good to be with you. i'm katy tur. so what happens now? president biden said discrimination still exists in america. he repeated it three times. and he said that despite the supreme court's decision, striking down one of the major tools created to fight against that discrimination. that schools should find another way. a new standard, he said, consider adversity, financial means or lack thereof. location, family history. a alongside the experience of

racial discrimination. the president said he's directing his department of education to light the way, so on the subject of what happens next, let us ask the head of that department. united states education secretary miguel cardona, who joins us now. mr. secretary, thank you very much for being here. i know how you feel about this decision, that you said it takes our country backward, the president, though, in trying to look forward as we head into a new era says he wants you, as the department of education to light the way, find new areas. how is that going to look? how is it going to work? >> thank you for having me. first of all, my message to the students and families who are listening to this decision and worrying, we're going to keep fighting you. as the president said, this is not the last word and we have a plan on trying to make sure we continue to promote rich diversity on our campuses. we know that makes learning

better, and everyone wins when they're learning in a diverse environment. within 45 days, we're going to provide guidance around the scotus decision, making sure university presidents know what it means, and what it doesn't mean. we're also in july in a few weeks, we're going to convene a national summit on educational opportunity in response to the scotus decision. we're going to bring thought partners and leaders from across the country to discuss this, and the third thing, by september, we're going to put together a report and publish a report on the best practices in college admissions to ensure that while the supreme court limited our use of a tool to provide diverse learning communities, the intelligent has not changed, and the passion around making sure that students who have been historically underrepresented have opportunities to higher education. >> you're talking about what it means and what it doesn't mean. i know this decision just came

down today, so i imagine you're going to nail down the specifics but you anticipated, i'm sure, that it was coming. do you have an idea that you can tell us about what it doesn't mean? what was not in that decision? >> look, we have a team now going through the details of it, and are preparing, as i said before, within 45 days communication to leaders. as they're preparing college admission policies for the upcoming year, we're going to have much more detail. the president made reference to making sure that we're giving colleges opportunities to gather whatever information they need to ensure that they have a rich and diverse student body. more details will come out in our guidance, and documents and resources to universities. what needs to be heard today is that we have greater resolve than ever to ensure. we're providing support to universities, and we're making it clear to families and students that we want them on our campuses. we want to make sure that

college presidents understand the importance of that, and they have. i've already heard from team members here, that college presidents have affirmed the importance of having diverse learning environments and we're going to continue to fight for that. >> i have you. i'm going to press for details. you decided to come on the show, and that's my job. i wanted to ask specifically about a point of tension that we have talked about a lot, and that is legacy admissions, what's your position on legacy admissions? >> well, you know, in many cases, they expand privilege, not opportunity. so for those who are listening and not sure what legacy means, if your family went to that college, you have access to that. that still exist, and we need to recognize if we're going to look at the tools that are being used for college admission, we have to look at all of them. right now, our focus is on providing information to colleges around the scotus decision, and what tools they still have available. but i think you bring up a point that many across the country are

also wondering, how we can look at race as a factor but other things like legacy are still looked at. >> you said this a moment ago, you also said in your statement that you want to make sure that students know they're still welcome at campuses. they're still wanted at campuses. do you think a decision like this will deter students of color from applying in the first place? >> i think if they read into in or if information is shared that goes beyond what the supreme court decision made. it could. and you know, you couple that with some states intentional efforts to attack diversity, equity and inclusion. i could see where families feel like they're not welcome. >> sound like you're not talking about florida. >> not only that state, there are other states. for us, it makes us committed even more so to make sure that our students and families are listening, this administration is going to fight for you. we're going to work to make sure that you have access to colleges

because you make our colleges better, our country better. >> is there a positive way to look at this? i know it's done. is there a way to create a policy that does a better job of diversifying the college campus? the criticism of affirmative action is that it didn't wholly diversify. it didn't do a lot of economic diversity, and i've got a guest on who will talk about his experience coming from a poorer black background and not seeing many people like him on college campuses, that there wasn't a trickle down effect for economic opportunity. is there a way to create a policy that does that job, that does a better job of diversifying these campuses now that affirmative action has been overruled? >> i appreciate that question, you know, the decision for the supreme court to remove that tool is given in a way that is needed in this country, not to just match where we were, when we had this tool, but do better. we need to do better in this

