Podcasts about Affirmative action

On Saturday night it was Monterey Park, where 11 people died and nine more were injured after a gunman opened fire in a popular ballroom, on the eve of the Lunar New Year. On Monday it was Half Moon Bay, where a gunman claimed the lives of at least seven in the vicinity of a mushroom farm. We'll talk about how the impacts of the shootings are being felt in communities across California. Guests: Cynthia Choi, co-executive director, Chinese for Affirmative Action; co-founder, Stop AAPI Hate Josie Huang, Asian American communities correspondent, KPCC Rep. Judy Chu, U.S. congresswoman representing Monterey Park Sherry Wang, associate professor of counseling psychology, Santa Clara University Guy Marzorati, reporter and producer, KQED's politics and government desk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Dean of the University of California, Riverside School of Public Policy Mark Long talks with a student about Affirmative Action Policies in College Admissions. About Mark Long: Mark C. Long began his role as Dean of the School of Public Policy at UC Riverside in January 2023, following the successful tenure of Anil Deolalikar, who served as founding Dean of SPP. From 2004-2022, Long was a Professor of Public Policy and Governance and Adjunct Professor of Economics at the University of Washington. He served as the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance's Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs (2018-19) and Associate Dean for Research (2016-18). Long served on the faculty of George Washington University as an assistant professor of economics and public policy and administration from 2002-04. Learn more about Mark Long via https://profiles.ucr.edu/app/home/profile/marklong Podcast Highlights: “If your goal is representation by race, but you use other indicators like income or wealth, you need to put as much as four times as much weight on those other factors than you would if you just put weight directly on race. From an efficiency perspective, if what you're interested in is generating racial representation, it's inefficient to put weight on socioeconomic status.” - Mark Long on the topic of different indicators for racial representation in college admissions. “Yes, you can predict race, but you can't predict race, particularly with the date that universities have on hand.” - Mark Long on the topic of using measures to predict race to increase racial representation on college campuses. “Those gaps are present as of kindergarten, so clearly, things are going on in the homes and communities of these students before they even hit high school.” - Mark Long on the challenges minority students face from an early age. Guest: Mark Long (Dean of the School of Public Policy) Interviewer: Kevin Karami (UCR Public Policy Major, Dean's Chief Ambassador) Music by: C Codaine https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Xylo-Ziko/Minimal_1625 https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Xylo-Ziko/Phase Commercial Link: https://spp.ucr.edu/mpp Register for the event here: estolano-jan24.eventbrite.com Click here to learn more about Dean Long's research on this issue. This is a production of the UCR School of Public Policy: https://spp.ucr.edu/ Subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss an episode. Learn more about the series and other episodes via https://spp.ucr.edu/podcast.

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1/2: #Bestof2022:  The revision of the revision of Affirmative Action: 1/2: Asking SCOTUS to answer Affirmative Action's history and unknowns.  @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst (Originally posted February, 2022) https://www.hoover.org/research/affirmative-action-showdown

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 2/2: #Bestof2022:  The revision of the revision of Affirmative Action: 2/2: Asking SCOTUS to answer Affirmative Action's history and unknowns.  @RichardAEpstein, @HooverInst (Originally posted February, 2022) https://www.hoover.org/research/affirmative-action-showdown

An affirmative action circus in the Biden charade Theory meets practice: a group of people have been placed into positions of great influence strictly because of the way they look. Has theory won-out? Let's examine the performance of the people helping to run the Joe Biden charade and the Mockingbird Media's work protecting their theory of quota-based hiring. You guys, it's not Mayor Pete's fault that Mayor Pete lacks any experience at all in dealing with technology vendors. How is Mayor Pete supposed to know that one of the first tasks for someone “in charge” of complex infrastructure that has lives depending on it is to eliminate single points of failure? They don't teach such things at same-sex attracted events for intersectional allies. Speaking of Mayor Pete, there is a Bill--by a squish, shiny shoe Republican, no less--to force Mr. Public Transit Pete to fly commercial. But, I am sure that is an attack on his sexuality. Bill Would Prohibit Sec. of Transportation Pete Buttigieg from Using Private Air Travel; Development comes after investigations most recent air fiasco is blamed on a lone contractor with corrupt software file, the latest crisis for Biden's private-jet addicted DOT head.Who wins by placing these people in positions of influence? I mean, clearly all they seeks is fame. We will talk at length about that dynamic, because it's at the heart of why this practice is so pernicious. But, here's a hint for very, very sharp-eyed listeners and readers:People like him benefit. What does God say?The Lord abhors human pride. I believe that is because it will act to separate us from God, the Maker and Provider of all we have. Proverbs 11:2 - “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.” Proverbs 16:5 - “The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.” Proverbs - 16:18 - “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”This is a good review of how pride is discussed in the BibleHow Pride Steals Your Joy (+ 50 bible verses about pride) Speaker McCarthy Snaps at Media Asking About Santos' Security Clearance But Not Eric Swalwell'sFigureHead Biden: “I may be a practicing Catholic, but I used to go to 7:30 mass every morning in high school and then in college, before I went to the black church. Not a joke.”KAMALA: "I'm excited about electric school buses! I love electric school buses! I just love them for so many reasons! Maybe because I went to school on a school bus. Raise your hand if you went to school on a school bus!"KAMMI HARRIS: "It is the Caribbean nations, island nations in the Western hemisphere. That is where the Caribbean is. We are also in the Western Hemisphere."Insane racial classifications MR. Rachel Levine talks about breaking glass ceilings and being an inspiration to other women. A man who doesn't have a uterus and spent the majority of his career identifying as a man, is a glass-ceiling- breaking female hero? Why is it culturally acceptable to mock womanhood?Bill Would Prohibit Sec. of Transportation Pete Buttigieg from Using Private Air Travel; Development comes after investigations most recent air fiasco is blamed on a lone contractor with corrupt software file, the latest crisis for Biden's private-jet addicted DOT head.KJP: "Governor DeSantis has made a mockery of the [immigration] system."DOOCY: "Why didn't President Biden wanna see what's really going on at the border."KJP: "He did see exactly what's going on at the border."DOOCY: "He didn't talk to any migrants."KJP: "He went to the migrant center...there happened to be no migrants at the facility at the time..."Biden Spokesliar, Keisha Lance Bottoms: "When America catches a cold, black America catches the flu. [...] The great news is that the economy is doing much better under this administration."KIRBY: "Almost every two weeks...we're getting up here and talking to you about billions of dollars of more assistance to Ukraine. The United States is the leader of the—almost twenty five billion dollars since the start of this war! No other nation comes close..."

While corporate America pats itself on the back for DEI programs, one of the most impactful levers for achieving racial justice and equality is about to be dismantled. In this episode, Carolyn talks with Dr. Khiara Bridges, Professor of Law at Berkeley, about the business consequences of banning affirmative action and what leaders must do to drive real progress on diversity, equity, and inclusion

Eric Adams suddenly mad about the illegal aliens?...; Affirmative action ATC…; near miss at JFK. Dana from Florida thanks Jesse for everything. — E from Miami, FL…

As more classified documents continue to be found at President Biden's home in Delaware, Republicans and Democrats are at odds in the blame game. College admissions are in limbo as the Supreme Court contemplates ending affirmative action. And the declining birth rate in the U.S. has provoked concern as newer generations choose celibacy.

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. His new book (with co-author Lee C. Bollinger) is a timely defense of affirmative action policies that offers a more nuanced understanding of how centuries of invidious racism, discrimination, and segregation in the United States led to and justifies such policies from both a moral and constitutional perspective.

Salutation, SR Tribe! Welcome, and thank you for coming back for another hearty serving of The Sophisticatedly Ratchet Podcast, giving the real in a world of fake. We are back at it with the first SR report of 2023, and it's a good one! Please join the Tribe as we discuss various current events ranging from Politics, Science, and Reality TV. Flash examines the hidden potential behind Chat GPT. Shake considers FDA Grant for Accelerated Approval for Alzheimer's Disease Treatment. Mash sheds light on the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on affirmative action - The future of affirmative action in the college admissions application process hangs in the balance in 2023. And TJ delivers the Tribe Ratchet Recommendation for upcoming Reality TV to look out for in 2023!  No Bad Days - Chakra Alignment: The throat chakra (also known as Vishuddha) is responsible for communication, self-expression, and the ability to speak your personal truth. Shakes Word of the Week: Eristic: (Adjective) of or characterized by debate or argument; (Noun)  a person given to debate or argument. For more information about the show, click here: https://linktr.ee/SoRatchetPodcast. Don't forget to like, subscribe, follow, comment & share us with a friend. Catch us LIVE on YouTube every FIRST WEDNESDAY of the month at 9 pm EST; we can't wait to connect with you… Please remember to follow us on the following social media platforms: Youtube - SoRatchet Podcast  IG - @SoRatchetPodcast  TikTok- @SoRatchetPodcast Twitter - @SoRatchetPod Let us know your thoughts on the episode. Do you agree or disagree, and tell us how you feel - Please email us at SoRatchetPodcast@gmail.com. If you are interested in starting a podcast, here are Amazon links for the necessary equipment  Microphone -  Shure MV7 Dynamic Microphone Headphones -  Lights - Ring Light TJ's No Bad Days Chakra singing bowls https://a.co/d/9o3LxC2 Thanks for joining, TRIBE!!!!

