this was actually a speech he gave to the national association of black law enforcement

officers and it looks really like a deepfake. it has sort of a washed out look. didn't move much and didn't blink for the whole 17-second clip and when this actually surfaced about a year ago, there were conspiracy theories and people thinking that this had to have been a deepfake even though it came from the dnc's own social media account and was later published by the white house itself. the reason that we can tell this one is not a deepfake, we really need to rely on context and source, first of all, coming out a full white house video giving a speech and these remarks that were delivered virtually not only at risk of seeing things false and thinking they're true but seeing things that are true and thinking that they're false and that's kind of the liar's dividend. in an information environment where we can't tell what's real and not. >> a liar's dividend. >> a liar's dividend. that the liar can take the advantage because the liar can

just say, well, this -- maybe this audio that you caught of me, this image you took of me, that's actually not true. it's just a fake and it's hard to prove whether something is actually real, not just whether something is fake and this is really advantageous sort of to autocrats and to those who would sow doubt and discord in our information space. so this one, i don't know if you saw this, does it look familiar to you at all? >> this, this is the image that actually caused a market sell-off. >> it is. >> it's a fake picture of the pentagon with what looks like plumes of smoke. >> exactly. so how can we tell this is fake? >> well, for someone who hasn't been to the pentagon, i think it would be hard. there is just something that looks slightly off about this building that i can't quite articulate. >> these ai generated images have a hyper realistic sheen to them and this one has it a

little bit. you can see with the plume but this one needs a closer look. the building as you pointed out doesn't really actually look like the pentagon and even if you hadn't been to the pentagon, you could see by doing a google imagesearch, doing street view and comparing. is there an angle that looks like this? there isn't. take a look. these are photos of -- fake photos of trump being arrested. >> for someone at home who may not be following things very closely, they might think this was reality? >> absolutely. especially from a first look. how can we tell these are fake? what do you think? >> besides that not happening. >> context is an important piece of this. in this photo, trump has at least three legs so extra limb here, probably that one, there are a few extra limbs, as well, but these absolutely capture the

imagination and make people think, oh, was trump actually arrested. here's one for you. what's real, what's fake? how can we tell? >> okay, so that's his actual lawyer recently in new york, so i do recognize him in the context. >> yeah, that one is real. >> what is this? is this fake? >> this is a fake. maybe the biggest giveaway is the crying, the actual -- >> is he supposed to be crying? >> he's crying at his hearing. sort of the technical signature, this does have the sheen, some of the -- the gentlemen in the back, their faces are blurred. >> this one, i want to say it's fake. >> that one is real. >> that one is real? >> you're kidding. >> it's just the differences in lighting. that's a real photo there. >> and this, what you're going through right now, once you look at enough of these, the default position really does become just

be skeptical of everything, which makes sense because if it gets us to check and if it gets us to find a source and investigate and use these media literacy techniques but on the other hand it has dangerous implications for our democracy and our society. we need to be able to trust in what we see and what we hear. it's not realistic for us to check and do a reverse google image search on every piece of content we come across. >> it makes having newsstand guards that much more important and these mostly circulated online. >> absolutely. and the role here of the media is so crucial and clearly labeling when something is manipulated and when something is fake and real as well as the role of technologies that can give us digital watermarks and show what's real. >> and we'll be right back.

the cdc reports that black women are more than three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related complication. tonight, b.e.t.'s monthly news magazine, "black in america" explores the troubling rise in maternal mortality and features an interview with vice president kamala harris. that's at 10:00 p.m. eastern time on b.e.t. and streaming on paramount plus. that's it for us today. thank you all for watching. have a happy independence day. until next week, for "face the nation," i'm margaret brennan.

(soft music) (iris) there's no place like home. it's where memories are made and where you feel the most safe and secure. today, more than ever, you wanna keep it that way. hi, i'm iris almario.