country to make sure all students have access to higher education in an affordable way, too. this is the focus of the administration since day one. this decision today is giving us the opportunity to really come together in a different way to find ways to make sure we're promoting diversity lawfully, following the supreme court decision, that we remain undeterred around the efforts of diversity on our campuses. >> part of the case is it made it harder for asian americans to get into elite universities. did you see any validity to that argument? >> we recognize the perspectives on this. at the end of the day, in 1996, california struck down affirmative action. the percentage went down by 50%, and they have yet to recover from that. >> they have recovered not entirely but they have recovered quite a bit and if you're

talking about ucla and berkeley, they're on their way to the recovery but the rest of the ucs since 1986, a much better job of diversifying the campuses. >> the universities have gone down 50%. that's something we need to watch for across the country. this provides us an opportunity to make sure that we're giving students an opportunity to come in, making our colleges diverse, and that while the tool of affirmative action is not going to be able, we lift up best practices that are still possible for colleges to recruit students from different backgrounds. >> is there a lesson to be taken from what happened with the university of california system. the ucs have now done a ton of outreach. they spend a lot of money to make sure that people from lower income communities, people with less opportunity, less access have what they need to know how to apply to college, how to apply for loans, et cetera, to make it so that those campuses, make sure those campuses are diverse in light of the fact

that there is no affirmative action in california. >> to the point, yes, there is a lot to learn there, and i think a lot of it has to do with outreach and ensuring that students feel welcome and wanted on those campuses, and that we see the value of diverse learning environment. i think we do have a lot to learn there, and i think, you know, with the guidance that we're putting out, with the convening we're going to put together in a few weeks, and with some of the best practices we're going to lift up in a report by september. we're going to find that there are strategies that work, and we're going to see a community of practice across the country. >> the polling on affirmative action is mixed. if you ask it a certain way, you say, do you want the supreme court to get involved, the majority of americans will say no. if you ask it another way, how do you feel about affirmative action, using it in college admissions, the majority of americans will say, i don't like that. so it's mixed. how do you use that mixed -- those mixed sentiments on a

subject like this? especially in light of what happened in california in 2020 where voters in california, a democratic state, were given the opportunity to reinstate affirmative action, and they rejected it overwhelmingly. >> i think we have to boil it down to the students, right, making sure that what we're discussing are students who, many first generation college students who don't have the legacy benefit, right? don't have maybe the wealth to help them get into college. those students deserve the opportunity. that's how we're framing it. there are students out there with the intellect and the ability to not only make it to campus but add benefit and value to the campus. we have to lift up those stories and make sure that we're providing pathways for the students as well. >> i know this is not the end of the -- or the start of the summer for you quite yet. you're still waiting for another decision from the supreme court. this is on the student loan forgiveness. what are you anticipating, what

is the department of education doing about it? >> look, from day one, we have been fighting to make sure our students are in the center, focusing on students and our borrowers. we provided over $65 billion in debt relief, and we're fixing a broken system, for example, public loan forgiveness. we're waiting on the supreme court. it's in our dna to make sure we continue to fight for our students, and continue to make sure that higher education is accessible and affordable. >> secretary miguel cardona, thank you very much, we appreciate you coming on today. >> thank you. and a reminder, nicolle wallace is sitting down with president biden for an exclusive live interview right here at 30 rock in new york city. they will cover today's affirmative action ruling, threats against democracy, the turmoil in russia, and the state of the economy. that is at 4:00 p.m. eastern. again, right here on msnbc. and coming up, the court has overturned itself in fewer than 1% of its decisions.

along with roe last year, this latest decision makes two major roll backs in just two years. what's really going on? and what are students at schools like harvard saying about the decision, and what this changes for them. plus, did it even really work to begin with? a writer with the atlantic joins me to explain what affirmative action did not do for poor black students. we're back in 60 seconds. r poork students we're back in 60 seconds ♪ limu emu & doug ♪

what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ as i mentioned a moment ago while polling suggests it is not as cut and dry as overturning roe v. wade, critics consider the latest ruling as just another example of the justices acting on their own personal political priorities. historically, it is extremely rare for the supreme court to overturn any of its decisions. of all the rulings its handed down since its creation in 1789,

