Podcast appearances and mentions of Edward Blum

This Day in Legal History: Rush-Bagot TreatyOn April 16, 1818, the United States Senate ratified the Rush-Bagot Treaty, a landmark agreement with Great Britain that fundamentally reshaped security along the U.S.-Canada border. Negotiated in the aftermath of the War of 1812, the treaty aimed to de-escalate military tensions between the two nations by significantly limiting naval armaments on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Specifically, it allowed each country to maintain only a single military vessel on Lakes Ontario and Champlain and two vessels on the upper Great Lakes, each restricted in size and armament. The treaty marked a mutual commitment to demilitarization and ushered in a new era of diplomacy.The negotiations were spearheaded by Acting U.S. Secretary of State Richard Rush and British Minister to the U.S., Charles Bagot. Though initially framed as an exchange of diplomatic notes rather than a formal treaty, it was nonetheless submitted to the Senate for ratification, reflecting its constitutional significance. The Rush-Bagot Treaty laid the groundwork for what would become the world's longest undefended border. It also set a precedent for the peaceful resolution of border disputes through legal and diplomatic means rather than military force.While tensions between the two nations would persist in other areas, the Great Lakes remained largely free of armed conflict, validating the treaty's long-term effectiveness. Over time, the agreement became a model of arms control and remains in effect today, albeit with amendments reflecting evolving security concerns. Its ratification on this day helped steer U.S.-British relations toward lasting peace and cooperation, especially in North America. The treaty's enduring legacy is a testament to the power of legal frameworks in shaping geopolitical stability.The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Maine, escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the state over transgender athletes' participation in girls' and women's sports. The suit alleges that Maine is violating Title IX by permitting transgender female athletes to compete on girls' teams, citing recent examples from high school track events. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the action days after the administration attempted to cut off Maine's federal school funding and school lunch programs.This legal move follows a standoff between President Trump and Maine Governor Janet Mills, who rebuffed Trump's executive order banning transgender athletes from female sports. Mills told Trump, “We're going to follow the law, sir. We'll see you in court.” The administration's Title IX-based complaint argues that allowing transgender participation undermines fairness and safety, though no specific safety threats are detailed—of course.The Department of Education had already announced the suspension of $250 million in K-12 education funding for Maine, while the Department of Agriculture sought to freeze school lunch support. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the USDA's actions after Maine sued the federal government. Maine's Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Forster, pushed back, arguing that Title IX does not prohibit schools from including transgender girls in girls' sports and criticized the federal government's lack of legal precedent.US to take legal action against Maine over Trump executive order on transgender athletes | ReutersSenate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he will block President Trump's nominations of Jay Clayton and Joe Nocella to serve as U.S. attorneys in New York's Southern and Eastern Districts, respectively. Schumer's refusal to return the customary “blue slip” signals his opposition and sets up a potential clash over the Senate tradition that gives home-state senators influence over federal prosecutor and judge appointments. He cited concerns that Trump intends to politicize the Justice Department, accusing him of seeking to weaponize law enforcement against political enemies.Clayton, a former SEC chair, was nominated to oversee the Southern District, which includes Manhattan and is often referred to as the nation's "Wall Street watchdog." Nocella, a state judge, was tapped for the Eastern District, covering Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island. Schumer's move could provoke Republicans to eliminate the blue slip practice for U.S. attorney nominations, as they previously did for circuit court judges.While Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley had earlier indicated he planned to preserve the blue slip process for U.S. attorney picks, growing political tensions may lead to changes. The debate echoes earlier pressure on Democrats to bypass blue slips during the Biden administration for nominees in states with GOP senators. Meanwhile, other Democratic senators, like Adam Schiff, are also using procedural holds to delay nominees they find objectionable, such as Ed Martin, who previously defended January 6 participants.Schumer to Block Jay Clayton as Top US Prosecutor in ManhattanPresident Donald Trump's threat to revoke Harvard University's tax-exempt status has sparked broader concerns about the politicization of the IRS and a potential crackdown on nonprofits. His warning followed Harvard's refusal to meet administration demands tied to federal funding, prompting a freeze of over $2.2 billion in grants. Other universities like Columbia, Cornell, and Princeton also saw funding halted, amid GOP claims that schools are failing to curb antisemitism after protests over the Israel-Hamas war.Critics see Trump's move as an attempt to use federal tax authority to punish political opponents. Legal scholars warn that using the IRS in this way echoes past abuses, such as those during Nixon's presidency. Some nonprofits have already started removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language from websites to avoid scrutiny, with lawyers reporting a spike in “DEI audits.” Though the IRS hasn't yet changed its enforcement patterns, reduced staffing could make it more susceptible to politicized influence.A recent executive order from Trump targeting “illegal DEI” efforts has heightened fear among nonprofits that their programs, especially those aimed at underrepresented communities, could be labeled discriminatory. Meanwhile, conservative activist Edward Blum has asked the IRS to investigate several foundations for offering race-specific grants, hoping to set a precedent against such practices. Legal experts say programs must be evaluated based on whether they exclude other races, which would likely violate federal law.Trump's Harvard Threat Raises Specter of IRS Nonprofit CrackdownIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that proposals to exempt college athletes' name, image, and likeness (NIL) income from state taxes undermine one of tax policy's core principles: horizontal equity. That principle holds that taxpayers with similar incomes should be taxed similarly—something these NIL exemptions blatantly violate. While some student-athletes now earn six or seven figures, their peers working long hours in campus jobs continue to pay tax on modest earnings. Exempting high-income athletes while taxing low-wage student workers creates a two-tiered system that rewards fame and marketability, not need or effort.These exemptions aren't rooted in sound tax design—they're political moves, often motivated by the desire to curry favor with voters who are fans of college sports. But when states exempt wealthy student-athletes, they're making a value judgment: that celebrity deserves more support than everyday work. Even in states where lower-income students may owe no tax, the policy distinction is stark—exempting income to prevent poverty is not the same as exempting it to boost a football program.Rather than distorting the tax code to chase athletic prestige, I propose a fairer alternative: a progressive income exemption available to all full-time students, tied to the cost of their tuition. If a student pays $12,000 in tuition, they could exempt that amount from tax—regardless of whether their income comes from NIL deals, a job in the library, or a work-study program. This model keeps relief targeted to those bearing educational costs while avoiding regressive giveaways to already well-compensated students. The tax code should reflect fairness and support for all students—not just the most marketable ones.Student NIL Tax Breaks Would Put Splashy Recruits Above Fairness This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