Affirmative action America…; all flights in the US grounded? FAA system outage causes massive air traffic disruption. Janae from Utah asks why Jesse speaks the way he does about black people. She says she was emotional the last time she called Jesse. She says her husband can't watch Jesse because of what he says about black people. — Back to Janae… Miss Universe contestants…;

The Supreme Court appears ready to abolish affirmative action later this year. The case seeking to declare it unconstitutional has schools that consider race in admissions worried about how they can continue to build diversity among their students without affirmative action.Here in California, though, we already know what happens when programs like affirmative action are banned. In 1996, voters passed a first ballot initiative in the country to ban the consideration of race or gender and public education.Today, how the University of California system has dealt with a 25-year ban on affirmative action. And what we can learn if a national ban does happen. Read the full transcript here. Host: Gustavo ArellanoGuests: L.A. Times reporter Teresa WatanabeMore reading:California banned affirmative action in 1996. Inside the UC struggle for diversityAre Asian American college applicants at a disadvantage? Supreme Court debate stirs fearColumn: Affirmative action challenges aren't about ending discrimination. Their goal is white supremacySome audio in this episode is courtesy of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. 

MANHOOD HOUR!...; men are the head of all women. Jackson Mississippi water crisis is still going on!...; Jackson MI mayor Chockwe Lumumba blames systemic racism. — Janae from Utah wants to cause real change in the world and asks Jesse how. She so deeply has this desire that it brings her to tears. She is worried about how badly an elite few want to control the rest of America. A homeless woman on the streets of Portland bragged about the perks of living on the streets…; Superchats!...; Video of UFC president Dana White slapping his wife after she slapped him at a club…; Should a man hit a woman? Was he justified?

With the Supreme Court poised to potentially outlaw race-conscious admissions, Affirmative Action may soon be on the chopping block. What will be the legacy of this half-century-old policy? Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and columnist at the Wall Street Journal, discusses affirmative action’s impact both on the black community and the broader […]

With the Supreme Court poised to potentially outlaw race-conscious admissions, Affirmative Action may soon be on the chopping block. What will be the legacy of this half-century-old policy? Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and columnist at the Wall Street Journal, discusses affirmative action's impact both on the black community and the broader American education system. More about Jason: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/jason-l-riley  His book, "The Black Boom": httphttps://www.manhattan-institute.org/riley-black-boom  His book, "Please Stop Helping Us": https://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594038414 Statistical evidence of the impact of racial preferences in college admissions, mentioned in the discussion: https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2022/01/harvard-unc-affirmative-action-case-race-admissions-peter-arcidiacano-david-card-expert-witness-duke-university  His piece, "Racial Preferences Harm Their Beneficiaries, Too," WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-racial-preferences-harm-beneficiaries-harvard-unc-supreme-court-higher-education-college-students-affirmative-action-11664917859  His piece, "The College Board's Racial Pandering," WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-college-boards-racial-pandering-education-k-12-schooling-ap-courses-exams-testing-high-schools-math-reading-propaganda-11664309793 

On Oct. 31, 2022, the Supreme Court heard arguments that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's use of race in admissions goes too far. Given the current ideological makeup of the Supreme Court, it's almost certain the justices will overturn more than 40 years of precedent and declare affirmative action in higher education unconstitutional. But, as Bloomberg Law's Matthew Schwartz explains, there is a remote-but-not-impossible chance that the court may issue a surprise ruling upholding affirmative action but further limiting how it can be used. In this episode of our weekly legal news podcast, On The Merits, Matthew joins us to speculate on the court's ruling in this potentially landmark case and to talk about his recent four-part podcast series on affirmative action. Matthew also talks about the anti-affirmative action activist driving this case and what is behind his motivations. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Diversity as a goal has been considered a compelling reason (and legal precedent) for higher education institutions to apply policies which attempt to correct the effects of intentional and structural discrimination impacting gender, race, and ethnicity. Our esteemed panel of healthcare stakeholders and health equity advocates share personal experiences of how affirmative action has benefitted them, and the Hispanic and African American healthcare workforces in general. The discussion also explores affirmative action policy milestones, the positive impact these policies have had on overall workforce diversity and STEM education programs, and other knock-on effects such as increasing diverse participation in clinical trials. Featuring Mary O'Connor, MD, Oly, Chair of Movement is Life, Co-Founder & Chief Medical Officer, Vori Health (host); Prof. Frank McLellan, Esq., Professor Emeritus, Beasley School of Law, Temple University; Elena V. Rios, MD, MSPH, MACP, President & CEO, National Hispanic Medical Association; Bonnie Mason Simpson, MD, FAAOS, Medical Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, American College of Surgeons; Ramon L. Jimenez, MD, Board-Certified Orthopedic Surgeon, Treasurer of Movement is Life. Copyright © Movement is Life 2022.

It's been almost 20 years since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, intentionally or not, set an affirmative action countdown in motion. On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court heard arguments that Harvard and the University of North Carolina go too far in their use of race in admissions. Will the diversity rationale — the heart of affirmative action defenses since 1978 — convince this staunchly conservative court? Also, while diversity has been the reason affirmative action has survived legal tests — was it ever the best reason, under the Constitution, for affirmative action? Or have advocates been hamstrung by an argument that doesn't go far enough? Are race-conscious admissions policies about to fall? The conclusion to our four-part series on affirmative action at the Supreme Court. Guests: Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions William Lee, partner at WilmerHale Kimberly Robinson, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law Michelle Adams, professor at the University of Michigan Law School Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This fall, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging race-based admission policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard. Despite previous rulings that have upheld constitutional preferences to achieve a racially diverse study body, the court is widely expected to rule against this form of affirmative action. How have American policies on children evolved politically and how has affirmative action come to reflect right versus left ideology today? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Matthew Continetti, Senior Fellow and inaugural Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute. Matt outlines how race-based quotas introduced under President Richard Nixon were initially designed to help the social and economic advancement of the descendants of American slaves. However, the classification expanded over time as the left began to embrace the idea of color consciousness, and the notion that the presence of a racial disparity means there must be racism at work.Matt argues that the conservative movement has been most successful in education policy because it acknowledged everyday Americans who are dissatisfied with overreach by the Left and are looking for substantive policy responses. Advocating for school choice, charter schools, and greater accountability from public schools has received widespread support from the American public, and conservatives should continue in this vein.Resources:• The End of Affirmative Action? | Matthew Continetti | Commentary• Is It Time to Replace Race with Class in Affirmative Action? | Ian Rowe | EduwonkShow Notes:• 02:00 | How did affirmative action divide the left and the right?• 06:00 | The unintended consequences of government action • 10:00 | Most Americans view each other as individuals, not members of groups• 11:30 | The negative effects of race-based ideologies • 16:15 | What is the future of the conservative movement?

This is a Bryan Suits Show "best of". See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Hon. Gail Heriot, discusses her recent article for the New Criterion, An Agenda for Congress, in which she provides recommendations for Congress to adjust existing incentives that provide structural support for race-preferential admissions. Professor Heriot shares her projections for the outcome of Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and what the implications of these cases will be for colleges and universities.Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Richard Epstein reviews the biggest stories of 2022—from Twitter and free speech, to Dobbs and Affirmative Action, ending with Donald Trump and a future indictment.

Richard Epstein reviews the biggest stories of 2022—from Twitter and free speech, to Dobbs and Affirmative Action, ending with Donald Trump and a future indictment.