the court has reversed course fewer than 250 times. in total, that's less than 1% of all of the body's decisions. joining me now is nbc news senior legal correspondent, laura jarrett and slate senior editor, and msnbc law and politics analyst, dahlia lithwick, that's not to say they shouldn't overturn themselves, there are plenty of instances that it's clear they should change their rulings, and others are arguable. what about what's happened in the past two years, the two major decisions on the supreme court on two major points of contention in the american politic, what's going on? >> two major points of contention, which certainly affect people's lives in meaningful ways, but i think the effects are going to be a little bit different. the effects of roe, you could see it happening almost immediately. states have trigger laws that

went into effect, meaning that women literally had no right to an abortion very quickly. this is not a light switch where it's an on and off, and all of a sudden, you know, we see a sort of sea change. i think schools are going to have to decide what risks are they willing to take, what do they do with this line in the opinion about an essay. how do they interpret that? i think this one is going to be a little bit more murky. it doesn't mean there hasn't been a meaningful change in the law, and certainly something critical is happening here, but i think the impact and the effects might be a little bit longer in terms of how fast we see them, whereas compared to roe, that was dramatic and really quite something very quickly. >> not as cut and dry. dahlia, what do you make of that? >> i mean, i'm going to sound

like a law student for a minute, katy, and fight the hypo, part of the problem today is that the court didn't overturn anything, and there's real confusion in the opinion about how much of that line of affirmative action cases from gruder to fisher survived today. justice sotomayor kind of grumpily accuses the majority of overturning decades of affirmative action law without saying it. and justice thomas kind of agrees, he sort of says, functionally it's over. i think we're in that even worse place where the court may or may not have overturned doctrine without doing it explicitly, and i think to laura's point, that puts us in this very very weird world of not entirely knowing what the rules are now. in some sense, it's analogous to dobbs because we're trying to figure out what is left from what came before, but unlike

dobbs, quite likely, laura just hinted at this. we now have fighting opinions and dissents about whether you can put in an essay for college admission your racial background and how that has changed you, and literally, the fact that we are in an essay-off, about the question of constitutional 14th amendment doctrine shows you how utterly really murky and weird this majority opinion is. >> so, laura, why make it so murky? they had the majority on their side. why not be decisive, why not be clear? >> it's a great question, and we'll chalk it up to roberts being roberts, and this is his effort to have it both ways. i don't know. you would think certainly for many of the conservatives on this court, certainly justice thomas, this has been sort of their life's work and project that they haven't been shy about. justice roberts has gone on the record many times with this, you know, clear feelings against how

race is used in college admissions in this way. i don't know what the move is to not just be explicit about it. but i do think that the output for the public understanding this when it's a time when the courts institutional integrity is in a delicate spot, further corrodes that to the extent that people feel like they're not being up front about what's happening. >> thomas has argued that having this policy around gives black students who get into higher colleges, it forces them to wear something of a scarlet letter and makes them less than because you can use the excuse of saying, well, you only got in here for this season. obviously others vehemently argue against that. dahlia, let me ask you about the other exception to this ruling, and that's for military colleges. what's the deal with that. >> yeah, it's another one of those murk fests where the chief

justice, very clear in his opinion that all of the rationales and bases, why we have allowed affirmative action, to have a more diverse class, to have leadership opportunities, every single reason that we have put a thumb on the scale for affirmative action he says is not sufficiently compelling under the stringent test. we don't have evidence that it makes society better, so it's going away, and then he hives off military colleges and says that they have sort of distinctive needs that require continuing affirmative action in their admissions. you know, there's an amazing line in one of the dissents, laura will remember, about how we need affirmative action in a bunker, now for a banker where there's literally no comprehension of why we would want diverse, you know, multifaceted, complicated student bodies nowhere, but in

military schools, and he doesn't spell it out. >> expand on that. it does seem hard to line up in your head why in this one exception it's fine to use race as a factor, and in this other one, it's not at all fine. is that just an acknowledgment that recruiting is difficult now? >> it goes back to the last time the court heard a major case about affirmative action, the michigan says, justice sandra day o'connor, the justices in the majority who upheld affirmative action were swayed by an amicus brief, the green brief in the case that came from military leadership said we cannot end it, it would be a catastrophe for military leadership. clearly there's a vestige of that feeling and there were similar arguments made this go around. and so all we can say is there seems to be some sense that we can't have fighting forces without affirmative action