After bringing about the legal action that struck down Affirmative Action, Edward Blum is back, going after grants and fellowships that support marginalized people, especially Black women. Bridget Todd breaks down what's going on and what the future may hold in this classic episode.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Chief Justice Taft ResignsOn February 3, 1930, Chief Justice William Howard Taft resigned from the U.S. Supreme Court due to declining health. Taft remains the only person in American history to have served both as President (1909–1913) and as Chief Justice (1921–1930). After his presidency, he achieved what he considered his true ambition—leading the nation's highest court. As Chief Justice, he was instrumental in modernizing the federal judiciary, including advocating for the construction of the Supreme Court's own building, which was completed after his death. His tenure also saw decisions that reinforced executive power and judicial efficiency. By late 1929, however, his health had deteriorated significantly due to heart disease and progressive neurological issues. Struggling to fulfill his duties, he reluctantly stepped down, fearing he could no longer serve effectively. Just five weeks later, on March 8, 1930, he passed away. His successor, Charles Evans Hughes, was nominated by President Herbert Hoover. Taft's dual legacy as both a U.S. President and Chief Justice remains unmatched in American history.Elon Musk claimed his "DOGE team," tasked with government efficiency, is shutting down certain payments to federal contractors, raising concerns about his access to U.S. Treasury systems. Musk stated that his team is eliminating corruption in real time, including halting payments to Lutheran Family Services, a charity supporting refugees. The Treasury Department has not confirmed Musk's level of access, but Senator Ron Wyden suggested Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent granted DOGE full control over federal payments. Musk's influence follows his appointment by Donald Trump to modernize federal IT, though he appears to be extending that role to financial oversight. USAID security officials were placed on leave after refusing DOGE staff access, prompting Musk to call the agency “a criminal organization.” His claims about widespread fraud in federal payments remain unverified, as Treasury already has systems in place to prevent improper transactions. Meanwhile, Treasury's top career official, David Lebryk, recently left his post, further intensifying scrutiny. Trump praised Musk's cost-cutting efforts but acknowledged potential disagreements on policy direction.Musk Says DOGE Is Halting Treasury Payments to US Contractors - BloombergA new conservative law firm, Lex Politica, has been launched by Chris Gober, a lawyer for Elon Musk's America PAC, along with attorneys Steve Roberts and Jessica Furst Johnson. The firm aims to represent Republican candidates, campaigns, and causes, strengthening ties between conservative legal professionals and Trump-aligned politicians. Gober, who previously served as America PAC's treasurer, stated he wants Lex Politica to become synonymous with the conservative movement. Roberts and Johnson bring experience representing figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senator Rick Scott, and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. The firm joins a growing network of right-leaning law groups, such as Dhillon Law Group and Schaerr Jaffe, which have close ties to Trump and Musk. These firms have been involved in significant legal battles, including free speech cases on Musk's platform, X, and efforts to reshape the federal government's legal structure. Neither Musk nor representatives for key Republican clients commented on the firm's launch.Lawyers for Musk, Republican campaigns form new Washington firm | ReutersGoogle is appealing a jury verdict and court order that found it illegally stifled competition in its Play Store. The case, brought by Fortnite maker Epic Games in 2020, accused Google of monopolizing app distribution and in-app payments on Android devices. A jury ruled in Epic's favor in 2023, and U.S. District Judge James Donato ordered Google to allow rival app stores within its Play Store and make its app catalog available to competitors. Google argues the ruling was flawed, claiming it competes with Apple's App Store and that the judge improperly expanded the order to impact all developers, not just Epic. Epic insists Google engaged in years of anti-competitive behavior and is fighting to uphold the jury's decision. Microsoft, the U.S. Justice Department, and the FTC have backed Epic in the case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on Monday, with a decision expected later this year, which could potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court.Google to ask US appeals court to overturn app store verdict | ReutersMcDonald's has agreed to revise its HACER National Scholarships Program by removing race and ethnicity as eligibility criteria to settle a lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a group led by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum. The lawsuit argued that restricting eligibility to students with at least one Hispanic or Latino parent discriminated against other ethnic groups. McDonald's denied wrongdoing but decided that modifying the program was the best course of action. Moving forward, applicants will need to demonstrate their contributions to the Hispanic and Latino community rather than meet racial or ethnic requirements. The settlement comes as McDonald's and other companies scale back diversity initiatives following legal challenges and political pressure. In January, McDonald's also abandoned diversity goals for corporate leadership, citing shifting legal standards, including the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that struck down race-based college admissions policies. Blum criticized the scholarship's previous criteria, arguing that many students were unfairly excluded.McDonald's settles lawsuit challenging Latino scholarship program | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 13th Amendment PassedOn January 31, 1865, the U.S. Congress passed the 13th Amendment, formally abolishing slavery in the United States. The amendment declared that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." While President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had freed enslaved people in Confederate-held territories two years earlier, it lacked the permanence of a constitutional amendment. The House of Representatives passed the measure by a vote of 119 to 56, narrowly reaching the required two-thirds majority after intense political maneuvering. The Senate had already approved it in April 1864. Ratification by the states followed, culminating in its adoption on December 6, 1865. The amendment marked a legal end to slavery, but systemic racial discrimination persisted through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and other restrictive measures. Despite this, the 13th Amendment laid the foundation for future civil rights advancements. Its passage was a key victory for abolitionists and a defining moment of the Civil War's aftermath. The amendment's "punishment for crime" clause later became a subject of controversy, as it allowed convict leasing and forced labor in prisons, disproportionately affecting Black Americans. Even today, debates continue over its implications for the U.S. prison system.Fox Rothschild LLP has blocked its lawyers from using DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, due to concerns about client data security. While the firm allows AI tools like ChatGPT with restrictions, DeepSeek's data storage in China raises unique risks, according to Mark G. McCreary, the firm's chief AI and information security officer. A recent data breach involving DeepSeek further heightened security concerns. Other major law firms, including Wilson Sonsini and Polsinelli, are also implementing strict vetting processes for new AI models. Wilson Sonsini requires its chief information security officer and general counsel to approve AI tools before use, while Polsinelli enforces firm-wide restrictions on unapproved AI software. Law firms are also monitoring AI use by third-party vendors to ensure compliance with security protocols. McCreary emphasized that established legal tech companies prioritize data protection, reducing the risk of firms switching to less secure AI models.Fox Rothschild Blocks DeepSeek's AI Model for Attorney UseA federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. government's ban on licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to adults under 21 is unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun laws to align with historical firearm regulations. The federal ban, enacted in 1968, was challenged by young adults and gun rights groups, who argued it violated the Second Amendment. Judge Edith Jones, writing for the court, found insufficient historical evidence to justify restricting gun sales for 18-to-20-year-olds. The ruling marks a major shift in gun policy, aligning with broader legal trends expanding Second Amendment protections. The Justice Department, which defended the ban under the Biden administration, has not yet commented on the decision. Gun rights advocates hailed the ruling as a victory against age-based firearm restrictions.US ban on gun sales to adults under age 21 is unconstitutional, court rules | ReutersIn a piece for Techdirt, Karl Bode critiques the Trump FCC's decision to roll back efforts to curb exclusive broadband deals between landlords and internet providers. The Biden FCC had attempted to update outdated rules that allowed ISPs to form monopolies within apartment buildings, driving up prices and reducing competition. However, due to delays caused by industry opposition and the failed nomination of reformer Gigi Sohn, key proposals—including a ban on bulk billing—were left unapproved. When Brendan Carr took over as FCC chair under Trump, he quickly scrapped these pending consumer protections. Bode argues that U.S. telecom policy is stuck in a cycle where Democrats make half-hearted attempts at reform, only for Republicans to dismantle them entirely under the guise of deregulation. The result is a landscape where telecom giants and landlords continue to collude, leaving consumers with fewer choices, higher costs, and poor service.The Trump FCC Makes It Easier For Your Landlord And Your ISP To Collude To Rip You Off | TechdirtBally's Chicago casino project is facing a legal challenge over its commitment to reserving 25% of its investment opportunities for women and people of color. Conservative activist Edward Blum, known for spearheading lawsuits against affirmative action, filed the suit on behalf of two white men who claim they were unfairly excluded from investing. The lawsuit argues that the policy violates federal civil rights law and should be open to all investors regardless of race. This case is part of a broader push against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which gained momentum after a recent executive order from President Trump eliminating DEI programs in the federal government. Bally's maintains that its agreement with the city complies with legal requirements. The lawsuit references an 1866 civil rights law originally meant to protect Black Americans' economic rights and is similar to other cases challenging race-conscious corporate policies. Blum's organization has previously led legal battles against diversity-focused scholarships, grants, and hiring programs, including the Supreme Court case that struck down race-based college admissions in 2023.America's Battle Over DEI Strikes a Chicago Casino's Financing PlanThis week's closing theme is by Franz Schubert.Franz Schubert, one of the most beloved composers of the early Romantic era, was born on this day in 1797 in Vienna, Austria. Though he lived only 31 years, his vast output of music—ranging from symphonies and chamber works to piano music and over 600 songs—continues to inspire musicians and audiences alike. Schubert's music is often characterized by its lyricism, rich harmonies, and deep emotional expression, seamlessly bridging the clarity of the Classical era with the passion of Romanticism.Despite his immense talent, Schubert struggled with financial stability and never achieved widespread fame during his lifetime. He spent much of his career composing in relative obscurity, supported by a close-knit circle of friends and fellow artists. His songs, or lieder, are especially celebrated for their ability to capture both the beauty and melancholy of the human experience, with works like Erlkönig and Winterreise standing as some of the greatest achievements in the genre.His instrumental music, however, remained underappreciated until long after his death. Today, his symphonies, string quartets, and piano sonatas are recognized as masterpieces, filled with lyrical beauty and striking contrasts. Among his later works, the Piano Sonata No. 20 in A major, D. 959 showcases his mature style, blending elegance with deep introspection. The final movement, Rondo: Allegretto, serves as this week's closing theme, capturing both Schubert's charm and his poignant sense of longing.Though he died in 1828, just a year after Beethoven, Schubert's influence only grew in the decades that followed. Composers like Schumann, Brahms, and even Mahler admired his work, helping to cement his legacy as one of music's great geniuses. Today, on the anniversary of his birth, we celebrate the life and music of a composer who, despite facing struggles and setbacks, left behind an extraordinary body of work that continues to resonate across centuries.Without further ado, Franz Schubert's Piano Sonata No. 20 in A major, D. 959.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

According to Fortune.com, Southwest Airlines has ended its program assisting Hispanic college students living far from home, following a lawsuit by conservative activist Edward Blum and his group, the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER). The program provided select students free flights to visit family or bring parents to campus. Isabella, one of the final recipients, expressed excitement about reuniting with family, but the initiative is now under legal scrutiny. Blum's AAER claims the program discriminated against two non-Hispanic applicants, violating civil rights laws. Though Southwest canceled the program, a federal judge ruled the case could proceed. Legal experts warn this decision could complicate future efforts by companies to resolve anti-DEI lawsuits by dismantling contested programs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Joseph H. Rainey Sworn in to U.S. House of RepresentativesOn December 12, 1870, Joseph H. Rainey was sworn in as the first Black member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Born into slavery in South Carolina in 1832, Rainey and his family gained their freedom when his father purchased their emancipation. Rainey became a successful businessman and returned to the United States after living in Bermuda during the Civil War. During the Reconstruction era, he was elected to Congress as a representative for South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, where he served until 1879.In Congress, Rainey was a vocal advocate for civil rights, emphasizing the need for laws to protect Black citizens from discrimination and violence. He supported the Enforcement Acts, which aimed to curb the activities of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and championed education and economic opportunities for freedmen. Rainey's tenure was marked by his resilience in the face of racism and his efforts to uphold the principles of equality during a tumultuous period in American history.Also on this day in 1787, Pennsylvania became the second state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. This significant decision was instrumental in encouraging other states to adopt the Constitution, ensuring the establishment of a unified federal government. Pennsylvania's ratification, occurring just five days after Delaware's, helped build momentum for the creation of the United States as a constitutional republic.Both events reflect crucial turning points in American history: one symbolizing progress in representation and civil rights, the other laying the foundational framework of the nation's governance. Together, they highlight the evolving journey of equality and democracy in the United States.The Biden administration has advised the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid taking up cases brought by oil companies and Republican-led states aimed at blocking state and local climate change lawsuits. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the Court to decline appeals from oil companies challenging a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that permits Honolulu to sue major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public about climate change. She also recommended rejecting efforts by 19 Republican-led states to prevent Democratic-led states from pursuing similar lawsuits. Prelogar argued that the oil companies' constitutional claims are still being addressed in lower courts and that the Republican-led states lack standing to block lawsuits that target private companies. She dismissed the argument that the lawsuits attempt to regulate emissions—a federal issue—stating the claims do not conflict with federal common law on air pollution. The Republican-led states contend that the Democratic-led lawsuits improperly attempt to regulate global emissions via state courts. These cases involve prominent oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell, as well as multiple state governments. The Supreme Court's conservative majority had earlier sought the solicitor general's opinion on these matters. The cases reflect ongoing legal battles over the intersection of state-level climate accountability and federal jurisdiction.US Supreme Court should avoid climate change cases, Biden administration says | ReutersThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Nasdaq's board diversity rules, reversing a prior SEC-approved mandate requiring Nasdaq-listed companies to diversify their boards or explain why they could not. The 9-8 decision emphasized that the SEC lacked the authority to enforce such requirements under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, which primarily governs fair trading practices.The regulations, implemented in 2023, required companies to include at least one woman, minority, or LGBTQ+ board member and disclose diversity metrics annually. Conservative groups, led by figures such as Edward Blum, argued that these rules exceeded the SEC's legal scope, ultimately persuading the majority of Republican-appointed judges. Writing for the majority, Judge Andrew Oldham stated that diversity disclosures are not an ethical or customary obligation in securities trade.The dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Higginson and supported by a mix of Democratic and Republican-appointed judges, argued that the SEC had acted within its authority. Higginson contended that market forces, not judicial intervention, should resolve disputes over the desirability of diversity disclosures. Despite disagreement, Nasdaq has announced it will not appeal the ruling, while the SEC is reviewing the decision.For much more context than I could ever provide, I would encourage a perusal of the excellent Professor Ann Lipton's Mastodon thread breaking down some of the tacit and overt shifts, like the overall reorientation of securities laws to be solely about preventing fraud and the jettisoning of other goals, like accurate pricing.Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules Struck Down by Fifth Circuit (2)Fifth Circuit Strikes the NASDAQ Diversity RuleThe U.S. Justice Department has urged a federal appeals court to reject TikTok's emergency bid to block a law requiring its parent company, ByteDance, to divest the app by January 19 or face a nationwide ban. TikTok argued in its filing that the law could effectively shut down the platform, which has over 170 million U.S. users. The Justice Department countered that Chinese control of TikTok remains a national security risk, emphasizing that the ban is a necessary precaution. If implemented, the ban would not immediately stop users from accessing TikTok but would eventually render the app unusable due to restrictions on support and updates. A panel of judges upheld the law last week, and TikTok has since appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The companies hope a delay would allow time for the incoming Trump administration to determine its stance, as President-elect Donald Trump has stated he opposes a TikTok ban. This ruling affirms the U.S. government's broad authority to regulate or ban foreign-owned apps over national security and data privacy concerns, echoing previous legal challenges involving WeChat. TikTok's fate now hinges on whether Biden grants a 90-day extension of the divestment deadline and on the Trump administration's next steps.US asks court to reject TikTok's bid to stave off law that could ban the app | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The AMA (American Medical Association) Is Not Woke But appears to be doing the work...174 years later. Jus' Sayin' G.O.N (Grand ol Neo-Nazi Party) formerly the GOP Edward Blum Rampage against Diversity and Equality Mena Mess...“I deeply regret my insensitive comment and want to humbly apologize to anybody I hurt or offended by my thoughtlessness,” Mena said in a statement provided to The Times.   Run up to the season finale. Advertisers pay your dang bills! Bought to you by Felicia's Paycheck!   So actively seeking partners, sponsors or sponsorships to continue to provide amazing content. So become a Melanated Nerd on Podbean by clicking https://patron.podbean.com/TheTalkingFro https://patron.podbean.com/tnfroisreading Apple Subscriptions Or Patreon and other archived content by clicking https://linktr.ee/tnfroisreading to subscribe and listen to all Premium content; the window has closed on available Episodes! Check out the Previous Show Clips on TNFroisReading YouTube Channel