Photo by Anthony Garand on Unsplash EPISODE SUMMARY In this episode, the hosts discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decisions on the Constitutionality of Affirmative Action and the power of state legislatures to draw Congressional district lines without judicial review. Originalists say let's figure out what the words used in the Constitution meant at the time. Proponents of a Living Constitution say let's figure out what makes sense today. A FEW KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS EPISODE What it means to be an originalist vs. a texualist All about independent state legislature theory before the Supreme Court, its texualist roots, and its potential damage to our democracy Affirmative action will likely end as we know it in 2023 at the hands of the real activist judges To download the transcript, CLICK HERE LINKS IN THIS EPISODE CLICK HERE TO LEAVE FEEDBACK INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE CASE Bipartisan Policy Center “Independent State Legislature Theory Undermines Elections Principles.” https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/independent-state-legislature-theory/ SCOTUSblog.com “Court seems unwilling to embrace broad version of “independent state legislature” theory.” https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/court-seems-unwilling-to-embrace-broad-version-of-independent-state-legislature-theory/ NPR “Supreme Court to hear controversial election-law case.” https://www.npr.org/2022/12/07/1140465909/supreme-court-independent-state-legislature-theory AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES NPR “Can race play a role in college admissions? The Supreme Court hears the arguments.” https://www.npr.org/2022/10/31/1131789230/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc SCOTUSblog.com “In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America.” Thomas Jefferson on whether the American Constitution is binding on those who were not born at the time it was signed and agreed to (1789) https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whether-the-american-constitution-is-binding-on-those-who-were-not-born-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789 Follow Ellis Conversations on Twitter Follow Judge Ronald Ellis on Twitter Follow Jamil Ellis on Twitter Follow Jamil Ellis on LinkedIn Check out Unified Ground Follow Ellis Conversations on Twitter OTHER EPISODES OF INTEREST Affirmative Action: How We Got To Now  

In this episode, Kathryn welcomes Ishan Bhabha, co-chair of Jenner and Block's Education Practice and a member of its Appellate and Supreme Court Practice, to talk about the well-publicized affirmative action cases at the oral arguments at the Supreme Court. He discusses his experiences representing the Ivy League and other schools, as well as the importance of diversity in education and the stakes of the cases. Ishan also recalls how he found appellate law to be more interesting and exciting, as it combines logic and reasoning with the ability to do the right thing. For Ishan, the biggest appeal of appellate law is its diversity - he never knows what his clients will need help with next. Who's The Guest? Ishan Bhabha is one of the nation's preeminent lawyers for institutions of higher education and technology companies. He has been recognized by both Bloomberg Law and the National Law Journal as one of the 40 best lawyers under 40 in the United States. Ishan is the co-chair of Jenner and Block's Education Practice and a member of its Appellate and Supreme Court Practice. He represents institutions, senior executives, and boards of directors on high-stakes matters of legal, regulatory, and ethical risk. He has argued in the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals. Episode Resources https://jenner.com/people/IshanBhabha https://www.linkedin.com/in/ishanbhabha  Episode Highlights Ishan Bhabha on why he decided to go to law school The evolution of his career Three things that make law school exciting The allure of appellate practice How to foster diversity in education Impact of big cases on lawyers The stakes of big cases on clients What are the impacts of the Supreme Court's decision on college admissions? Alternatives to explicit race consideration in admissions Effects of Supreme Court cases on legal processes Different stakes of commercial and social litigation Defending diversity initiatives What the D&I task force is Highlights of Ishan's work as a technology lawyer Episode Sponsored By https://pli.edu/  Subscribe, Share, and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

For decades, over multiple decisions, the Supreme Court has been clear: The U.S. Constitution allows colleges to take race into account when they craft their incoming classes. And yet race-conscious admissions policies continue to face attacks. Today, on part three of our four-part series on affirmative action, we'll meet the man who has perhaps done more than any other in recent memory fighting to end the use of race in America's public policies. Will Edward Blum be successful in convincing today's solidly conservative high court to end affirmative action in education? Guests: Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions Ted Shaw, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law Garrett Epps, professor at the University of Oregon School of Law Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Featuring Cara McClellan, JD, MEd, and Mary I. O'Connor, MD. Addressing the under-representation of racial minorities in the health professions is considered central to reducing overall health disparities and inequalities. Multiple “race-conscious” laws and policies have been introduced that seek to help marginalized communities, ranging from affirmative action to voting rights, reproductive rights, and environmental protections. Legal action now brought before the Supreme Court by conservative activist Edward Blum calling for all higher education admission applications to be effectively “color-blind” could end affirmative action as we know it, with wider ramifications for race-conscious legislation. In this episode of the Health Disparities Podcast, Cara McClellan, JD from the Advocacy for Racial and Civil (ARC) Justice Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law in Philadelphia unpacks the origins of affirmative action with Dr. Mary O'Connor, Chair of Movement is Life. Together they discuss the foundational impact of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the role of the Freedmen's Bureau, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Higher Education Act of 1965, and current judicial deliberations. Depending on how SCOTUS rules on overturning affirmative action, the long battle to desegregate higher education in the United States could take a backwards step. But are there alternative approaches? Copyright: Movement is Life 2022 

The U.S. Supreme Court threatens to strike down affirmative action, which Harvard says is an indispensable tool in its efforts to build a welcoming and representative campus. But some experts say those efforts have been half-hearted.