making sure that there is a diverse class there. why that ends at the military is just not laid out. >> we have a parkland, we think, a parkland verdict on the broward county deputy, scott peterson, who is accused of not taking care of the students at that school, not confronting the gunman. we're going to go into the courtroom where we start to hear from the courtroom, so far -- have we gotten audio? we've gotten audio, so let's go into the broward county courtroom. >> state of florida plaintiff, versus scott peterson, we the jury find the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all, this 29th day of june, 2023, fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. count two, we the jury find the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all, this 29th day of

june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count 3, we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all, this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count 4, we the jury find as follows, as the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all. this 29th day of jun 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county. verdict, count 5, we the jury find as follows as to the defendant as follows, the defendant is not guilt, so say this day, we the jury fine as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all, this 29th day of june 2022, fort lauderdale,

broward county california, verdict, count 7. we the defendant find as follows as to the defendant yas, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all, this 29th day of june 2023, fort lauderdale, broward county. verdict, count 8, we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty so say we all this 29th day of june 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. count 9, we the jury find as follows the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all in 29th day of june 2023 at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count 10, we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june 2023 at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida.

verdict, count 11, we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. so say we all, this 29th day of june 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. ladies and gentlemen, the numbers that are on the back of your badges. juror number one. >> they are. >> juror number two, are these your true verdicts. >> >> yes. >> juror number four, are these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number five, are these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number six, are these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number seven, are these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> ladies and gentlemen, i wish to thank you for your time and consideration of this case. i also wish to advise you of some special privileges enjoyed by jurors. no juror can ever be require to

talk about the discussions that occurred in the jury room except by court order. for many centuries our society has relied upon juries in consideration of difficult cases. we have recognized for hundreds of years that a jury's deliberation, discussions and votes should remain their private affairs as long as they wish. therefore, the law gives you a vehicle privilege. although you are at liberty to speak about your deliberations, you are at liberty to refuse to speak. a request to discuss your verdict comes from those who are simply curious, from those who might seek to find fault with you, from the media, from the attorneys, or elsewhere. it will be up to each of you to decide whether you should preserve your privacy as a juror. ladies and gentlemen, i want to give you my sincere thanks for your time. 99% of the citizens that live in broward county, a county have no

idea what it's like to serve on a jury and now you all know. and i know i will say thank you. i know the time, effort and energy that went into this. i have a thank you letter and certificate, you can pass that out when they wake you out, they have your names on. the reason i normally do this in person is because i'm not -- have not addressed you by name for your privacy. i want to let you know, that instructs the court, the trial court administrator of both parties, not to disclose your names. the only way your names will be disclosed is if you choose. you can talk with whoever you want to talk to. if you want to never talk to another human being you're entitled to that too. this is your decision to make.

and momentarily step in the back and collect your belongings, and walk out to your cars, and that concludes your jury service. number one -- [ inaudible ] number two, since you did serve on the jury, they will not summon you for jury duty for a year. so i'll see you next year. unless you have any questions, thanks for your time. you are excused. thank you very much. much.

>> be seated. i need to address all parties. i have entered orders contemporaneously. >> you just saw an extremely emotional moment inside that courtroom, and just to bring you up to speed, that's scott peterson, he's 60 years old, accused of failing to confront the shooter during the parkland high school shooting from february 14th, 2018. nikolas cruz, the shooter killed 14 students and three staff members. he was sentenced to life in prison for this attack. this case was about scott peterson who was the school security guard on duty. he was the only one there that was armed, and he was accused of not doing his job, not going to protect those kids, not confronting the shooter. he testified that he didn't know where the shots were being fired from. he was confused at the time,

there was echoes, ricochetting, others testified it was clear where the shooter was and everybody knew. he was facing 11 counts and potentially 100 years in prison if found guilty. seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence, which is a misdemeanor. prosecutors allege that he lied to investigators and you can see it continues to be emotional. here he is hugging potentially his wife and other family members. he's relieved, i think you can say that he was found not guilty. he was facing a really dire sentence. also in that courtroom, parents and family members of parkland students who died, not as much visible emotion from them in the stands or the pews behind the court. shaking their heads instead. they thought this man should have done more to help protect the lives of their kids.