This summer, Bloomberg Law released its fourth DEI Framework, recognizing 57 US-based law firms that meet or exceed standards for diversity, equity, and inclusion. But, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that ended race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities, how are these firms managing their initiatives without facing complaints from DEI opponents like conservative activist Edward Blum? Last year, Blum, along with his team, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, successfully challenged firms and their DEI hiring practices. Are these firms leaving the door open to more litigation? In today's episode of our podcast On The Merits, we talk with Bloomberg Law's Molly Huie, lead data analysis and survey reporter about the DEI Framework findings, as well as Bloomberg Law's DEI reporter, Tatyana Monnay, about how law offices continue to promote DEI in spite of the backlash. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Brand new Techish! In this episode, host Michael Berhane is joined by TechCrunch reporter Dominic-Madori Davis to break down:• HBO's Movie, Pass Movie Crash (0:35) • Will Smith was never cancelled (7:05)• Edward Blum's anti-DEI lawsuit against Fearless Fund (10:50)———————————————————— Extra Reading & Resources • Fearless Fund: Appeals Court Rules Against Grants For Black Women [POCIT] • Conservative Activists Behind Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Decision Sues VC Fund For WOC [POCIT] •  Pre-Seed Round Investing For Black Founders. [Michael Berhane] Plus you can connect with Dom on social media (@dominicmadori) and subsubscribe to her newsletter, The Black Cat! ———————————————————— Use the hashtag #Techish on X/Twitter & IG Watch us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@techishpod/ Support Techish at https://www.patreon.com/techish Advertise on Techish: https://goo.gl/forms/MY0F79gkRG6Jp8dJ2 ———————————————————— Stay In Touch: https://www.twitter.com/michaelberhane_ https://www.twitter.com/abadesi https://www.twitter.com/hustlecrewlive https://twitter.com/techishpod Email us at techishpod@gmail.com #techish How to Start a Podcast Guide: The Complete GuideLearn how to plan, record, and launch your podcast with this illustrated guide.

Shanti is back from break and full of revelations pertaining to fruit, the kind of relationship she wants, fried chicken, & her athleticism. Antoinette gives us an update on Blue being at away camp & thanks all of the guest hosts for holding her down the past several weeks. For Politics as Usual they discuss various topics including Roc Nation's partnership with Philadelphia to provide scholarships, Gaza, Biden's executive order on the border, Hunter Biden's trial, and the blocking of the Fearless Fund by Edward Blum. For Pop Culture, they chat about Rihanna's launch of Fenty Hair, which they could be loud and wrong now that new images have emerged, but they also may not be. Tricky....They then turn their energy toward conversation the return of Michael Richards, who made racist remarks in the past, and the lack of accountability and consequences he now faces. Join us. Contact Around the Way Curls:Follow us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz6aYqKi7g-kZvFFWaxT2gQ Hotline: (215) 948-2780Discord: https://discord.gg/PjVjBBQuEmail: aroundthewaycurls@gmail.com Patreon: www.patreon.com/aroundthewaycurls for exclusive videos & bonus content00:00 Gratitude and Reflection: Celebrating Podcast Guests03:03 Revelations and Self-Reflection: Lessons from the Break29:45 Roc Nation's Partnership with Philadelphia42:01 Escalating Situation in Gaza45:41 Biden's Executive Order on the Border57:37 Hunter Biden's Trial and the Fearless Fund01:12:46 Double Standards and Public Figures01:15:17 Rihanna's Fenty Hair Announcement01:26:14 Accountability and Consequences/ The Return of Michael RichardsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has blocked the Fearless Fund, a Black-owned venture capitalist firm, from issuing grants exclusively to Black women entrepreneurs. The court ruled that the fund's grant contest likely violates Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracts. The decision halts the fund's grant application process and marks a win for anti-affirmative action legal strategist Edward Blum. Arian Simone, CEO of the Fearless Fund, expressed devastation at the ruling, stating that it sends a message that diversity in corporate America and education should not exist. She vowed to continue the fight for economic opportunity for women of color, who received less than two percent of venture capitalist money. Rev. Al Sharpton, President of National Action Network, blasted the decision, calling it another blow to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and emphasized the importance of standing with the Fearless Fund and all women of color entrepreneurs in the face of right-wing legal challenges. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules: https://www.npr.org/2024/06/03/g-s1-2649/fearless-fund-grant-program-appeal-ruling Fearless Fund is a Black woman-led venture capital firm that offers investment, financial support, and mentorship to Black women-owned businesses.  But they are under attack for providing support for traditionally marginalized entrepreneurs. Edward Blum, the professional hater at the heart of the Supreme Court's legal challenge of affirmative action, is suing them for what he says is racial discrimination.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A U.S. federal court of appeals panel has suspended a venture capital firm's grant program for Black women business owners, ruling that a conservative group is likely to prevail in its lawsuit claiming the program is discriminatory. The case against the Fearless Fund was brought by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by Edward Blum, the activist behind the Supreme Court case that ended affirmative action in college admissions. In a 2-1 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Blum was likely to prevail in his claim that the grant program violated the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was a Reconstruction-era law was designed to protect formerly enslaved people from economic discrimination, but anti-affirmative action activists have been using it to challenge programs aimed at benefiting minority-owned businesses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For the month of May, we're delving into some deep-dive discussions with a couple of my favorite mutual creators — first up is human rights lawyer, Qasim Rashid. In this episode, we're talking over the recent decision by the conservative Supreme Court to do away with race-based affirmative action. Since anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum used a group of Asian students as his battering ram to take down affirmative action, Qasim and I speak to the issue of alleged anti-Asian discrimination at elite universities, and how this accusation led to a Supreme Court victory against affirmative action, when an earlier bid with a white student had failed to deliver the success Blum wanted. Join us next week for a round-up on the issue of voting rights with Qasim. CTP - Biblical view / World view, which Rules you? "ChristiTutionalist Politics" podcast. Weekly (weekends) News/Opinion-cast from...Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify Well Beyond Medicine: The Nemours Children's Health PodcastExploring people, programs and bold ideas changing children's health for good.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the Show.Stay up to date with all things Dara Starr Tucker here:Dara Starr Tucker LinkTreeDara Starr Tucker TikTokDara Starr Tucker InstagramDara Starr Tucker YouTubeDara Starr Tucker Facebook

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs are being scrapped all over the country in favor of a 'colorblind' narrative that attempts to minimize the impact of systemic racism on our present day reality. I'm taking a look at the recent move by the Alabama Legislature and Alabama governor Kay Ivey to outlaw DEI programs throughout the state, and to severely control the language used in racial sensitivity training. I'm also profiling Edward Blum, the man responsible for the outlawing of Affirmative Action and for the gutting the Voting Rights Act. Support the showStay up to date with all things Dara Starr Tucker here:Dara Starr Tucker LinkTreeDara Starr Tucker TikTokDara Starr Tucker InstagramDara Starr Tucker YouTubeDara Starr Tucker Facebook