Mike Hoa Nguyen, assistant professor of education, faculty affiliate at the Institute for Human Development and Social Change, and faculty affiliate at the Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools at New York University, leads the conversation on affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, Vice President of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Mike Hoa Nguyen with us to discuss affirmative action. Dr. Nguyen is assistant professor of education at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. He's also a faculty affiliate at NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools and a faculty affiliate at NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. Additionally, Dr. Nguyen is a principal investigator of the Minority Serving Institutions Data Project. And prior to coming to NYU he was at the University of Denver. He has extensive professional experience in the federal government and has managed multiple complex, long-term intergovernmental projects and initiatives, focusing on postsecondary education and the judiciary and has published his work widely, including in Educational Researcher, The Journal of Higher Education, and The Review of Higher Education. So Mike, thanks very much for being with us today to talk about affirmative action. Could you give us an overview of where we are, the history of affirmative action, where we are now, and examples of criteria that are used by different institutions? NGUYEN: Well, hello. And thank you so much, Irina. And also thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations for having me here today. It's a real honor. And thank you to many of you who are joining us today out of your busy schedules. I'm sure that many of you have been following the news for Harvard and UNC. And, of course, those cases were just heard at the Supreme Court about a month ago, on Halloween. And so today thank you for those questions. I'd love to be able to spend a little bit of time talking about the history of sort of what led us to this point. I also recognize that many joining us are also experts on this topic. So I really look forward to the conversation after my initial remarks. And so affirmative action, I think, as Philip Rubio has written, comes from centuries-old English legal concept of equity, right, or the administration of justice according to what is fair in a particular situation, as opposed to rigidly following a set of rules. It's defined by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1977 as a term that is a broad—a term, in a broad sense, that encompasses any measure beyond a simple termination of discriminatory practice adopted to correct for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future. Academics have defined affirmative action simply as something more than passive nondiscrimination, right. It means various organizations must act positively, affirmatively, and aggressively to remove all barriers, however informal or subtle, that prevent access by minorities and women to their rightful places in the employment and educational institutions of the United States. And certainly one of the earliest appearances of this term, affirmative action, in government documents came when President Kennedy, in his 1961 executive order, where he wrote that the mandate stated that government contractors, specifically those that were receiving federal dollars to, quote, take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated during employment without regard of their race, creed, color, or national origin. Certainly President Kennedy created a committee on equal employment opportunity to make recommendations for this. And then later on President Johnson later expressed—I'm sorry—expanded on President Kennedy's approach to take a sort of more active antiracist posture, which he signaled in a commencement speech at Howard University. In the decades following, of course, political-legal attacks have rolled back on how affirmative action can be implemented and for what purposes. So in admissions practices at U.S. colleges and universities today, really they can only consider race as one of many factors through a holistic process or holistic practices if so-called race-neutral approaches to admissions policies have fallen short in allowing for a campus to enroll a racially diverse class in order to achieve or reap the benefits of diversity, the educational benefits of diversity. Federal case law established by the courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that colleges may only consider race as one of many factors for the purposes of obtaining the educational benefits in diversity. So starting with the Bakke decision in the late 1970s, the Court limited the consideration of race in admissions and replaced the rationale for the use of race, specifically the rationale which was addressing historic and ongoing racism or systemic and racial oppression, instead in favor of the diversity rationale. So, in other words, if a college or university wishes to use race in their admissions, they can only do so with the intention of enhancing the educational benefits of all students. It may not legally use race as a part of their admissions process for the purpose of acknowledging historical or contemporary racism as barriers to equity in college access. If we fast-forward to something more recent, the two cases out of Michigan, the Grutter and Gratz case, what we saw there were really—significant part of the discussions of these two cases were really informed and conversations really about the educational benefits of diversity. That was really a key aspect of those cases. Lawsuits challenging the use of race in college admissions after those two cases now can sort of be traced to Edward Blum, a conservative activist, and his organization, Students for Fair Admission, or SFFA. So Blum has really dedicated his life to establishing what he calls a colorblind American society by filing lawsuits with the goal of dismantling laws and policies seeking to advance racial justice. This includes redistricting, voting rights, and, of course, affirmative action. So in 2000—in the 2000s, he recruited Abigail Fisher to challenge the University of Texas in their admissions program. The Court, the Supreme Court, ultimately ruled in favor of Texas in the second Fisher case—Fisher II, as we call it. And so that's actually where we saw Ed Blum alter his tactics. In this case he established SFFA, where he then purposefully recruited Asian Americans as plaintiffs in order to sue Harvard and UNC. So the cases now at Harvard—are now certainly at the Supreme Court. But one sort of less-known case that hasn't got a whole lot of attention, actually, was—that was sort of on the parallel track, actually originated from the U.S. Department of Justice more recently, during the Trump administration, which launched an investigation into Yale's admissions practices, which also focus on Asian Americans. And this was around 2018, so not too long ago. And certainly Asian Americans have been engaged in affirmative action debate since the 1970s. But these lawsuits have really placed them front and center in sort of our national debate. And so I think it's really important to also note that while empirical research demonstrates and shows that the majority of Asian Americans are actually in support of affirmative action, a very vocal minority of Asian Americans are certainly opposed to race-conscious admissions and are part of these lawsuit efforts. But interestingly enough, they've received a large and disproportionate share of media attention and sort of—I stress this only because I think popular press and media have done a not-so-great job at reporting on this. And their framing, I think, sometimes relies on old stereotypes, harmful stereotypes, about Asian Americans, and written in a way that starts with an assumption that all Asian Americans are opposed to affirmative action when, again, empirical research and national polls show that that's certainly not the case, right, and much more complex than that. But anyway, so back to what I was saying earlier, in sort of the waning months of the Trump administration the Department of Justice used those investigations into Yale to file a lawsuit charging that Yale in its admissions practices discriminates against Asian Americans. This lawsuit, the DOJ lawsuit, was dropped in February of 2021 when President Biden took office. So in response to that, SFFA submitted its own lawsuit to Yale based upon similar lines of reasoning. So I think what's—why bring this up? One, because it doesn't get a lot of attention. But two, I think it's a really interesting and curious example. So in the Yale case, as well as in the previous DOJ complaint, Ed Blum notes specifically that they exclude Cambodian Americans, Hmong Americans, Laotian Americans, and Vietnamese Americans from the lawsuit, and thus from his definition of what and who counts as Asian American. I think this intentional exclusion of specific Southeast Asian American groups in Yale, but including them in Harvard, is a really interesting and curious note. I've written in the past that, sort of at the practical level, it's a bit—it's not a bit—it's a lot misleading. It's manipulative and advances a bit of a false narrative about Asian Americans. And I think it engages in what we call sort of a racial project to overtly reclassify the Asian American racial category, relying again on old stereotypes about Asian American academic achievement. But it also sort of counters state-based racial and ethnic classifications used by the Census Bureau, used by the Department of Education, used by OMB, right. It does not consider how Southeast Asian Americans have been and are racialized, as well as how they've built pan-ethnic Asian American coalitions along within and with other Asian American subgroups. So the implications of this sort of intentional racialized action, I think, are threefold. First, this process, sort of trying to redefine who is Asian American and who isn't, demonstrates that SFFA cannot effectively argue that race-conscious admissions harms Asian Americans. They wouldn't be excluded if that was the case. Second, it illustrates that Ed Blum and his crusade for sort of race—not using race in college admissions is actually really not focused on advancing justice for Asian Americans, as he claims. And then finally, I think that this maneuver, if realized, will really disenfranchise educational access and opportunity for many Asian Americans, including Southeast Asian Americans and other communities of color. Of course, this case hasn't received a lot of attention, given that we just heard from Harvard and UNC at the Supreme Court about a month ago. But I think it provides some really important considerations regarding the upcoming Supreme Court decision. Nonetheless the decision for Harvard and UNC, we're all sort of on pins and needles until we hear about it in spring and summer. And I was there in Washington for it, and so what I'd actually like to do is actually share some interesting notes and items that sort of struck out to me during the oral arguments. So I think in both cases we heard the justices ask many questions regarding the twenty-five-year sunset of using race in college admissions, right, something that Justice O'Connor wrote in the Michigan case. I think the solicitor general, Solicitor General Prelogar's response at the conclusion of the case was really insightful. She said—and I'm sort of paraphrasing here about why we—in addressing some of the questions about that twenty-five-year sunset, she basically said that society hasn't made enough progress yet. The arc of progress is slower than what the Grutter court had imagined. And so we just suddenly don't hit 2028—that's twenty-five years from the decision—and then, snap, race is not used in college admissions anymore. There was also a lot of discussion regarding proxy approaches to so-called race-neutral admissions, right, yet still being able to maintain some or similar levels of racial diversity. I think what we know from a lot of empirical research out there is that there's really no good proxy variables for race. Certainly Texas has its 10 percent plan, which really only works to a certain extent and does not actually work well for, say, private schools that draw students from across all fifty states and the territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. And again, as the solicitor general stated, it doesn't work well for the service academies either, for really similar reasons. I do think the line of questioning from the chief justice again related to what sounded like a carveout exemption for our U.S. military schools, our service academies. What's really interesting, and might be of actually specific interest for the CFR community, of course, our service academies practice affirmative action and are in support of it. And this was also argued in an amicus brief written by retired generals and admirals. And they argued that race-conscious admissions is necessary to build a diverse officer corps at both the service academies as well as ROTC programs at various universities across the country, which, in their words, they say builds a more cohesive, collaborative, and effective fighting unit, especially, quote, given recent international conflicts and humanitarian crises which require our military to perform civil functions and call for heightened cultural awareness and sensitivity in religious issues. And so, to a certain extent, I think that same line of logic can also be extended to, for example, our diplomatic corps, and certainly many corporations. We also saw briefs from the field of medicine, from science and research, have all written in support of race-conscious admissions, along the same sort of pipeline issues as their companies and organizations. And they argue that their work benefits from a highly educated, diverse workforce. But what was interesting, was that there wasn't much discussion about Asian Americans. It was only brought up sort of a handful of times, despite the fact that certainly that's sort of the origin story of the sets of lawsuits. And perhaps—to me perhaps this is simply an indication that the case was really never about Asian Americans from the beginning. And certainly the finding from the district court shows that Asian Americans are not discriminated in this process at Harvard. And so we will all sort of see how the Court rules next year, if they uphold precedent or not, and if they do not, how narrow or how broad they will go. Justice Barrett did have an interesting question in the UNC part of the case about affinity groups and affinity housing on campus. So, for example, my undergraduate alma mater, UC Berkeley, has this for several groups. They have affinity housing for Asian Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, women in STEM, the LGBTQ+ community, Latinx students, among many, many others, actually. So I think a possible area of concern is if they go broad, will we see a ban on these types of race-based practices on campus? Would that impact sort of thinking about recruitment efforts? So these so-called race-neutral approaches, sort of recruitment and outreach services for particular communities. Or would that impact something like HBCUs and tribal colleges, HSIs and AANAPISIs, or other MSIs? How does that all fit in, right? I think that line of questioning sort of sparked a bit of concern from folks and my colleagues. But I think, though, in conversation, we don't think the Court has really any appetite to go that far. And I'm certainly inclined to agree. But end of the day, that line of questioning was rather curious. And so, with that, I thank you for letting me share some of my thinking and about what's going on. And I would really love to be able to engage in conversation with all of you. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Thank you so much. And we'd love to hear now from you all questions and comments, and if you could share how things are happening on your campuses. Please raise—click on the raised-hand icon on your screen to ask a question. If you're on an iPad or tablet, you can click the More button to access the raised-hand feature. I'll call on you, and then accept the unmute prompt, state your name and affiliation, followed by your question. You can also submit a written question in the Q&A box or vote for questions that have been written there. And if you do write your question, it would be great if you could write who you are. I'm going to go first to a raised hand, Morton Holbrook. And there you go. Q: I'm there, yeah. Morton Holbrook from Kentucky Wesleyan College in Kentucky. Thanks, Professor Nguyen. Sort of a two-part question here. One is, how do you reconcile apparent public support for affirmative action with the number of states, I think ten or twelve states, that have banned affirmative action? Are their legislators just out of touch with their people, or what? And the second part is, a recent article in the Washington Post about UC Berkeley's experience, where the number of African American students simply plummeted down to about 3 percent, and at the same time that campus is still very diverse in other respects. Have you made a study of all the states that have banned affirmative action? Have they all had that same result with regard to African Americans? Or where does that stand? Thank you. NGUYEN: Thank you. Thank you for the really excellent question. I think it's about—I think you're right—around nine, ten or so states that have banned affirmative action. You know, I'll be completely honest with you. I'm really just familiar with the bans that were instituted both in California and in Michigan, and those were through state referendums, right, and not necessarily legislature. So in this case, this is the people voting for it. And so I think that's a really tough nut to crack about how do you reconcile these bans at the state level versus sort of what we see at the national level. And so I think this is sort of the big challenge that advocates for racial equity are facing in places like California. They actually tried to repeal this in California recently, in the last decade. And again, that failed. And so I think part of the issue here is there's a whole lot of misinformation out there. I think that's one key issue. I sort of said in my opening remarks there that, at least in some of the popular media pieces today about these cases, the way Asian Americans are sort of understood and written about is really not aligned with a lot of the rich empirical research out there that shows quite the contrary, as well as sort of historical research that shows quite the contrary. And so I think there's a lot of public opinion being formulated as well as, again, just sort of misinformation about the topic that might be leading folks to think one way or another. To your second question about UC Berkeley, my alma mater, you're right. After that Prop 209 ban, you saw a huge decline in undergraduate enrollment, specifically of African American students. And so Berkeley has been trying every which way to figure out a race—a so-called race-neutral approach in order to increase those numbers. And I think they are trying to—they are really trying to figure it out. And I think that's why UC Berkeley, UCLA, other institutions submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard, in support of UNC, because they know that there are not a lot—when you can't use race, that's a result that you end up with. And that's because there are just not good proxy variables for race. SES or economic status is often talked about a lot. That again isn't a good variable. Geography can—to a certain extent can be used. All these can sort of certainly be used in some combination. But again, they do not serve well as proxy variables. And I think that's why we see those numbers at Berkeley. And I think that's why Berkeley was so invested in this case and why all those campus leaders submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard and UNC. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next written question or first written question from Darko Spasevski, who's at the University of Skopje, North Macedonia: Do you think that in order to have successful affirmative actions in the higher education this process should be followed by affirmative actions in the workplace? Are the benefits—if the affirmative actions are only promoted at the level of higher education but are not at the same time continuing at the workplace? I guess it would be the opposite. Is it—you know, basically, should affirmative action be promoted in the workplace as well— NGUYEN: Yeah, I think— FASKIANOS: —once you get past the higher education? NGUYEN: Got it. Yeah, I think I understand that question. Actually, this was something that came up during this recent Supreme Court case. Again, the solicitor general was talking about specifically the briefs from the retired generals and admirals, as well as from various executives and corporations, talking about how affirmative action is so important at the university level because then it helps build a pipeline to recruit folks to work at those organizations or serve in the military, as well as that it trains all students, right, and lets them access and achieve the benefits of diversity and use that in their future employment, which research from areas of management show that that increases work productivity. It increases their bottom line, et cetera, et cetera. And so actually, in that argument, the—I think it was Justice Alito that asked, are you now arguing for this in the private sector, in corporations? And the solicitor general quickly said no, no. The context of this lawsuit is specifically or the position of the United States is specifically just focused here on higher education. And I think that certainly is relevant for this conversation today, as well as sort of my own area of expertise. But I think my colleagues in the areas of management and a lot of that work shows, I think, similar types of results that, when you have diverse workforces, when you have folks who can reap the benefits of diversity interactions, interracial interactions, then there are certainly a lot of benefits that come from that, in addition to creativity, work efficiency, so many things. And so, again, I'm not here to sort of put a position down regarding affirmative action in professional settings, only because that's not my area of expertise. But certainly other areas of research have pointed in similar directions as what's sort of shown in the higher-education literature. FASKIANOS: (Off mic) Renteln? And let's see if you can unmute yourself. If you click on the unmute prompt, you should be able to ask your question. Not working? Maybe not. OK, so I will read it. So— Q: Is it working now? FASKIANOS: It is, Alison. Go ahead. Q: Thank you. I'm sorry. It's just usually it shows me when I'm teaching. Thank you for a really interesting, incisive analysis; really enjoyed it. I wanted to ask about whether it's realistic to be able to implement policies that are, quote, race-neutral, unquote, given that people's surnames convey sometimes identities, ethnic and religious identities, and also activities that people participated in in professional associations. And when people have references or letters of recommendation, information about background comes out. So I'm wondering if you think that this debate really reflects a kind of polarization, a kind of symbolitics, and whether, while some worry about the consequences of the Supreme Court's decisions, this is really something that's more symbolic than something that could actually be implemented if the universities continue to be committed to affirmative action. NGUYEN: Really great question. Thank you so much for asking it. This was actually a big chunk of the conversation during oral arguments for both at UNC and both at Harvard, right. The justices were asking, so how do you—if you don't—and this was sort of the whole part about when they were talking about checking the box, checking sort of your racial category during the application process. And so they asked, if you get rid of that, what happens when students write about their experiences in their personal statements or, as you said, recommenders in their letters in about that? And so this was where it got really, really—I think the lawyers had a really hard time disentangling it, because for people of color, certainly a lot of their experiences, their racialized experiences, are inextricably linked to their race and their identity. And so removing that is, at an operationalized level, pretty hard to do and pretty impossible, right. So they actually had some interesting examples, like one—and so they're asking hypotheticals. Both lawyers—both the justices on all the various spectrum of the Court were asking sort of pointed questions. Where I think one justice asked, so can you talk about—can you talk about your family's experiences, particularly if your ancestors were slaves in the United States? And so the lawyers—this is the lawyer for SFFA saying that would not—we cannot use that. They cannot be used in admissions, because that is linked to their race. But can you—so another justice asked, can you talk about if, you know, your family immigrated to the United States? Can you—how do you talk about that? Can you talk about that? And the lawyers said, well, that would be permissible then, because that doesn't necessarily have to be tied to a racial group or a racial category. So again, it's very—I think what they were trying to tease out was how do you—what do you actually—what would actually be the way to restrict that, right? And so I guess, depending on how the justices decide this case, my assumption is or my hope is, depending on whatever way they go, they're going to—they will, one way or another, define or sort of place limits if they do end up removing the use of race. But I completely agree with you. Operationally, that's not an easy thing to do, right? And when do you decide what fits and what doesn't fit? And that will be the—that will be a big, big struggle I think universities will face if the courts ban the use of race in college admissions. FASKIANOS: Let me just add that Alison Dundes Renteln is a professor of political science at the University of Southern California. So I'm going to go to the next written question, from Clemente Abrokwaa at Penn State University: Do you think affirmative action should be redefined to reflect current social-demographic groups and needs? NGUYEN: Oh, that's such a fun question, and particularly for someone who studies race and racial formation in the United States. And so I—you know, this is—this is an interesting one. I think—I think sort of the way we think about—at least folks in my profession think about race versus sort of the way—the way it's currently accounted for in—by state-based classifications/definitions, those tend to be a little bit behind, right? That's normal and natural. But I think what we've seen in the United States over time is race has—or, racial classifications and categories have changed over time and continue to evolve, right? The Census—the Census Bureau has an advisory group to help them think through this when they collect this data. And so—and so I'll be honest with you, I don't have a good answer for you, actually. But I think—I think that certainly, given the fact that racial categories do shift and change over time and the meaning ascribed to them, we certainly need to take a—if we continue using approaches for—race- or ethnic-based approaches in college admissions, that's something that absolutely needs to be considered, right? But at the same time, it also means, as we think about sort of the future and what does that look like—and maybe, for example, here we're talking about folks who are—who identify as mixed race. But at the same time, we need to look historically, too, right? So we don't want to—the historical definitions and the way people would self-identify historically. And so I think—I think, certainly, the answer, then, would be—would be both, right? But what a fun question. Thanks for that question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the moderator prerogative here and ask you about: How does affirmative action in higher education in the United States relate to, you know, relations abroad? NGUYEN: Yeah. Well— FASKIANOS: Have you looked at that connection? NGUYEN: Sure. I think—I think that—I think that's really, really interesting. So something that we wrote in our amicus brief particularly regarding—it was sort of in response to SFFA's brief and their claim, which was about sort of why Asian Americans here were so exceptional in their—in their academic achievements. I think that's a—tends to be a big stereotype, model minority stereotype. That is how Asian Americans are racialized. So one thing that we sort of wrote in our brief was this actually is really connected to a certain extent, right—for some Asian American groups in the United States, that's linked to U.S. foreign policy and U.S. immigration policy about who from Asia is allowed to immigrate to the United States, what their sort of educational background and requirements are. And so I think when we think about the arguments being made in this lawsuit and the way Asian Americans are discussed, certainly one key aspect there is certainly connected to historic U.S. foreign policy, particularly around—as well as immigration policy, particularly around the 1965 Immigration Act. So certainly they are connected and they're linked. And something that we—that I wish more people could—more people would read our brief, I guess, and get a good understanding of, sort of to add to the complexity of this lawsuit. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go back to Morton Holbrook. Q: Yes. Still here at Kentucky Wesleyan College. Speaking of amicus briefs, what do you think of the Catholic college brief from Georgetown University? Here we have a Court that's been very partial towards religious beliefs, and they're arguing that their religious beliefs requires them to seek diversity in college admissions. How do you think they'll fare in that argument? NGUYEN: Yeah. This was also brought up in—during oral arguments. I can't remember if it was during the UNC part or the Harvard part. And I'll be completely honest with you, I haven't read that brief yet. There's just so many and I wasn't able to read them all. But this was a really interesting—really interesting point that was sort of raised in the courts. And I don't—I don't—I don't have a good answer for you, to be completely honest. I'm not sure how they're going to, particularly given that these—that this Court seems to be very much in favor of religious liberty, right, how they would account for that amicus brief from the Catholic institutions. And so that will be an interesting one to watch and to see—to see how it's framed, and certainly it would be interesting if they played an outsized role in the justices' decision-making here. But great question. Great point to raise and something I'll add to my reading list for this weekend. FASKIANOS: So Alison Renteln came back with a question following on mine: Why are numerical quotas acceptable in other countries like India but not in the United States? NGUYEN: Yeah. Great, great question there. You know, also in other places like in Brazil. And so we, in fact, used to use numerical quotas before the Bakke decision. It was the Bakke decision, University of California v. Bakke, that eliminated the use of racial quotas, also eliminated the use of what I said earlier about sort of the rationales for why we can practice race-conscious admissions, which was it cannot be used to address historic racism or ongoing racism. In fact, the only rationale for why we can use affirmative action today as a—as a factor of many factors, is in order to—for universities to build campus environments—diverse campus environments of which there are benefits to diversity, the educational benefits of diversity that flows for all students. And so, yeah, it was the—it was the Supreme Court in the late 1970s that restricted the use of quotas among many other—many other rationales for the practice of race-conscious admissions. Thank you for that question. FASKIANOS: Great. And I'm going to go to next to raised hand from Emily Drew. Q: Great. Thank you. I'm listening in from Oregon, where I'm a sociologist. Thank you for all of these smart comments. My question is a little bit thinking out loud. What do you think about—it feels like there are some perils and dangers, but I'm hoping you'll reframe that for me, of some racialized groups like indigenous people saying, well, we're not a race anyway—we're tribes, we're nations—so that they're not subject to the ban on race-conscious practices, which, it's true, they're a tribe. They're also a racialized group. And so I'm struggling with groups kind of finding a political way around the ban or the potential ban that's coming, but then where does that leave us in terms of, you know, each group, like, take care of your own kind of thing? Can you just react a little bit to that? NGUYEN: Yeah. Thanks for that really wonderful question. Fascinating point about, yeah, the way to say: We're not a racial group. We're sovereign nations or sovereign tribes. I think what we're going to see, depending on how the courts go, are folks trying—schools potentially trying a whole host of different approaches to increase diversity on their campuses if they're not allowed to use some of these racial categories like they've been doing already, in a holistic approach. And so, yeah, that might be a fascinating way for indigenous communities to advance forward. I will say, though, there was one point, again, in the—during oral arguments where they started talking about sort of generational connections to racial categories. And so they're saying if it's my grandparents' grandparents' grandparents, right, so sort of talking almost about, like—at least the way I interpreted it, as sort of thinking about connecting one to a race via blood quantum. And so when does that—when does that expire, right? And so is it—is it—if you're one-sixteenth Native American, is that—does that count? So there was a short line of questioning about that, and I think the—I think the lawyer tried to draw a line in the sand about, like, at what point do you not go—what point does it count and when does it not count. And I think that's actually a bit of a misstep, primarily because that should be determined by the sovereign nation, by the tribe, about who gets to identify as that—as a member of that nation or that tribe and how they—I think—you know, I think, talking to indigenous scholars, they would say it's about how you engage in and how you live in it, rather than—rather than if it's just a percentage. So, again, those will be the tensions, I think, that will—that already exist, I should say, regardless of the Court decision. But a fascinating point about states sort of exercising indigenous law there to see if that would be a way to counter that. Certainly, I should—I should have said at the top of this I'm not trained as a lawyer. And so I have no idea how that would be sort of litigated out, but certainly I imagine all different entities will find ways to move through this without—in