yeah, just an incredibly emotional scene inside that courtroom. let's bring in nbc news correspondent, kathy park, and msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin. this case has been going on for a couple of weeks now, kathy. and just bring us up to speed on what the parkland parents were saying about scott peterson? >> reporter: i think you summed it up pretty well, just a few moments ago. i mean, it's extraordinary what we saw in the courtroom a few moments ago, you saw scott peterson extremely emotional. he was sobbing. he was in tears. going into this trial, which lasted roughly 2 1/2 weeks, he was anticipating possibly prison time, nearly 100 years, but just moments ago, the jury handed down the decision, not guilty on all of the eleven counts. he was facing seven counts of felony child neglect, plus three misdemeanor counts of culpable negligence as well as a perjury charge, and once again, not guilty on all of those charges,

and throughout this trial, katy, the prosecution, they argued that he failed to act as a school resource officer instead of going in and stopping the bloodshed and the massacre, he stood back, stood back for more than 40 minutes, and throughout this trial, several pieces of evidence were presented to members of the jury. they saw several hours of surveillance footage at different angles, showing him outside of the school. meanwhile, his defense team argued they didn't know where the shots were coming from. there was a lot of confusion, especially with the communication at the time, and he should not be charged as a criminal. this case obviously got a lot of the attention. it's pretty unprecedented for a law enforcement officer linked to a school shooting to stand trial. obviously moving forward, it should have some interesting ripple effects when it comes to policing in the state of

florida. we should also note that peterson did not take the stand in this trial. however, in 2018, he did sit exclusively with savannah guthrie on the "today" show and did everything he thought he could do given the circumstances of that day, and also said that day would haunt him for the rest of his life. there were family members, and also former students and police officers who took the stand throughout this trial. obviously this was an emotional time for them to revisit the horrors of that day, which took place in 2018. >> you're talking about the ripple effects and the consequences, i think it's important to point out that one of the arguments against taking weapons like ar-15s out of the hands of people in this country is that you need to put more armed guards at schools, more good guys with guns. this was a good guy with a gun, and he did not act. he didn't work to stop somebody coming in with a loaded weapon to shoot and kill his fellow students and the teachers there. staffers there.

who you saw a moment ago, we were showing him, one of the fathers and one of the seats in the back shaking his head. that's tony maltanto, the father of gina who died in the shooting. a lot of the other family members were there for much of the court proceedings, but they were asked to leave because they could not keep their composure. that's how emotional this was. it was so emotional that the parents would break down in the courtroom, looking at a man that they thought should have done more to help their kids, more to stop nikolas cruz from coming in and killing 14 students and three staff members. lisa rubin, you're here with us as well. talk about the ripple effects that kathy was talking about. if he was found guilty, what would this have meant? >> reporter: i think it would have been substantially harder, katy, for school districts all across the country to recruit resource officers like scott peterson if they believe that in

the event of a school shooting if they do the wrong thing, even if they have the good intent that they could be found criminally liable. the fact that the jury here found for scott peterson on all charges, including the misdemeanor charge of perjury shows this is a community that didn't want to compound its own grief and that the application of the statutes that the prosecutors were bringing against scott peterson was particularly novel, in particular, the felony statutes with which he had been charged, the child neglect statutes those are typically applied to people in care giver roles and it may have been a bridge too far for the jury to say this guy who's a law enforcement officer who works at a school as essentially an armed guard is until the same position as, for example, a day care worker, against whom these charges are more typically brought. >> could this have any effect on what may or may not happen with uvalde, lisa? >> you know, it's an entirely different body of law in texas, and katy, i'll be the first to

confess to you that whatever the texas law is, it's not one i'm familiar with. certainly it's a cautionary note to prosecutors in other states who are thinking about law enforcement failures in uvalde, but the ones in uvalde that i'm thinking about, you know, some of them are much more severe. >> they were extreme and egregious, i think you could argue. >> yeah, you could, and here, i think the jury could have particularly given scott peterson's contrition, and could have really understood this is a person who in that moment made a decision he'll regret for the rest of his life, but one that was not born of cowardice but confusion, that might be harder in terms of a sell to a texas jury in the uvalde situation. and then again, it might not be, right? these are shootings that rip apart communities. the uvalde community is particularly small and tight knit, even more so than that of parkland. it's hard to say exactly how

this would cut in a very different community in a very different state. >> could a civil case be brought against scott peterson? >> it's possible that a civil case could be brought against him. there might be a case that could be made out that he had a duty to protect these children, that he was negligent in carrying out that duty. the fact that you have had a criminal verdict go against the prosecution and for scott peterson certainly that is a judgment that while not necessarily binding on civil parties, for example, like parents, it might be effective from an evidentiary perspective, and so there are some parents here that might be hard pressed to find someone willing to take that case on contingency, usually the cases like this are brought by plaintiffs lawyers but take up a portion of the recovery. it may be hard to find someone willing to bring the case now that scott peterson has been acquitted on all accounts.