In this episode, progress vs. preservation. We discuss the alarming white backlash targeting Latino interns and how AI is impacting the film industry and creators of color. We explore how these two stories set the stage for a broader debate on diversity in the digital age. The Smithsonian Latino Museum is being sued for its pro-Latino internship program designed to increase Latino representation. What other Latino programs are next? We discuss why they are the latest target in a growing wave of racial backlash. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/23/smithsonian-latino-diversity-lawsuit/ Tyler Perry paused an $800 million investment due to advancements in OpenAI's Sora, raising concerns that traditional creative jobs could become obsolete. If workforces of color are displaced by AI, could we be creating "the new poor," a new class of permanently unemployed? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/tyler-perry-ai-alarm-1235833276/ Episode Summary [04:00]: Edward Blum's legal strategies toward Latino interns [08:45]: White backlash against DEI efforts [12:00]: The strategy behind attacking pipelines for minority progress [14:30]: Tyler Perry's pause on a major investment due to Open AI's Sora [22:15]: Invisible effects of tech advancements and their ethical considerations Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lately there's been a surge of attacks on diversity - affirmative action was overturned by the Supreme Court, Harvard president Claudine Gay was forced out of her seat with people calling her “a diversity hire,” and anti-DEI bills are popping up all over the country. So this week, as we start Black History Month, we're talking about attacks on diversity programs. We got the chance to chat with Sophia Danner-Okotie, a small business owner in Atlanta, to talk about how difficult it is to get business loans as a Black woman. And now one of the firms that invested in her, The Fearless Fund, is under legal attack. Women of color already receive only 1% of venture capital funding, and extremists like Edward Blum are trying to take that tiny percentage away.Finally, Jasmine, Rachel, and Amanda raise a glass to Sojourner Truth and to women uplifting each other in this episode's “Toast to Joy.”We invite you to join us next Tuesday for a virtual Ask Me Anything event where we'll talk about the suburbs with a panel of Black moms. We'll dig into attacks on DEI and affirmative action, the glass cliff, and the 2024 elections. You can learn more and RSVP here.And don't forget to sign up for our Substack newsletter! It's free and we'd love to hear from you in the comments.For a transcript of this episode, please email theswppod@redwine.blue. You can learn more about us at www.redwine.blue or follow us on social media! Twitter: @TheSWPpod and @RedWineBlueUSA Instagram: @RedWineBlueUSA Facebook: @RedWineBlueUSA YouTube: @RedWineBlueUSA

Historically, from slavery to present day, efforts to create black economic advancement have been stunted continuously either through violence, such as the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, or through systemic barriers and policies responsible for creating and maintaining the racial wealth gap. In August of last year, Edward Blum, the president of The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), and the man behind the efforts to overturn affirmative action, filed a lawsuit against The Fearless Fund, claiming its Strivers Grant program violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866, by discriminating against non-black women. In response, Race Forward's Senior Vice President of Finance and Operations Kerry Mitchell Brown authored an op-ed titled “The Fight Against The Fearless Fund Is A Fight Against Black Economic Advancement,” which reflected on the lawsuit brought against The Fearless Fund, whose mission is to invest in women of color-led businesses seeking financing by bridging the gap in venture capital funding for women of color business founders. With the conservative majority of Trump-appointed Federal Judges and a Supreme Court that ruled against affirmative action in higher education, is this lawsuit the beginning of the latest frontier in halting black economic advancement, and more specifically, black female economic advancement? On this episode of Momentum: A Race Forward Podcast, Kerry Mitchell Brown speaks with Ayana Parsons, co-founder of the Fearless Fund about her trailblazing work, and the next steps in the fight for black economic advancement.  Resources: The Fight Against Fearless Fund is a Fight Against Black Economic Advancement (via The Atlanta Voice) https://bit.ly/498ufvD Is DEI, DOA? (via Today Explained) [Podcast]https://bit.ly/4beimGf The True Cost of the Tulsa Race Riot, 100 Years Later (via The Brookings Institution) https://bit.ly/3u481Mx The Racial Wealth Gap: A History of Inequity (via Reuters) https://bit.ly/3SgI7x9The Four Most Common Challenges Facing Black Women Entrepreneurs (via Stearns Bank) https://bit.ly/3u6ka3s Business Prowess: Black Women are Powering the US Economy (via Black Enterprise) https://bit.ly/498NN36   About Race Forward:  Race Forward catalyzes movement building for racial justice. In partnership with communities, organizations, and sectors, we build strategies to advance racial justice in our policies, institutions, and culture. Race Forward imagines a just, multiracial, democratic society, free from oppression and exploitation, in which people of color thrive with power and purpose. Follow Race Forward on social media Follow us on Facebook:www.facebook.com/raceforward Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raceforward Follow us on Instagram: www.instagram.com/raceforward Building Racial Equity (BRE) Trainings  www.raceforward.org/trainings Subscribe to our newsletter:www.raceforward.org/subscribe Executive Producers: Hendel Leiva, Cheryl Cato Blakemore Associate Producer & Editor: Freddie Beckley 

During this holiday season, you likely encountered public nativity scenes depicting the birth of Jesus, presenting the family with very rare exceptions as white. And the same can be said of his ubiquitous adult portrait –– with fair skin and hair a radiant gold, eyes fixed on the middle distance. In this segment from 2020, Eloise talks to Mbiyu Chui, pastor at the Shrine of the Black Madonna in Detroit, about unlearning Jesus's whiteness. She also hears from Edward Blum, author of The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America, about how the image came dominate in the U.S., and psychologist Simon Howard on how White Jesus has infiltrated our subconsciouses. Lastly, Eloise speaks to Rev. Kelly Brown Douglas, womanist theologian and Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary, about the theology of the Black Christ. This is segment first aired in our October 1st, 2020 program, God Bless.  

Caleb and Adriele go through the week's news, focusing on the economy, the college presidents who went in front of Congress to talk about free speech on campus, a startling abortion decision coming out of Texas, Google losing an antitrust case to Epic, Google's Gemini demo, and labor news featuring very different union talks with Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. Next, they dive into practical ways to navigate workplace tension and conflict, including a discussion of policies, boundaries, workplace culture, psychological safety, and conflict resolution. [33:02] Then, they unpack how decisions are made around corporate pricing, especially retail pricing, and how it's affecting consumers. [49:58] All that, plus Edward Blum announces he's done suing law firms, new sickle cell treatments, and how a group of nuns are taking on the NRA by becoming shareholders. That's right, just in time for the holidays it's a story about nuns with guns! Discussed today: Corporate America Is Testing the Limits of Its Pricing Power | The New York Times

This Day in Legal History: Eugene Debs Sentenced On December 15, 1894, a significant event unfolded in the annals of American labor history. Eugene V. Debs, a prominent labor leader and later a key figure in the American socialist movement, faced the legal consequences of his role in the Pullman railroad strike. The strike, which began in May 1894, was a pivotal moment in labor relations and marked a significant clash between workers' rights and corporate interests.The Pullman Strike had its roots in the economic depression of the 1890s. The Pullman Palace Car Company, known for manufacturing luxury railroad cars, drastically cut wages while maintaining high rents in the company town where workers lived. This led to widespread discontent and eventually, under the leadership of Debs and the American Railway Union (ARU), a massive strike that paralyzed rail traffic in the Midwest.The federal government's response to the strike was severe. It viewed the strike as a direct challenge to federal authority and the mail system, as many railroads carried mail. The government obtained an injunction against the strike leaders, invoking the Sherman Antitrust Act, traditionally used against monopolies, in an unprecedented manner against a labor union.Debs, refusing to comply with the injunction, was arrested and charged with conspiracy to obstruct mail delivery and interstate commerce. His trial brought national attention to the plight of the working class and the legal boundaries of labor disputes. On December 15, he was found guilty and sentenced to six months in prison.His imprisonment marked a turning point in his life and career. It was during his time in jail that Debs began to shift his views, moving from a more traditional labor leader to a dedicated socialist. He read extensively, including the works of Karl Marx, and emerged from prison a changed man, eventually running for President of the United States as a Socialist candidate multiple times.The Pullman Strike and Debs' subsequent trial and imprisonment highlighted the growing tensions in American society over industrialization, workers' rights, and corporate power. It also set precedents for the use of federal power in labor disputes and marked the beginning of a more militant phase in the American labor movement.Today, December 15, serves as a reminder of Eugene V. Debs' impact on labor history and the ongoing struggle for workers' rights. His dedication to improving the conditions of the working class and his transformation during his incarceration remain key chapters in the legal and labor history of the United States.California is taking proactive steps to enhance its deepfake protections, especially with the looming threat of these technologies in upcoming elections and their misuse in pornography. The state, a leader in anti-deepfake legislation since 2019, already has laws allowing victims of deepfakes to sue distributors. However, lawmakers, recognizing the rapid advancements in AI, are considering expanding these laws.The current legislation in California, spearheaded by Assemblymember Marc Berman, focuses on two areas: pornography and political elections. Both laws provide victims with legal recourse, but there's a growing consensus that more needs to be done. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin emphasizes the urgency, given the ease with which AI can spread misinformation.While these measures are seen as important, their enforcement and effectiveness have been questioned. Critics, like Brandie Nonnecke from UC Berkeley, argue that the laws don't prevent the initial harm caused by deepfakes. She points out the difficulty in enforcing the laws, such as the challenge of proving 'actual malice' in cases.A significant challenge to California's efforts is the potential conflict with federal law, particularly Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from liability for user-generated content. California's current law does not hold these platforms accountable for monitoring deepfakes, a stance that could change with new legislation.Any new laws will also need to navigate First Amendment concerns, especially regarding satire and parody. Drew Liebert of the California Institute for Technology and Democracy suggests reevaluating traditional interpretations of the First Amendment in light of AI's risks to democracy.Proposed solutions include outright bans on AI in political communications and stricter guidelines for identifying altered content. Nonnecke suggests that technical solutions exist for social media platforms to flag AI-generated content. Enforcement mechanisms in new bills could range from the threat of lawsuits to criminal penalties, a path other states have followed.Assemblymember Tri Ta proposed a bill criminalizing the distribution of sexual deepfake content, but it saw little progress. Meanwhile, Berman is considering legislation to strengthen the existing deepfake laws.As AI technology continues to evolve, California's approach to regulating deepfakes remains a critical issue, particularly with the 2024 election poised to be a significant test of these laws and their effectiveness in the face of advanced AI threats.California Looks to Boost Deepfake Protections Before ElectionsA U.S. federal judge has refused to block the U.S. Naval Academy's race-conscious admissions policy. This decision came after Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group opposing affirmative action, requested a preliminary injunction against the Naval Academy's consideration of race in admissions. The judge, Richard Bennett, appointed by former President George W. Bush, ruled that SFFA failed to demonstrate that the Academy's policy was discriminatory and violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection rights.The judge's decision acknowledges the Supreme Court's June ruling, which invalidated similar admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. However, the Supreme Court's decision contained an exemption for military academies, recognizing their potentially distinct interests. This exemption was a key factor in Judge Bennett's decision to reject SFFA's request.During the court proceedings, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the military has valid reasons for considering race in admissions to ensure a diverse officer corps for an increasingly diverse armed force. The judge, with over 20 years of military service, cited the history of racial tensions in the military as a context for the current policy.The judge plans to issue a written ruling soon and expedite the trial on the merits of the case, anticipating that it could eventually reach the Supreme Court. SFFA's lawyer indicated a possible appeal, while Edward Blum, founder of SFFA, has not commented yet.The case highlights ongoing debates about race-conscious admissions policies in the U.S., particularly in military academies, and the Biden administration's defense of these policies as crucial for addressing the underrepresentation of minority officers in the military. The Naval Academy's current demographics show disparities in racial representation among officers, underscoring the policy's relevance.US judge won't block US Naval Academy's race-conscious admissions policy | ReutersElliott Portnoy, the CEO of Dentons, one of the world's largest law firms, has announced he will step down from his role in November next year. This decision marks a significant leadership change at the firm, which has experienced a period of aggressive international expansion and restructuring. Under Portnoy's tenure, Dentons has grown substantially through global mergers, including a notable combination with Chinese mega-firm Dacheng in 2015, which later ended due to new Chinese national security restrictions.Portnoy's departure follows other recent leadership changes at Dentons, including the replacement of the U.S. branch CEO and the retirement of the global chairman role. Despite losing about half of its attorneys after parting with its Chinese branch, Dentons has continued its expansion strategy, recently combining with Philippine law firm PJS Law to establish a presence in Southeast Asia.Dentons, which employs a Swiss verein business structure, allows its international branches to operate independently while sharing a common brand. Portnoy emphasized that his successor would need to be committed to the firm's global growth strategy, a key differentiator for Dentons in the legal market.The firm is currently in the process of hiring an executive search firm to identify Portnoy's replacement, considering both internal and external candidates. Despite the leadership transition, Dentons aims to maintain its strong performance and growth, particularly in the United States, where it has integrated several local and regional firms since 2020.Law firm Dentons' CEO to step down next year | ReutersThe 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld the convictions of two former executives of Acclarent Inc, a medical device company now part of Johnson & Johnson. William Facteau, the ex-CEO, and Patrick Fabian, former vice president of sales, were found guilty of distributing a medical device for unapproved uses. The product in question was the Relieva Stratus MicroFlow Spacer, or Stratus, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had only cleared for delivering saline after sinus surgery, not for delivering steroids as the executives promoted.Facteau and Fabian were convicted in 2016 on misdemeanor charges for introducing adulterated and misbranded medical devices into interstate commerce. However, they were acquitted of more serious felony fraud charges. Last year, they were fined $1 million and $500,000, respectively, following a four-year sentencing delay. Acclarent, acquired by J&J in 2010, had previously settled related civil claims for $18 million in 2016.On appeal, the defense argued that their convictions violated free speech and due process rights and were based on a misinterpretation of an FDA regulation about a device's "intended use." However, the court rejected these arguments, with U.S. Circuit Judge Kermit Lipez stating that the law was clear enough to indicate when distributing a device with an unapproved intended use would be criminally liable.Former medical device execs at J&J unit lose appeal of convictions | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court struck down race being used as a factor in college admissions. Edward Blum and Asian Americans joined with him because the claim was affrimative action was harming Asians. After they fought to end affirmative action in college admissions. Asian students feel their merit wont get them into college because race is an issue. We tried to tell them but what do Black America know. Right? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/phillipscottpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/phillipscottpodcast/support