various legal fashions. And I was talking to a colleague earlier today about this and he said something about at the end of the day this might be something that, if Congress decided to take up, they may—this would be an opportunity for Congress to take up, to maybe develop a narrow path for institutions. But certainly it's—the courts seem to be the favored way for us to talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: There's a written question from John Francis, who is a research professor of political science at the University of Utah: If the Court were to strike down affirmative action, would state universities give much more attention to geographic recruitment within their respective states and encourage private foundations to raise scholarship funds to support students of color who live in those areas? NGUYEN: Great, great question there. And I think that would be one of many things that universities are doing. We're seeing schools where the states have banned affirmative action do things like this, in Michigan and certainly in California. But to a certain extent, it actually doesn't work—I guess in California's context—that well. I think, if I'm not mistaken, the head of admissions for UC Berkeley said in one of many panels—he's wonderful, by the way—on one of many panels, like, that doesn't work very well in the California context because only so many schools have sort of that large concentration of African American students and for them to sort of go there and recruit out of that. So it's not a—the sort of geographic distribution is not so easy and clean cut as—I think as one would normally perceive. And so it actually develops a big, big challenge for state institutions, particularly state flagship institutions, in particular geographic contexts. Now, I don't know if that's the case, say, in other parts of the country. But certainly within the UC system, that seems to be a prevailing argument. And I think more than ever now, everyone has been looking to the UC system for insight on what they—on how to approach this if the courts decide next year to ban the use of race. I should also admit that—or, not admit, but proudly declare that I'm a product of the UC system. All of my postsecondary education is from those schools. And so I know that this has been a constant and ongoing conversation within the UC system, and I imagine that will be the case for schools both public and private across the country. But I think part of that calculation then requires institutions to think about not just from private donors, but really from state legislatures as well as the institutions themselves have to really think about how they want to dedicate resources to achieving diversity if they don't—if they're unable to use race. I think a tremendous amount of resources. So, to a certain extent, it's going to make institutions put their money where their mouth is. And so we'll see if that—this will all be interesting areas to investigate, depending on how the courts decide come next year. FASKIANOS: There's a raised hand or there was a raised hand from Jeff Goldsmith. I don't know if you still have a question. Q: Yeah. So I've been trying to figure out exactly how I might want to pose this question, but I was struck by—sorry, this is Jeff Goldsmith from Columbia University. I was struck by the line of questioning that you mentioned from Justice Barrett about affinity housing and your thoughts about how narrow or far-reaching a decision striking down affirmative action might be. And I guess it seems like there is the potential for at least some gray area. And you know, we run things like summer research programs that are intended to bolster diversity. There are in some cases—you just sort of mentioned the scholarship opportunities focused on increasing the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds. And I guess I'm just sort of curious if you have any speculation about how narrow or far-reaching a decision might be. NGUYEN: Thanks for that question. Yeah. So I think this was—we—prior to the—to oral arguments, people had sort of talked about this a little bit. Would this be consequential? And I—in fact, the day before—the day before oral arguments, I was on a different panel and I sort of brought this up. And actually, a federal judge in the audience came up to me afterwards and said, you know, I don't think the Court's got a lot of appetite for that. And I said, hey, I completely agree with you, but certainly, you know, we've—in recent times we've seen the Court do more interesting things, I guess, if you'll—if I can use a euphemism. And so—and so, it almost feels like everything's on the table, right? But I think, generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree that if the courts strike down race-conscious admissions, they will do it in a very narrow and highly-tailored way. That was my feeling going in. That was my feeling on October 30, right? Then, on Halloween—October 31—while listening to the—to the oral arguments, you had that very short exchange between Justice Barrett, specifically during the UNC case, ask about affinity groups and affinity housing, and it felt like it sort of came out of left field. And not—and so I think that raised some curiosity for all of us about what—about why that was a line of questioning. But nonetheless, I think at least my—I've never been a gambling person, but if I were I would say that if they do strike it down that I think the justices wholesale don't—I don't think they would have a large appetite to do something so broad and sweeping like that. At least that's my hope, if that's the direction we're moving in. But I guess that's why I said earlier that we're sort of all on pins and needles about that. And if that is struck down, then I think that's got a lot of consequences for scholarships, recruitment programs, summer bridge programs, potentially minority-serving institutions, and all of the above. So, yeah, I—again, it seems like that's a big reshaping of postsecondary education, not just in admissions but sort of the way they operate overall. And I don't know if that would happen so quickly overnight like that. But that, at least, is my hope. FASKIANOS: (Off mic.) There you go. Q: (Laughs.) Thank you so much for your talk. Clemente Abrokwaa from Penn State University. And my question is, right now there is a push for diversity, equity, and inclusion in many areas. How is that different from affirmative action? NGUYEN: Well, great question. And actually, that's a really difficult one for me to answer only because I think if we were to go and ask ten people on the street what did we mean by diversity, equity, and inclusion, everyone would give you sort of a very different and potentially narrow or a very broad definition of what it means, right? But I think with respect to affirmative action, particularly in a higher-education context, it is specifically about college admissions, specifically about admissions and how do you review college admissions. And in this case here, there is a very narrow way in which it can—it can be used for race—in this case for race, that it's got to be narrowly tailored, that it can only be a factor among a factor in a broad holistic approach, that you can't use quotas, that it can't be based on rectifying previous or historical racism, and that the only utility for it is that it is used to create learning environments where there are educational benefits that flow from diversity and the interactions of diversity. Versus, I think, broader conversations about DEI, while of course centered on admissions, right, which is sort of one of many dimensions in which you achieve DEI, right? We like to think that—and I'm going to be sort of citing a scholar, Sylvia Hurtado, out of UCLA, who argues that, admissions help contribute to one dimension, which is the composition of a university, the sort of just overall demographics and numbers of that university. But there are many other dimensions that are important in order to create learning environments in which we can achieve DEI-related issues. That means that we have to look at the institution and the way it's acted historically and contemporarily. We have to look at behavioral interactions between people on a university. There are psychological dimensions, among many others. And so that's how I think about it. I think that's how at least my area of scholarship and in our academic discipline we think about it and for folks who study education think about it. And so hopefully that answers your question. And, yeah, hopefully that answers your question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Alison Renteln: What policies appear to be the best practices to increase diversity at universities, including disability? And what are the best practices from other countries? NGUYEN: Oh, wow, that's a really good question. So we—you know, I think—I think a lot of other countries use quotas. Brazil might be sort of the example that most folks think about when they think about the way affirmative action's practiced abroad. And certainly that's not something that we can do here in the United States. So that's—that—really, really important consideration. Sort of other practices that I think that are—that are not sort of the ones that are narrowly tailored by the courts are what I said earlier about sort of what the UC system has to really do and has to really grapple with, right, are using every sort of—everything that they can think of under the sun to go out and try to do outreach and recruit and build those pipelines throughout the entire education system. There's been some work by some wonderful folks in our field—Dominique Baker, Mike Bastedo—who looked at even sort of just a random sampling, if you were able to do a lottery system, and that has actually found that that doesn't actually increase diversity either, and so—racial diversity either. And so I think that's—so, again, this all points to how crucial affirmative action is in being able to use race in order to achieve compositional diversity on a college campus, and that other proxy variables just don't even come close to being able to help estimate that. And so, yeah, that's—I should also note that really, we're only talking about a dozen or so schools. Oh, I'm sorry, more than a dozen, but a handful of schools that this is really a big issue for. Most schools in the United States don't necessarily—are not at this level of selectivity where it becomes a big issue of concern for the national public. Nearly half of all of our college-going students are at community college, which tend to be open-access institutions. And so something also to keep in mind when we talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thanks. We only have a few minutes left. Can you talk a little bit more about the work of NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools? NGUYEN: Yeah. So I'm a faculty affiliate there, and maybe I'll preface by saying I'm new to NYU. I just came here from the University of Denver, and so I'm still learning about every wonderful thing that Metro Center is doing. It's led by a wonderful faculty member here named Fabienne Doucet and really focused on sort of a handful of pillars—certainly research on education, but also a real big tie for communities. So real direct engagement with schools, school systems in order to advance justice in those schools. And so they have a lot of contracts with school districts and public entities, as well as nonprofit groups that come in and work as an incubator there on a host of issues. And so I think the work there is really exciting and really interesting. It tends to be—and I should say also very expansive. So the whole sort of K-12 system, as well as postsecondary. And I think that's the role that I'm looking to play there, is to help contribute to and expand their work in the postsecondary education space. FASKIANOS: Great. And maybe a few words about your other—you have many, many hats. NGUYEN: Oh. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. NGUYEN: Yeah. They do some really wonderful, interesting work. And it's really, actually, a center and a space for faculty to come in and run a lot of their research projects, including my own, which is the MSI Data Project, where we are looking at all the various different types of minority-serving institutions in the United States, how they change over time, and how the federal government thinks about them and accounts for them, as well as how do the schools themselves think about them, all with the goal here in order to work with students of colors and give them access and opportunity. I should say, depending on how you count them, MSIs enroll a huge and significant proportion of all students of color, almost half, in the country, despite making up such a small percentage, about 20 percent, of all college and universities. And so this is—certainly when we talk about affirmative action, we—I think a lot of folks center it around racial justice or social justice. I think sort of the other side of the same coin here are schools like minority-serving institutions which enroll and provide access to and graduate a really significant proportion and number of students of color and certainly an area that we need to bring a lot more attention to when we talk about issues of race and education. FASKIANOS: OK, I'm going to take one—try to sneak in one last question from John Francis, who's raised his hand. You get the last one, John. Q: OK, can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: Oh, that's great. So my question is—has a certain irony to it, but there's been a great deal of discussion of late that men are not succeeding in college, but that women are, and that certainly should be encouraged, but also there should be ways to find perhaps even changing when people start out in elementary school how that may be shifted to help men later on. And in this discussion, when we're looking at that issue and it's gaining some latitude, some strength, should we think about that as a possible consideration that universities should have greater latitude in making decisions to reflect the current set of demographic issues, be it race or gender or others? Has this argument come to play any kind of role? NGUYEN: Great question and a good last one, and if I can be completely honest, not an area that I'm—gender-based issues are not an area that I've done a whole lot of work in, if really any work, but I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can here, which is, I think—and sort of connected to sort of the larger conversation and question that we had that someone posed earlier about sort of the complexity and changing nature of racial and ethnic categories and what does that mean, and how do universities address that? And I think this is again where it requires universities to have some flexibility and nimbleness and autonomy to be able to address a lot of these issues, including what you're talking about, John, depending on the context and the times in which we are in. You know, certainly one big area also connected to—for men in postsecondary education is sort of the huge gap we see for men of color from particular groups, and really we see foundations, we see the Obama administration really play—invest in this work. So, John, from what it sounds like, it sounds like I agree with you here about—that universities need flexibility and autonomy to be able to address these issues. Now, that may—at the same time, we don't want to dismiss the fact that the experiences of women in postsecondary education—while certainly we see numbers increasing in enrollment in a lot of aspects, in certain disciplines we see a sharp decline; we see—in STEM and engineering fields, in the way those disciplines may be organized to sort of push out women. And so I think, again, this is why it requires some nimbleness and some autonomy from the universities to be able to design approaches to support students of different types of diversity on their campuses, in particular areas, disciplines, and majors. And so I think that's the—I think that's the challenge, is that we need to be a lot more intentional and think more precisely and run our analyses in ways that make sense for particular intersectional groups on campus and in the areas of which they're studying. So yeah, I think that's the—one of the big challenges that universities are facing today and certainly depending on how the courts rule, we'll see if that ends up restricting autonomy and removing tools or allowing those tools to remain for various types of targeted interventions for various minoritized groups. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Well, Mike Nguyen, thank you very much for this terrific hour and to all of you for your questions and comments. This is really insightful and we appreciate it. Welcome to New York, Mike, your first New York—holidays in New York. So we will be resuming the series in January and we will be sending out also the lineup for our winter/spring semester of the Academic Webinar series, which is really designed for students, later this month. We do wish you all luck with administering finals this week and grading them and all those papers; I don't envy you all. We have different deadlines under—at the Council that we're working on right now, so it will be a busy month, but we hope that everybody enjoys the holidays. We will resume in January, in the new year, and I encourage you all to follow us at @CFR_Academic on Twitter. Visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thanks, Mike, for this, and to all of you. NGUYEN: Thank you so much for having me. Really an honor. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Take care, everybody. (END)