>> lisa rubin and kathy park, ladies, thank you very much. scott peterson found not guilty on all counts, child neglects not guilty of culpable negligence, not guilty of perjury, not guilty at all in the case of whether he should have been held responsible, liable, criminally liable for the safety of the students at parkland back in 2018. coming up next, i want to go back to the supreme court, our top story for today. how affirmative action fell short for poor black students. we're going to get another side of this argument, and what should be done to replace it. s t should be done to replace it

♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ pepcid complete works fast and lasts for powerful heartburn relief. with an antacid that starts working in seconds- and a acid reducer that relieves occasional heartburn all day. other brands can't do both. pepcid complete.

students have, especially black students, especially intersectionally marginalized communities will have a seat at the table in redesigning admissions, and that could include taking away legacy and donor admissions and other things that give unfair advantages to communities of privilege. >> consideration is important because maybe one person is more qualified but that's only because they have been given resources and opportunities, so i think it's important to keep that in mind. >> this is an opportunity for harvard to step up recruitment and other efforts but it would be wrong of me to say i'm not scared. >> harvard students trying to look forward to figure out what happens after affirmative action comes to an end. joining me now from harvard's

campus is nbc news correspondent, antonia hilton. those students told you they have some ideas. what are harvard's administrators telling you? >> administrators and faculty members have had closed doors meetings about this for years now. they knew that this was going to make its way to the supreme court and this was a likely outcome, and so they didn't want to be caught off guard. this is one of the reasons why you see schools like harvard and many other schools around the country moving away from standardized testing. that is a tool that many felt already made it challenging for people from minority communities or low income communities because they couldn't afford fancy test prep. the conversation on campus is it's a bit all over the place. people are kind of reeling in some ways, mourning, they're very anxious, and even some of the suggestions like, well, just write about your race and write about the adversity you have faced in your life in your essay doesn't sound like a great

solution to students who felt like what if i didn't want to write my essay about that, what if i didn't want to be put in a position to play up that aspect of my life in the hopes that someone gives me a second look. that news hasn't fully calmed people's nerves. take a listen to a conversation i had with one student leader on campus at the front lines of conversations with faculty and administrators. he's both vietnamese and black and a supporter of affirmative action. >> a decision like this does affect individuals, but it also affects families, and it affects communities. individuals will lose access to these educational students that for better or worse do facilitate social mobility and can break cycles of poverty, and families will lose the support, pride and hope that can come from sending students to college. and communities will lose role models, people that show us that we can exist in spaces meant to keep us out. this will be felt across all

areas and levels by students of color and for that reason it's a disheartening thing to hear. >> reporter: katy, i think the other thing you can expect is for students and for some faculty members to be pushing the university to do away with legacy admissions, that's the process by which students who are former alum that they are given preference, and you're going to see a big push to get that reduced or completely dismantled in order to make space for kids of all kinds of populations, and so you're also going to see the school sending representatives out to communities, black communities, indigenous communities, immigrant communities around the united states, and trying to remind them, harvard still welcomes you. you are still a valued part of the community that we're trying to build here, and it's going to be this sort of complicated thing, right because we're going to be trying to measure for the next couple of years, what does the impact of this major decision look like, and one of the things that's going to be tough to measure is students who decide now, well, i don't see

myself at harvard, i don't see myself at unc, i don't see myself at stanford, and i hear that this has happened, and i'm just not going to apply. i'll limit some of the areas i'm going to look to or only apply to hcbus, historically black colleges and how do we measure who has missed out on other opportunities and who no longer raising their hands and showing interest in the schools. that's hard for us to follow. there will be academics at places like this one in the years to come. >> that's an interesting angle. thank you very much. another angle is broadly speaking there is a question of how deeply felt, i mean, deeply felt, overturning affirmative action will be. my next guest argues that the policy itself never entirely worked in the first place, writing in the atlantic quote, most americans seem to think affirmative action sits at the fountd dags of some ben efficient suite of education policies that do something for