On this day, November 24, in legal history, a pivotal event unfolded in Czechoslovakia, marking a significant turning point in the country's journey towards democracy. In 1989, the leaders of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, under mounting pressure and facing an undeniable surge for change, resigned from their positions. This resignation was a direct response to the widespread protests and political movements demanding democratic reforms, a wave that had been sweeping across Eastern Europe following the decline of Soviet influence in the region.Central to this movement in Czechoslovakia was Vaclav Havel, a distinguished playwright and political dissident, who emerged as a leading figure in the opposition. Havel, who had long been an outspoken critic of the Communist regime, played a crucial role in the Velvet Revolution, a peaceful series of protests that ultimately led to the end of 41 years of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia. His actions, characterized by non-violent resistance and powerful advocacy for human rights, not only symbolized the yearning for freedom and democracy but also inspired a nation to strive for these ideals.The resignation of the Communist Party leaders on this day was a landmark victory for the Velvet Revolution and paved the way for significant legal and political changes in Czechoslovakia. This event marked the beginning of a transition from a one-party system to a parliamentary democracy, a transition that culminated in the election of Vaclav Havel as the first democratically elected President of Czechoslovakia in December 1989. His presidency represented not only a new era for Czechoslovakia but also symbolized the triumph of democratic principles over authoritarian rule in the post-Cold War era.The United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Marcos A. Orellana, has initiated an investigation into three companies historically linked to DuPont, along with the governments of the Netherlands and the United States. This probe concerns the human rights and environmental impacts stemming from the release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from a Fayetteville, North Carolina plant. In letters sent to these entities, Orellana expressed deep concern over the apparent disregard for human rights and environmental protections demonstrated by DuPont de Nemours Inc., the Chemours Co. LLC, and Corteva Agriscience LLC in their handling of PFAS, known for their potential harmful effects.Chemours responded with details of their efforts to control PFAS release at their Fayetteville Works factory, including significant pollution control measures and water treatment systems, which have cost over $200 million. They also highlighted a barrier wall to prevent chemical migration to local waters and provided data showing decreasing PFAS levels in the adjacent Cape Fear River. Corteva, on the other hand, clarified that it is an independent agricultural company and has neither produced nor sold the PFAS in question, though it inherited some liabilities related to PFAS under a 2021 settlement.The Netherlands detailed its compliance with international law in its dealings with Chemours, including requesting U.S. EPA permission for PFAS waste export from a Dutch Chemours plant to the North Carolina facility, a move highlighted by Orellana as potentially exacerbating the problem.Orellana criticized the U.S. for inadequate health and environmental protections, alleging that American regulatory failures have deprived North Carolina communities of essential information to prevent harm and seek reparation. He pointed out that legal actions against the companies have been insufficient, with enforcement and remediation measures falling short. This, according to Orellana, undermines the community members' rights to information and effective remedies. As of the report, responses from the U.S. government and DuPont were not immediately available on the UN's website.You will remember we reported on 3M's $10.3 billion PFAS settlement back in September, it appears likely as more is learned about PFAS that more litigation and ultimately more settlements will be in the offing. UN Probes DuPont, Chemours Over Human Rights Harms From PFASA $25 million settlement between Apple Inc. and the Department of Justice (DOJ) over allegations of hiring bias against U.S. citizens has underscored a broader dilemma in Big Tech regarding compliance with immigration laws. The case highlights a disconnect between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the DOJ in enforcing these laws, particularly in the context of sponsoring foreign workers for lawful permanent residency. Apple's case is the second major enforcement action against a U.S. employer for biases in sponsoring foreign workers, following a similar case with Facebook in 2021.Under the PERM (Permanent Labor Certification) program, companies sponsoring foreign workers must meet additional DOL recruiting requirements, which some attorneys find outdated, such as advertising in Sunday print newspapers. Despite adherence to DOL regulations, companies like Apple find themselves scrutinized by the DOJ for potential recruitment failures. The DOJ alleged that Apple took measures to depress applications from U.S. workers, including requiring paper applications and not advertising PERM positions on its external website.Large tech firms are particularly vulnerable to such scrutiny due to their heavy use of the PERM process and the H-1B visa program. For many foreign workers employed in the U.S. on temporary visas, progress toward permanent residency is crucial for renewing their temporary status, especially given the long wait times for green cards. The DOJ's position is that employers are not permitted to deter job applications based on citizenship or immigration status. However, this has raised concerns among immigration attorneys who argue that complying with the letter of DOL laws might still invite DOJ enforcement actions, creating a challenging environment for employers to navigate.The Apple case, following the Facebook settlement, signifies a growing enforcement trend by the DOJ and raises questions about the consistency and clarity of regulations governing the sponsorship of foreign workers for permanent residency. It also suggests the need for federal agencies to harmonize their approaches and update recruitment mandates to reflect modern hiring practices.Apple's Hiring Bias Case Reveals Big Tech Foreign Worker DilemmaThe Biden administration has defended the race-conscious admissions policy of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in a recent legal challenge. In a brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the administration argued that the academy's affirmative action policies are crucial for ensuring a diverse and effective military force, which is integral to national security. This stance comes despite the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling that struck down similar race-conscious admissions policies used by civilian colleges.The lawsuit, filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a group founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, alleges that West Point's practices discriminate against white applicants, violating the equal protection principle of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. However, the Justice Department contends that SFFA lacks legal standing to sue and points out critical differences between civilian universities and military academies in their use of race in admissions.The administration emphasizes that diversity in the Army officer corps, fostered in part by West Point's admissions practices, results in a more effective, lethal, and legitimate force in the eyes of the nation and the world. The lawsuit seeks to end an exemption that allows military academies to consider race as a factor in admissions, an issue the Supreme Court did not address in its recent ruling.The Justice Department's brief highlights the racial disparities in the Army, noting that while Black and Hispanic people make up a significant portion of active duty enlisted personnel, they are underrepresented in officer positions. In contrast, white individuals constitute a larger percentage of officers compared to their representation in the enlisted corps. The case, which will have arguments heard on December 21, raises crucial questions about the role of race in military academy admissions and its impact on the composition and effectiveness of the U.S. military.Biden administration defends West Point's race-conscious admissions policy | ReutersThe 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is proposing a rule requiring lawyers to certify their use of artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting legal briefs. This proposed rule, a first among the nation's 13 federal appeals courts, aims to regulate the use of generative AI tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT. Lawyers would need to confirm that any AI-generated text in court filings has been reviewed for accuracy, particularly citations and legal analysis. Failure to comply could result in filings being stricken and potential sanctions.This move comes as the legal community increasingly grapples with the implications of AI in the courtroom. The need for such a rule was highlighted by an incident in June, where two New York lawyers faced sanctions for submitting a brief with fictitious case citations generated by ChatGPT. The 5th Circuit's initiative follows similar actions by district courts in its jurisdiction, including the Eastern District of Texas, which recently announced a rule requiring lawyers to verify any computer-generated content.These measures reflect a growing awareness of the potential inaccuracies in AI-generated legal content and the importance of ensuring that AI tools do not replace the critical thinking and problem-solving skills required in legal practice. The 5th Circuit is currently seeking public comment on this proposal until January 4.US appeals court proposes lawyers certify review of AI use in filings | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Michael wraps up the 5th season of the podcast with some thoughts around the condition of DEI education in the United States today. He tells of how the pandemic and current political state of affairs has affected his business and that of others attempting to teach and speak out about identity.  Key Takeaways In 2020 former president Donald Trump labeled any and all discussions of race, slavery or racism as CRT (critical race theory) and subsequently banned them from schools. This is still affecting DEI training and race conversations today. The floodgates opened after the supreme court struck down affirmative action. Edward Blum is the anti-affirmative action warrior who is filing suits to stop organizations from offering opportunities to historically marginalized groups. Volatile reactions to diversity and inclusion hurt everyone. We're all on the same team. __ If you want to support INCOGNITO the podcast, here are some things you can do: Rate and review the podcast! We rely on ratings and reviews to help others discover INCOGNITO, so please take a minute to leave a rating if you can. Become a sponsor! Do you have a company or work for a company who may be interested in sponsoring our podcast? Email us at info@incognitotheplay.com and we would be happy to discuss a sponsorship deal. Share your suggestions! Do you know someone who would be a great guest on our show? Is there a topic you would like us to discuss? Let us know at info@incognitotheplay.com Follow us on Instagram! Keep up with our work and updates about the podcast by following us @incognitotheplay __ Thanks to Ned Doheny for providing our podcast music! You can find him and his music on Spotify. Editing and co-production of this podcast by Emma Yarger. Email info@incognitotheplay.com with questions or comments about the show!