Since 1960 affirmative action has been used as a 'tool' to increase diversity in schools. It began as a noble policy written during civil rights to give blacks a fighting chance of going to colleges that traditionally discriminated against them. As it should, the supreme court is reviewing the facts of affirmative action 60 years later and is expected to rule soon. The issue is that most people do not understand the true nature of affirmative action and how it hurts the recipients of race-based acceptance. Affirmative action has also negatively impacted other minorities and impoverished "non-minorities."  In this episode, Chad breaks down affirmative action, why there are almost no benefits to a program that was created with positive intentions, and why it needs to be reformed and eventually eliminated. 

The panel is sponsored by our Civil Rights practice group and will focus on the issues in, and potential outcome of, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. One of the most closely anticipated cases of the coming Supreme Court term involves a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. This panel will examine the issues raised by those cases, the possible outcomes, and their likely impact on the future of higher education and beyond. Will these cases mark the end of race-as-a-factor in holistic admissions practices? If so, will universities comply with the Court’s decision, or will they evade it? And what will be the ramifications in other sectors, such as the workplace? Is a color-blind society possible in our time?Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Former Civil Rights Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryProf. Eric Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

An affirmative action battle is again playing out at the highest levels, only this time with Asian Americans at the center of the controversy. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Supreme Court should reconsider race in college admissions. The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has taken aim at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, alleging that Asian Americans are less likely to be admitted than comparably qualified white, Black, or Latino applicants. In two separate cases, the group claims that 1.) Harvard's admissions policy is regressive and discriminates against Asian Americans, and 2.) UNC – which is a public institution and therefore covered by the 14th amendment's equal protection guarantee – violates both Title VI and the Constitution with its use of race in admissions. But opponents say race-conscious decision making is a necessary tool to address longstanding racism and discrimination. As such, in this timely debate, we ask the question of whether affirmative action is indeed unfair to Asian Americans.   Arguing “yes” is Lee Cheng, co-founder of the Asian American Coalition for Education  Arguing “no is John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rod and Karen discuss Coronavirus News, Chappelle on SNL, Democrats keep the Senate, courts block Biden's student loan forgiveness, 2 out of 3 Americans don't enjoy vacay until 3 days in, FDA bans e-cigs, Supreme Court poised to strike down Affirmative Action, racist goes viral on TikTok, Republican caught with blackface costume, Attack ads darken Black candidates' skin, man arrested taking his car back from repo, school board member wants to bring back corporal punishment, police try to evict wrong house and sword ratchetness. Twitter: @rodimusprime @SayDatAgain @TBGWT Instagram: @TheBlackGuyWhoTips Email: theblackguywhotips@gmail.com Blog: www.theblackguywhotips.com Teepublic Store Amazon Wishlist Crowdcast Voice Mail: 704-557-0186