poor black kids and that would disappear without the sanction, the reality is for the black poor, a world without affirmative action is just the world as it is. no different than before. joining me now is the author of "the failure of affirmative action," bertrand cooper. thank you for coming on. first up, your reaction to today's ruling? >> well, this is what everyone was expecting. tast it's a big part of why i wanted to print this piece in the first place. we look from 1978 to today and say what did this policy accomplish over 45 years, so i have been preparing for this for a few months, and now i'm just taking in everything, looking forward to reading the dissent, and seeing what schools decide to do next. >> explain why you didn't think affirmative action entirely worked in the first place? >> sure. i'm coming from a black poor, black foster and transient experience.

that's how i spent most of high school, so firsthand i got to experience what it's like to apply to colleges while affirmative action was operating under the old regime. you look at the national center of education statistics backed by the u.s. census, only 14% of students coming from a background like mine were going on to obtain a bachelor's degree. you look at harvard specifically, a team of harvard economists looked at harvard and asked how many of our students are coming from the bottom 20% of americans, and they found only 3% of their students were coming from what would really be the poor. that number inched up a little bit over late 2000s, early 2010s to 5%. what that means is harvard has achieved perfect black representation. that's very rare for an elite institution. it's done that several years in a row but because of these statistics, what we know is that when harvard lets in around 154

black students each freshman class, only 3 to 5% are coming from the black poor. it's not a high number, which means they have over represented the black, middle and upper classes. >> it's not economically diverse is what you're saying? >> it's not economically diverse at all. >> and not experientially diverse entirely. >> not entirely. if you were to ask anyone including the supreme court justices, being in a classroom with a black student who comes from the student who was from the projects, and one coming from the upper middle class, is that redundant, no. affirmative action, as it was operating for 45 years, there was no class consideration within race. that's a problem because when you're applying to a school it matters that the black upper class has typically a thousand times the median wealth of somebody coming from black poverty. it's a really uneven playing field to say the least. >> so do you see this as a setback or an opportunity?

>> for the black poor, it's not a setback. i stand by what i said in the piece, it's the world as it has been. for the black middle, the black upper class, it could be a setback. what i would hope that it's not that. i would hope this is an opportunity to reassess the legacy of affirmative action, reassess what it did up close and move forward with something that can benefit racial diversity, and also understands class does exist within race, there's a black upper class, middle and lower. >> do you think that there are policies out there that currently work? there'swork? there's the university of texas-austin policy that takes a top percentage from every high school in texas and guarantees those kids a spot in. it's totally race and economics blind. it's just here are these -- the top kids from every school, and they're allowed in. there's also the using of zip code as a way to try to diversify a student body. are there other ideas out there

that you think work, help to work? >> i'm not as familiar with those specific policies, and public education, especially if we're talking k through 12, it's so varied in the united states. you really have to dig into each state. in theory, i can see those working. the big hardship for harvard was they would not be able to find enough students from each income class if they were to maintain their same standards of academic excellence. if we go to texas and we find out that they are able to pull students from each zip code while maintaining their school standards and we're not just going to see, you know, the same over representation of the middle and upper class, then i think b that could work, if there's some guarantee of pulling students from the bottom, and it's very important to emphasize that. i mean, many of the clips and soundbites that you'll hear today mention the blow felt by low income students by poor students by poor communities. but there is no data to suggest

that this policy has been that effective at pulling blacks into institution that can help. >> bertrand cooper, thank you so much for coming on. i know we've had you booked for a few days. i really wanted to get your perspective, i thought your piece in the atlantic was elucidating. >> i appreciate that, katy and thank you for having me. what the supreme court ruled today making it easier for people to seek religious accommodations at work. ious accommodations at work to find some relief. cosentyx works for me. cosentyx helps real people get real relief from the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to or if ibd symptoms develop or worsen. i move so much better because of cosentyx. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. power e*trade's award-winning

trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley. (bobby) my store and my design business? we're exploding. you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. but my old internet, was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. narrator: it's called, “shared leadership.” driven by each community in a groundbreaking setting: california's community schools. where parents and families, students and educators, make decisions as one. creating the school and shaping futures - together. based on the needs of their students... ...steeped in local culture. curriculum from cyber security to gardening. and assisting families with their needs: wellness centers, food pantries, and parental education. california's community schools: reimagining public education.