This week's featured idealist is the one and only James Baldwin—an extraordinary writer and an advocate for Black folks at a time when doing so put him at risk professionally and personally. The Big Interview is with Marshall Tanick, a Twin Cities lawyer-writer who talks about how Edward Blum and his organization, Alliance for Equal…

On this day in legal history, October 12, 1977, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the landmark case of Allan Bakke, which centered around the contentious issue of "reverse discrimination." Bakke, a white student, had been denied admission to the University of California Davis Medical School, with the school reserving a specific number of seats for minority applicants. Bakke argued that this affirmative action policy amounted to racial discrimination against him. The case was seen as a significant challenge to affirmative action programs aimed at redressing past racial injustices.During the oral arguments, the justices grappled with the complex question of whether race-based admissions policies violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case ultimately led to a divided decision. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, stating that while affirmative action was permissible, the use of racial quotas in admissions was unconstitutional. This decision had far-reaching implications for affirmative action policies in higher education and set a precedent for future legal battles on the issue.A divided en banc US appeals court has granted California's emergency stay of a lower court ruling that barred the state from enforcing its law limiting the capacity of gun magazines to 10 bullets or less. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit voted 7-4, allowing most of the trial judge's order to be stayed, with the exception of magazines lawfully acquired and possessed before the judge's order granting a permanent injunction. The court stated that Attorney General Rob Bonta was likely to succeed on the merits, citing the 2021 US Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, which limited the restrictions states can place on where gun owners can take their firearms. This majority decision noted that, since the Bruen decision, ten other federal district courts have considered Second Amendment challenges to large-capacity magazine restrictions, and only one court, the Southern District of Illinois, granted a preliminary injunction.The majority found that California demonstrated that it would face significant harm if the stay was denied, as it could lead to an influx of large-capacity magazines, posing potential threats to public safety. The ruling stated that other interested parties would not be substantially harmed by the stay, and it does not impede the public's ability to purchase and possess various firearms and magazines containing 10 rounds or fewer. This recent decision, while not deciding the case's merits, has temporarily stayed the injunction, allowing California to enforce its large-capacity magazine limit while the case proceeds. California High Capacity Gun Magazine Ban Mostly Unblocked (1)Anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum's American Alliance for Equal Rights has dropped a lawsuit against Perkins Coie, a U.S. law firm, over its diversity fellowship program. The decision came after Perkins Coie revised its application criteria, allowing all law students to apply, not just those from "historically underrepresented" groups. Blum's group had initially sued two firms in August, alleging that their diversity fellowship programs unlawfully excluded individuals, including white students, based on their race. The move to open these programs to all students preempted further legal action, though Blum highlighted the existence of similar "racially discriminatory programs" at other law firms, encouraging them to do the same. Last year, major U.S. law firms had just 11.4% partners from people of color, according to the National Association for Law Placement.Affirmative action opponent drops case over law firm's diversity fellowship | ReutersPfizer has agreed to a $50 million settlement to resolve claims by drug wholesalers that they overpaid for EpiPen allergy treatment devices due to alleged anticompetitive practices by the drugmaker. The wholesalers argued that Pfizer, which manufactured the EpiPen for Mylan, engaged in anticompetitive behavior that allowed them to maintain a monopoly over the market for EpiPens, leading to inflated prices. This class action settlement, filed in a Kansas City, Kansas federal court, must still be approved by the judge.The legal action against Pfizer and Mylan followed public outrage in 2016 when Mylan raised the price of EpiPens from $100 to $600. The lawsuits claimed that the companies engaged in anticompetitive practices to stifle competition and maintain high profits, including paying Teva Pharmaceutical Industries to delay the launch of a generic version of the EpiPen. In 2021, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree dismissed the claims against Pfizer on the grounds that it was Mylan, not Pfizer, that directly sold the EpiPen. In 2021 and 2022, groups of consumers reached settlements of $345 million and $264 million with Pfizer and Mylan, respectively, over related claims.Pfizer to pay $50 mln to settle drug wholesalers' EpiPen antitrust claims | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week's episode of the 280+ Podcast we finally get an arrest in the death of Tupac Shakur and find out how DJ Vlad is somehow the hero in all this. Remember when we talked about the Fearless Fund and their battle with Edward Blum, well they get a pivotal victory in court only for it to be yanked away less than a week later. The Canelo vs Charlo fight was the biggest letdown in boxing for 2023. Hear my take on what Terence Crawford should do, now that Charlo has called him out after his loss. Coach Prime suffers his second loss, but something tells me the tide will be turning as we end the season. Plus we tackle a new study that claims yelling at kids is just as harmful as physical or s*xual abuse, and how that's a far reach and the slippery slope it can lead to in parenting. All this and much more on Episode 127 of the 280+ Podcast. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/los-def/message

On this day in legal history, October 6, 1981, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in retaliation for signing a peace treaty with Israel. The assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat on October 6, 1981, had profound legal and political ramifications for Egypt. Prior to his assassination, Sadat had initiated a crackdown on opposition figures, including Islamists and intellectuals, arresting more than 1,500 people. This move was highly unpopular and was seen as a suppression of civil liberties, including freedom of the press. Despite the crackdown, the government failed to apprehend a key cell within the military that was plotting Sadat's assassination.The assassination was orchestrated by the Islamic Jihad, although numerous other groups claimed responsibility. The killing was not just a political act but also had legal implications, as it led to further crackdowns on opposition groups and increased state security measures. The assassin, was tried and executed, setting a precedent for how the Egyptian legal system would handle cases of high-profile political violence.Vice President Mubarak, who was wounded in the attack, succeeded Sadat and continued policies of political repression, including the enforcement of emergency laws that gave sweeping powers to the state.The assassination led to a reevaluation of the legal frameworks surrounding political dissent, terrorism, and state security. It also raised questions about the effectiveness of existing laws in preventing such acts of violence, leading to legal reforms aimed at bolstering state security mechanisms.The group Students for Fair Admissions, led by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Naval Academy, challenging its race-conscious admissions policies. This lawsuit comes on the heels of a similar case filed against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Both lawsuits aim to overturn an exemption in a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows military academies to consider race in admissions. The Supreme Court had previously invalidated race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina but left the door open for military academies, citing "potentially distinct interests."Blum argues that the Naval Academy has no legal basis for treating applicants differently based on race and ethnicity. The Naval Academy declined to comment on the lawsuit. The Biden administration has defended the use of race in military academy admissions, stating that a diverse officer corps is essential for an effective military. A 2020 Defense Department report highlighted disparities in racial representation among military officers compared to enlisted personnel.The lawsuit alleges that the Naval Academy's admissions practices are discriminatory and violate the Fifth Amendment's principle of equal protection. It criticizes the academy for trying to "racially balance" each incoming class rather than focusing on leadership potential and other objective metrics. The lawsuit seeks to bar the academy from considering race in future admissions processes. Given the ongoing debates and legal challenges surrounding affirmative action, this case could have significant implications for admissions policies not just in military academies but also in educational institutions at large.Anti-affirmative action group challenges US Naval Academy's admissions policy | ReutersThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is suing Elon Musk to compel him to testify in an investigation related to his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. The probe focuses on whether Musk violated federal securities laws in 2022 when he purchased Twitter stock and renamed the platform "X," as well as the statements and SEC filings he made concerning the deal. The SEC had previously subpoenaed Musk in May 2023 for testimony, to which he initially agreed but later refused, citing "spurious objections." Among Musk's objections was the claim that the SEC was trying to "harass" him.Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro, stated that the SEC has already taken Musk's testimony multiple times and called the investigation "misguided." The SEC, however, maintains that it seeks Musk's testimony to obtain information relevant to its "legitimate and lawful investigation." This lawsuit is the latest episode in a long-standing feud between Musk and the SEC, which began with Musk's 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private.Musk's acquisition of Twitter has been fraught with complications, including his initial late filing disclosure and his vacillation over accepting a board seat at Twitter. He also tried to back out of the acquisition, alleging that Twitter was not fully disclosing bot activity. Despite a trial that sought to compel him to complete the deal, Musk finalized the acquisition in late October 2022.The lawsuit adds another layer to Musk's existing legal challenges, which include a Justice Department investigation into Tesla over self-driving claims and a federal probe into Musk's corporate perks and vehicle driving range claims. Legal experts find Musk's refusal to appear for the September testimony extraordinary, given his positions at public companies.SEC tries to force Musk to testify in Twitter takeover probe | ReutersThree directors, two former and one current, designated to serve on the board of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. by activist investor Ryan Cohen, have sought permission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey to use a $10 million Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance policy for unspecified legal costs. These costs are related to a "non-public, confidential matter" concerning their tenure on the company's board. The directors were appointed in March 2022 as part of an agreement with Cohen and his investment firm, RC Ventures LLC.At that time, Cohen was using a 10% stake in Bed Bath & Beyond to criticize its business strategy and advocate for either a separation of its buybuy Baby Inc. chain or a potential sale of the company. Cohen, who is now the CEO of GameStop Corp., is currently facing shareholder litigation accusing him of manipulating Bed Bath & Beyond's stock prices through a pump-and-dump scheme. A federal judge declined to dismiss this lawsuit, citing the suspicious timing of Cohen's trades, which took place just before the company announced layoffs, an investment rating downgrade, and issues with supplier payments.Additionally, Cohen is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning his sale of Bed Bath & Beyond stocks. The directors stated that the "confidential demand" they are facing will result in defense costs and other potential losses covered under the D&O policy. Both the company and its insurer, Zurich American Insurance Co., have agreed that the matter triggers the insurance policy.Bed Bath & Beyond filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April, burdened with over $5.2 billion in debt. During the bankruptcy process, the company sold its name brand to Overstock.com for $21.5 million and its buybuy Baby brand to Dream on Me Industries Inc. for $15.5 million. Bed Bath & Beyond Directors Seek ‘Confidential Matter' CoverageAlex Jones, a right-wing conspiracy theorist, is facing opposition from his own company, Free Speech Systems, and a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee over his request for $680,000 in disputed, unpaid salary. Free Speech Systems, the parent company of Infowars, and the trustee have asked a judge to reject Jones' request. Both Jones and Free Speech Systems are undergoing separate bankruptcy proceedings. The company had previously agreed to an annual salary of $1.3 million for Jones but filed for bankruptcy after being ordered to pay nearly $1.4 billion to the families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims.Following the bankruptcy filing, court-approved budgets limited the company's ability to pay Jones his original salary. His salary was reduced to $20,000 every two weeks, down from the previous $50,000. In July, Jones asked the court to direct the company to pay him $680,000 in back salary, arguing that the reduction has resulted in a $290,000 administrative claim that is increasing by $30,000 per month.Free Speech Systems disputed the amount claimed by Jones, stating that certain offsets should further reduce any claim. The company also argued that the Bankruptcy Code does not provide for immediate payment of the claim. The bankruptcy trustee overseeing the Free Speech estate supported the company's arguments against the back payments.Judge Christopher Lopez, who is overseeing both bankruptcy cases, has indicated a willingness to increase Jones' salary, stating that Jones is critical to the Infowars business. Jones has argued that he cannot pay the nearly $1.4 billion he owes to the Sandy Hook families with less than $12 million in assets. Alex Jones Fights Bankrupt Infowars Over $680,000 in Back Pay Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this Episode we talk about: Blueface Headed To Prison, Kanye's Interview Resurfaces, A mother letting her child drown in the tub, and Edward Blum racist lawsuits to end grant program for black women.