This is a must listen to interview! Dr. Carol Swain breaks down the history of the Democratic Party, essentially putting them on trial. Other topics include: 1) Dr. Swain's reaction to the midterm election results; 2) why she'd never support former VP Mike Pence for president; 3) why Christians are so wimpy when it comes to politics; 4) hear her amazing testimony about achieving the American Dream and becoming a professor of political science and law at Princeton and later Vanderbilt University through hard work and determination despite growing up in the Civil Rights era; 5) Affirmative Action and debunking the “Big Switch” and “3/5 Vote” lies.   More: www.TheCarljacksonshow.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradio Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshow Parler: https://parler.com/carljacksonshow http://www.TheCarlJacksonPodcast.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Preet speaks with Debo Adegbile, a longtime civil rights lawyer and current partner at WilmerHale, who has served on the team that defended affirmative action at the Supreme Court. Stay Tuned in Brief is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Please let us know what you think! Email us at letters@cafe.com, or leave a voicemail at 669-247-7338.  References and Supplemental Materials: Lee Bollinger on Stay Tuned, 2/10/22 14th Amendment, Cornell Information Institute Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964, DOJ  “Meet Edward Blum, the Man Who Wants to Kill Affirmative Action in Higher Education,” ACLU, 10/18/22 “Dueling Economists: Rival Analyses of Harvard's Admissions Process Emerge at Trial,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/30/18 Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Fisher v. Texas (2016) Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 2/2: #SCOTUS: Affirmative Action will change. Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution https://www.hoover.org/research/affirmative-action-shaky-ground

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1/2: #SCOTUS: Affirmative Action will change. Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution https://www.hoover.org/research/affirmative-action-shaky-ground

Krystal and Saagar cover the Paul Pelosi attack, Elon buying Twitter, DHS surveillance, Affirmative Action, midterm senate races, & North Korea launching missiles! To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623  Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl  Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the last four decades, affirmative action has helped transform diversity on college campuses in the United States. But soon, affirmative action in higher education may come to an end. This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Many Court observers believe that the current 6-3 conservative supermajority will rule that higher education can no longer consider race as a factor in admitting students. If affirmative action is overturned, what tools can colleges and universities use to make their campuses more diverse? For answers, we look to California. In 1996 the state banned the use of affirmative action in public universities. Mitchell Chang is Associate Vice Chancellor of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at the University of California, Los Angeles. He spoke with NPR's Adrian Florido.

Erin Ryan and Alyssa Mastromonaco talk SCOTUS's affirmative action arguments — some poignant, some petty — and the attack on Paul Pelosi before reminding everyone that the midterms are this! Tuesday! Next, Amanda Nguyen and Megan Gailey come on to look back on the way we behaved during the height of COVID and whether or not there's forgiveness there. To end, a little Sani-Pedi.Show NotesJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson confronted the lawyer arguing for outlawing affirmative action with how his proposed college admissions system would privilege a white legacy applicant over a Black descendent of slaves.

For decades, many universities have used race as a factor when deciding which students to admit. In the past, the Supreme Court has backed that practice, called affirmative action, in the interest of creating a diverse student body.This week, however, the majority-conservative court is considering a case that may change affirmative action forever.Guest: Adam Liptak, a correspondent covering the Supreme Court for The New York Times.Background reading: The Supreme Court appears ready to rule that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful.In the clash over affirmative action, both sides invoke Brown v. Board of Education, the unanimous 1954 decision that said the Constitution prohibits racial segregation in public schools.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

First: We're breaking down the biggest headlines of the week: the Fed raising interest rates yet again, the growing risk of political violence leading up to election day, and Elon Musk's chaotic onboarding @ Twitter. Then: The Supreme Court heard two major cases on affirmative action this week. And according to analysts, the Supremes appear ready to reverse decades of precedent. We talk to an expert about what's gone down in oral arguments so far, and what the impacts of an affirmative action reversal could look like. Next: NYC's new salary transparency law took effect this week, and it could have an impact far beyond the tri-state area. We're talking to two experts about what's changing for employees, employers, and those on the job hunt. And how you can take advantage of transparency laws, even if you don't live in a place that has them. Plus: In partnership with our friends at Slack, we're taking listeners behind the scenes of our digital HQ to show how certain Slack channels help us do our jobs better. Next up: #people-leaders. Finally: The midterm elections are next week, and we're handing the mic over to you to hear what's on your mind as you get ready to vote.  On this episode, you'll hear from:  Seema Mohapatra, MD Anderson Foundation Endowed Professor in Health Law and Professor of Law Zoe Cullen, Assistant Professor of Business administration, Harvard Business School Mandi Woodruff-Santos, Career Coach, Co-Host of the Brown Ambition Podcast Sophie Riese, senior manager of consumer insights and UX research, theSkimm Skimm'rs Leslie, Katlin, and Jenny Want more Skimm?  Sign up for our free daily newsletter Email us your questions about what's going on in the news right now  Subscribe and leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts Skimm'd by Alex Carr, Will Livingston, and Blake Lew-Merwin with help from Hannah Parker and Alaisha Key. Engineered by Andrew Callaway and Elie McAfee-Hahn. TheSkimm's head of audio is Graelyn Brashear.

Krystal and Saagar cover the midterm polls, Ukraine military aid, Vine possibly returning, affirmative action, Pelosi attack, Twitter's business model, cable news' managed decline, & Biden's failed booster rollout! To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623  Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl  Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Vinay Prasad: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/  https://sensiblemed.substack.com/  https://www.plenarysessionpodcast.com/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging race-conscious admissions programs. If the justices decide that affirmative action is unconstitutional—as they seem poised to do—how can universities still create diverse student bodies?  Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate covering the Supreme Court. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Amicus—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard two cases that could lead to the affirmative action policy being thrown out. Plus, a report from the Intercept revealed the DHS has been colluding with the FBI and Big Tech to police "disinformation." And why does Joe Biden keep saying his son died in Iraq? Today's Sponsors: Genucel products delight men and women by correcting daily skin problems like wrinkles, dark spots, dry skin, sagging jawlines, facial redness, and even those annoying bags and puffiness! Go to https://Genucel.com/WHY and get Genucel's Most Popular Package plus a complimentary gift set and free express shipping! With almost 20 years of experience converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metal IRAs, Birch Gold can help you. Text WHY to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold and ensure your eligibility for a FREE GOLD BAR with every purchase. Go to the U.S. LawShield Facebook page and get your FREE tickets to a concert this Sunday, November 6 in Houston featuring Lynyrd Skynyrd and special guest Bret Michaels. Election night is just around the corner, and the stakes have never been higher for the midterms. Head on over to https://TheBlaze.com/ElectionGuide to receive a FREE copy of Blaze Media's Ultimate Guide to the Midterms delivered straight to your inbox. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The midterms become the most expensive election in history, Kathy Hochul calls voter concerns about crime a ‘conspiracy theory,' Joe Biden threatens oil companies with higher taxes, The Supreme Court hears arguments over Affirmative Action. Plus, Bill's Message of the Day, some election day predictions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Van and Rachel discuss the Supreme Court hearing challenges to affirmative action in college admissions (13:45), and react to an intruder attacking Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi (32:53). Plus, Kyrie Irving addresses claims of antisemitism after posting link to controversial film (44:31). Hosts: Van Lathan Jr. and Rachel Lindsay Producer: Donnie Beacham Jr. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a tense five-hour hearing, Supreme Court justices appear poised to strike down a decades-old policy in college admissions offices. Brazilians await a concession speech from Jair Bolsonaro. And after years with no suspects, police in Delphi, Indiana say they've made an arrest in the killing of two teen girls. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over two cases that will decide the fate of affirmative action at American colleges and universities. Jay Willis, the editor-in-chief of Balls & Strikes, tells us what's at stake if the justices decide to overturn decades of precedent on the issue.And in headlines: federal prosecutors charged the man accused of attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, Taylor Swift became the first artist ever to claim the top 10 slots on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, and Elon Musk is reportedly planning layoffs at Twitter.Show Notes:Balls & Strikes: Supreme Court Coverage That Doesn't Suck – https://ballsandstrikes.org/Vote Save America: Every Last Vote – https://votesaveamerica.com/every-last-vote/Crooked Coffee is officially here. Our first blend, What A Morning, is available in medium and dark roasts. Wake up with your own bag at crooked.com/coffeeFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/whataday/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases on affirmative action in higher education. We’ll talk about what it means for race and diversity across society, from college campuses to corporate America. Plus, can haunted houses ease stress and anxiety? And, Kimberly gets in the Halloween spirit by sharing a few jokes and last-minute costume ideas. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Highlights: Supreme Court Hears Affirmative Action Cases From Harvard and U.N.C.” from The New York Times “Why we like scary things: The science of recreational fear” from The Washington Post “Haunted houses and scary movies may actually help reduce stress, lower anxiety. Here’s how to have the best experience this Halloween” from CNBC “Why do St. Louis kids tell jokes on Halloween?” from STL magazine Tweet from @nick_kapur on mundane Halloween costumes If you've got a question for the hosts or your own answer to the Make Me Smart question, call 508-U-B-SMART and leave us a voicemail. You can email makemesmart@marketplace.org.