is why aren't we putting these fires out in canada? why are so many burning out there. there are 500 active fires right now and 257 of them are burning out of control. a lot of these are remote. you can't drive to them. a lot of these fires, almost all of them, they're not threatening lives or infrastructure. they're just going to burn out, and that will take probably until winter to put them out. that is why anytime the winds start coming from the north, that's why the smoke is going it come down, whether it be from the western u.s. or the northwest or the midwest, in this situation, the great lakes, the ohio valley, that's why so many people are noticing the smoke in the air and the poor air quality, 110 to 120 million people now under air alertsaler. the worst sections are in purple. in the summer the air getting stagnant, it's not blowing around like it does in the spring or summer or fall. it's very unhealthy in detroit. chicago three days in a row

you're improved but not great. when i say unhealthy, that's not just for people with respiratory issues, that's unhealthy for anyone. we have other bad weather out there too going on. we have 100,000 people without power. we've had winds gusting up to 80 to 100 miles an hour in indiana and illinois. these thunderstorms are going to have problems. we've had ground stops at nashville airport. you can see all the severe thunderstorm warnings. if you're in indianapolis right now, you want to head indoors, about 80 miles per hour winds are going to head through. don't be near any trees. head to an interior room, almost like you would for a tornado. these storms will blow through really quickly and cross your fingers you don't lose power as we head towards the holiday weekend. as far as other issues go, it's still amazingly hot, dangerously hot. all through the mississippi river valley and who's the hottest right now? that's brutal. 115 in the shade in new orleans, if you're standing outside right now. 112 in little rock. you get the idea, all this dangerous heat continues. has to be at least two or three

weeks we've talked about this now from texas all the way through the south. >> no thank you. 115 in the shade, no thank you. bill karins, thank you very much. and in other supreme court news, the justices ruled unanimously in favor of an evangelical christian postal worker who argued the u.s. postal service didn't do enough to accommodate his request to not work on sundays. the decision is a major victory to religious groups greatly expanding how far employers must go to oblige the religious views of their employees. back with me is msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. explain this, lisa. >> this decision, as you just mentioned, was brought by an evangelical post office worker who wanted to rest and worship on sundays and whose post office wouldn't accommodate him because of all the amazon packages that they have to deliver. she sued under title 7. that's federal employment discrimination law, and he said that his employer, the post office, didn't do enough to accommodate him. the supreme court used it as an

opportunity to clarify precedent that they have that's several decades old, and lower courts used to interpret that as saying anything more than like a dmin meniscus adjustment or accommodation was an undue hardship for an employer. now that's no longer the case. the employer has to accommodate the employee unless that would impose substantial costs on the business itself. so it is a major shift with all nine justices going along for it as you just noted. >> it's not -- it's unusual to get all nine justices to vote unanimously, right? rule unanimously. >> it is, and you know, the whole nature of most supreme court cases is such that there is some divisive issue or a lower court split that necessitates resolution, and that usually doesn't lend itself towards unanimity, but here, one of the things that the justices were struck by was how many religious groups were in favor

of clarifying this test and who basically came before the court as amicus to say religious employees in this country who ask for accommodations more often than not are not getting it because lower courts believe that employers only have to change their practices or accommodate when the costs to them are low. the court took that as an opportunity to say, no, that's not what the statute says. you the business have to change unless the cost of complying and accommodating the employee are so great to you that it constitutes an undue hardship. that's why the case is going back down to a lower court for fact finding. what burden would it impose on the u.s. postal service to accommodate broth who is the evangelical christian postal worker here. >> interesting, i think the lesson is have more patience. don't expect our amazon deliveries on sunday. lisa, thank you very much for joining us again on another topic. we appreciate it. that is going to wrap it up for me today, but you don't want

to go anywhere because coming up in just about 30 seconds, "deadline white house" is going to have a live, exclusive interview with the president of the united states. the president of the united states, joe biden, is here in new york city at the 30 rock studios and he's sitting down with nicolle wallace. there's a lot to talk about from affirmative action in that ruling today to the economy to whatever is going on in russia. doessido? do not go anywhere. "deadline white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. the president of the united states is here at the table really. there's a lot to get to. today's headlines read like the lyrics from billy joel's "we didn't start the fire," a brand new supreme court decision ends 45 years of affirmative action in college admissions, a mutiny in ,