  Still no actual payment for advertising from Podbean nor sponsorships. The AMA (American Medical Association) Is Not Woke But appears to be doing the work...174 years later. Jus' Sayin' G.O.N (Grand ol Neo-Nazi Party) formerly the GOP Edward Blum Rampage against Diversity and Equality Mena Mess...“I deeply regret my insensitive comment and want to humbly apologize to anybody I hurt or offended by my thoughtlessness,” Mena said in a statement provided to The Times.   Run up to the season finale. Advertisers pay your dang bills! Bought to you by Felicia's Paycheck!   So actively seeking partners, sponsors or sponsorships to continue to provide amazing content. So become a Melanated Nerd on Podbean by clicking https://patron.podbean.com/TheTalkingFro https://patron.podbean.com/tnfroisreading Apple Subscriptions Or Patreon and other archived content by clicking https://linktr.ee/tnfroisreading to subscribe and listen to all Premium content; the window has closed on available Episodes! Check out the Previous Show Clips on TNFroisReading YouTube Channel

After his victory over race conscious college admissions policies this summer, anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum wasted no time moving to his next target. Last month, groups led by Blum filed suit against two of the country's largest law firms, arguing the recent high court opinion means their diversity fellowships are now illegal. The suits are already paying off: Within days of filing, two firms changed their criteria for granting fellowships designed to recruit associates from more diverse backgrounds. On this week's episode of our weekly podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporters Tatyana Monnay and Riddhi Setty talk about what these firms did and why Blum was able to achieve results so quickly. They also get into what this means for the future of DEI departments in Big Law, many of which were already struggling before the uncertainty brought by Blum's suits. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in higher education. That means colleges and universities can no longer consider a student applicant's race when building their student bodies.The decision was a victory for Edward Blum, the legal activist who founded Students for Fair Admissions. The organization won the landmark case it brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.Now, Blum and other conservative legal firms, have set their sights on diversity efforts in corporate America.We discuss the legal challenges against venture capital funds, law firm fellowships, and federal contracting programs that all aim to uplift Black professionals and businesses.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find out how to connect with us by visiting our website.

This day in legal history, September 7, 1977, President Carter signed the Panama Canal Treaty, setting the relinquishment date for the Panama Canal back to Panama for January 1, 2000. In the early 20th century, the U.S. secured rights to build and operate the Panama Canal, initially through the Hay-Herrán Treaty with Colombia, but eventually through the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty with Panama, post its independence which was supported by the U.S. The Canal opened in 1914, but the legitimacy of the treaty was questioned by many Panamanians. As the century progressed, tensions escalated between the U.S. and Panama over the control of the Canal, leading to riots and diplomatic interruptions.In the 1970s, both nations recognized the necessity of renegotiating the Canal's status. U.S. diplomat Ellsworth Bunker led the negotiations, focusing on securing perpetual U.S. use rather than control of the Canal Zone. These discussions laid the groundwork for the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Despite initial opposition, President Jimmy Carter, influenced by advisors, prioritized concluding these negotiations upon taking office.However, the ratification of the treaties faced significant opposition in the U.S. Senate, with critics fearing a loss of strategic control and distrusting Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos. After extensive public and political engagement, two treaties were formulated and narrowly ratified by the Senate in 1978, establishing the terms for the eventual transfer of the Canal to Panama in 1999. Despite fostering initial cooperation, U.S.-Panama relations fluctuated, witnessing an American invasion in 1989 to depose leader Manuel Noriega. By 1999, relations stabilized, and the Canal's administration was peacefully transferred to Panama.Morrison Foerster has amended the eligibility criteria for its DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) fellowship program amidst a lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by Edward Blum, who opposes affirmative action. Initially, the Keith Wetmore Fellowship targeted students from historically underrepresented groups in the legal sector, but now focuses on those showing a commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession. The lawsuit accuses the firm of racial discrimination against prospective lawyers for over a decade. Meanwhile, Perkins Coie, also a defendant in the lawsuit, maintains its focus on aiding historically underrepresented students and has publicly reaffirmed its commitment to fostering diversity and inclusion in the legal field.Morrison Foerster Changes DEI Fellowship Criteria Amid LawsuitUS law firm alters diversity fellowship criteria after lawsuit | ReutersMonique Worrell, a liberal prosecutor who was dismissed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, has filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court seeking reinstatement to her elected position as the State Attorney for Orange and Osceola County. Worrell contends that DeSantis had no legitimate grounds to remove her and replace her with a conservative prosecutor, asserting that his reasons violate state law. She emphasizes that her role grants her the discretion to determine prosecutorial strategies, and disagreements with the Governor on these strategies do not constitute grounds for suspension.This case brings a significant issue before the conservative-leaning court, which had previously avoided making a decision in a similar case involving another prosecutor fired by DeSantis. In the earlier case, the court ruled that the prosecutor had waited too long to file the lawsuit. Worrell's case, however, does not have this timing issue. DeSantis had accused Worrell of neglect of duty and incompetence, citing her allowing assistant prosecutors to propose sentences below the state's mandatory minimums and perceived leniency towards criminal defendants. Worrell refutes these claims, stating that reduced jail time and incarceration rates are not indicative of incompetence or neglect, but are within her lawful discretionary powers. Prosecutor DeSantis Fired Sues to Get Her Elected Position BackU.S. President Joe Biden has declined several conditions proposed by five Guantanamo Bay detainees involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks, as part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, according to a report by the New York Times. The defendants, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, identified as the main architect of the attacks, were offered a plea deal that would exempt them from the death penalty, instead imposing a life sentence, if they pleaded guilty. In response, the defendants presented conditions such as not serving their sentences in solitary confinement and being permitted to eat and pray with other inmates.President Biden, aligning with the advice of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, rejected these conditions, termed as joint policy principles, as grounds for plea negotiations. A White House spokesperson emphasized that accepting these conditions for a pre-trial agreement would not be suitable given the gravity of the 9/11 attacks, which were the most severe assault on the U.S. since the Pearl Harbor incident. The spokesperson reiterated the administration's dedication to maintaining fairness in the military commissions process, aiming to deliver justice to the victims, survivors, and their families, as well as the accused individuals. The 9/11 attacks, orchestrated by al Qaeda militants, resulted in over 3,000 deaths and involved the hijacking of four commercial airplanes, which were used to carry out coordinated strikes in New York City and Washington, D.C. More than 500,000 people died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of the ensuing invasions. Biden rejects conditions of plea deal for Sept. 11 attacks defendantsA lawsuit has been filed by the nonpartisan organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), aiming to prevent Donald Trump from being listed on the Colorado ballot in the upcoming presidential election, should he secure the Republican nomination. The lawsuit, representing six Republican and unaffiliated voters, including former officials at various government levels, is grounded on the argument that Trump's involvement in the events of January 6, 2021, makes him unfit for office as per the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment prohibits individuals who have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S., and have previously taken an oath to support its Constitution, from holding federal or state office. A historical note here, this amendment was targeted at high ranking U.S. officials that served in the Confederacy during the Civil War – sort of a, you can't just waltz bank in to the Senate and get your job back kind of amendment. This legal approach, which is considered a long shot by experts, would necessitate convincing officials across all states and territories of Trump's ineligibility to serve, given the Capitol attack orchestrated by his supporters in an attempt to overturn his electoral loss. Despite the ongoing false claims by Trump regarding the legitimacy of his defeat, he remains a leading contender for the Republican nomination to oppose President Joe Biden in 2024. CREW's president, Noah Bookbinder, emphasized that the unprecedented nature of the lawsuit is a response to the equally unprecedented attack on January 6th, which the 14th Amendment sought to guard against. Meanwhile, Trump denies federal charges accusing him of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and obstructing a fair election during the 2020 presidential race. Notably, analysts regard Colorado as a firmly Democratic state, where Trump's chances of victory in 2024 are perceived as slim.Washington ethics watchdog files suit to try to block Trump from ballot | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Fearless Fund is a Black woman led venture capital firm that offers investment, financial support, and mentorship to Black women owned businesses.  But they are under attack for providing support for traditionally marginalized entrepreneurs. Edward Blum, the professional hater at the heart of the supreme court's legal challenge of affirmative action, is suing them for what he says is racial discrimination.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After bringing about the legal action that struck down Affirmative Action, Edward Blum is back, going after grants and fellowships that support marginalized people, especially Black women. Bridget Todd breaks down what's going on and what the future may hold.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Black Women vs. Edward Blum. Larry Elder vs. The Breakfast Club. Republicans vs. Common Sense. And a special and loving warning for Idris Elba from one Ray of Sunshine. May your ear kewchies be pleased! Become a Habitual Ish Talker and follow us on The App Formally Known As Twitter: twitter.com/TalkinIsh_Pod Join in on the conversation! E-Mail us at ⁠talkinishpod@gmail.com⁠

The American Alliance for Equal Rights, a group led by conservative activist Edward Blum, has filed a lawsuit against Fearless Fund, an Atlanta-based venture capital fund that supports Black women-owned small businesses. The lawsuit alleges that Fearless Fund's grant competition, which exclusively benefits Black women, violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by engaging in racial discrimination (keep in mind that Edward Blum's previous legal efforts led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected affirmative action policies in college admissions, claiming they discriminated against white and Asian American applicants…) Judge LaDoris Cordell joins Tavis to unpack this latest backlash from Conservatives regarding affirmation action and several other pressing topics including her unique approach to handling criminal cases involving prominent figures like Trump, her analysis of threats against judges, and the rise of violence in the legal landscape.

P.M. Edition for Aug. 22. Edward Blum, the conservative activist behind the lawsuit that ended race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions, is now suing two law firms over their fellowships for diverse candidates. Higher education reporter Doug Belkin explains. Plus, in a tough housing market, U.S. homes are getting smaller. Reporter Maggie Eastland has more. Annmarie Fertoli hosts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay discuss Florida's use of PragerU's conservative education platform in schools (13:37) before reacting to Ne-Yo's controversial statements regarding trans youth, after which he apologized but subsequently doubled down on his stance (38:54). Then, reporter Meghann Cuniff is back to talk the sentencing of Tory Lanez (51:38), before a discussion about Edward Blum and his efforts to fight against Black America (1:14:10), as well as politician Vivek Ramaswamy calling Juneteenth a “useless holiday” (1:26:14).  Hosts: Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay Guest: Meghann Cuniff Producers: Donnie Beacham Jr. and Ashleigh Smith Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week, Dominic-Madori Davis came back on the show to chat with Mary Ann and Alex about two of her latest pieces:A lawsuit targeting a grant program that provided small checks to Black women small-business owners. The context here is that there's a movement in the United States to curtail programs that seek to provide access, or opportunity to underrepresented peoples in business and education. Given venture's somewhat embarrassing investment demographics, we struggled to understand the seeming animus behind the suit.Some countries are taking a different track, including the United Kingdom. Dom has more on that topic here.Equity is back on Friday with our weekly news roundup! Talk to you then!For episode transcripts and more, head to Equity's Simplecast website.Equity drops at 7 a.m. PT every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, so subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all the casts. TechCrunch also has a great show on crypto, a show that interviews founders and more!

Tune in to the 280+ Podcast for this week's captivating discussions on trending topics that matter! Our hosts delve into the latest headlines, react to viral Instagram reels, and provide insightful recaps of two unmissable TV shows. Join us as we explore thought-provoking questions: Is social media shaping softer parenting? Unravel the nuances between travel and vacation preferences. Discover will.i.am's thought-provoking perspective on AI and the erosion of human likeness rights. Here's a sneak peek at the timestamps and intriguing subjects covered: (4:40) Unveiling Softened Parenting: Gain profound insights from a snippet of the Unbiased Podcast. Explore how modern parenting, influenced by social media, might be hindering crucial life lessons for children. (11:40) Post-Vacation Friendship Dynamics: Dive into a viral video where a woman dissects the distinctions between travel and vacation experiences, shedding light on how these disparities can strain friendships during trips. (16:38) Unmasking AI's Human Element Theft: Explore the articulate critique by will.i.am on AI's unsettling encroachment on human identity. Delve into the concerning shift in ownership rights over our faces and voices. (21:10) Decoding the Writer's Strike: Embark on a journey to uncover the origins of the ongoing TV writer's strike, stretching beyond three months. Uncover the role of streaming networks in reshaping the compensation landscape for talented writers. (30:04) Empowering Black Female Entrepreneurs: Delve into the transition of Edward Blum, the force behind the Affirmative Action lawsuit, now focusing on private investment funds aimed at uplifting black women entrepreneurs. (37:00) Timeless Brilliance of Nip/Tuck: Celebrate the 20th anniversary of the iconic show Nip/Tuck, a show ahead of its time. Revisit its bold exploration of themes like body image, plastic surgery addiction, and gender identity, pondering how cancel culture might have reacted today. (42:25) The Chi Season 6 Insights: Join us for an engaging recap of The Chi's season 6 premiere. Uncover the complexities of characters' relationships, from Emmett and Kiesha's intimacy struggles to the power dynamics in Rashad and Deja's connection. Don't miss out on this enriching podcast episode, packed with riveting discussions and fresh perspectives. Subscribe, listen, and engage to stay informed and entertained!

Edward Blum, the man behind the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling to exclude the consideration of race in college admissions, is now eying a Black woman-led venture capital firm. Blum, who leads the nonprofit American Alliance for Equal Rights, is suing the Fearless Fund, launched in 2019 by entrepreneur and philanthropist Arian Simone, corporate business strategy executive Ayana Parsons and actress Keshia Knight Pulliam, according to Yahoo! Finance. Blum's nonprofit is accusing the Fearless Fund of unlawful racial discrimination because only Black women are eligible in a grant competition. The fund also offers mentorship opportunities in partnership with Mastercard. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

social commentary --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/supasly75/support

social commentary --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/supasly75/support

It's been a 40-year fight in the United States over affirmative action, or taking race into consideration for university admissions. Now, students and schools are adjusting to a new reality after the US Supreme Court reversed the precedent. The ruling is the culmination of a concerted legal campaign by conservative activist Edward Blum and his organization Students for Fair Admissions. Some US universities have stopped using affirmative action, in the past, and the results show fewer minority students enrolled at their institutions. So how will this nationwide decision change demographics – and how will that change students' futures? In this episode:  Sumun Pendakur (@SumunLPendakur), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion strategist  Episode credits: This episode was produced by David Enders, with Chloe K. Li and our host Malika Bilal. Khaled Soltan fact-checked this episode. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our lead of audience development and engagement is Aya Elmileik. Munera Al Dosari and Adam Abou-Gad are our engagement producers. Alexandra Locke is The Take's executive producer, and Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook

On the latest episode of Giving Ventures, host and DonorsTrust Vice President Peter Lipsett talks with three policy experts working to expand diversity of thought and equal opportunity for all. Those experts are Edward Blum, founder of Students for Fair Admissions; Devon Westhill, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity; and Kenny […]

Air Date 7/11/2023 Today, we take a look at the history and unceremonious end of affirmative action for college admissions that were an attempt to correct the compounded impact of hundreds of years of systemic racism. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Get 20% Off Membership in July!) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Affirmative Reactions Part 1 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 7-1-23 What does the SCOTUS decision on affirmative action have to do with the Don't Say Gay bills, book bans, and attacks on school curricula all over the country? How is is part and parcel of a certain White supremacist libertarianism? Ch. 2: The Architect Part 1 - More Perfect - Air Date 12-7-17 More Perfect profiled Edward Blum in season one of the show. We catch up with him to hear about his latest effort to end affirmative action at Harvard. Ch. 3: What Does Color-Blind Really Mean - Notes From America - Air Date 7-10-23 Affirmative action is gone. Ibram X. Kendi tells us the history leading up to this moment and what could be next. Ch. 4: MAGA SCOTUS Is Back - Amicus - Air Date 7-1-23 The Supreme Court's conservatives return to form, stripping protections for same-sex couples, striking down student loan relief, and ending race-conscious college admissions. Ch. 5: The Architect Part 2 - More Perfect - Air Date 12-7-17 Ch. 6: Asian Americans + Affirmative Action - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 7-5-23 Myths, Data, Predictions Ch. 7: What Does Color-Blind Really Mean Part 2 - Notes From America - Air Date 7-10-23 Ch. 8: Affirmative Reactions Part 2 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 7-1-23 Ch. 9: Legal Scholar Says Supreme Court Could Become a “Pointless Institution” - Amanpour and Company - Air Date 5-17-23 “Shadow docket.” This refers to cases that are decided quickly, without written opinions or oral arguments. In his new book, Vladeck traces the transformation of the Supreme Court. He explains all to Hari Sreenivasan. MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 10: Elie Mystal's Court Packing Plan - Contempt of Court - Air Date 7-10-23 When most people talk about expanding the Supreme Court, they're talking about adding a few justices. Two or four to the bench. But I am not most people. Ch. 11: Weekly Roundup Affirmative Reactions Part 3 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 7-1-23 FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 12: Final comments on the need for a new solution to the old problem that affirmative action was trying to solve MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) SHOW IMAGE Description: The angled shadow of a student in a cap and gown stretches across white concrete. Credit: "Graduation_Future_University_Cap" by Csparks, Pixabay    Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

On the latest episode of Giving Ventures, host and DonorsTrust Vice President Peter Lipsett talks with three policy experts working to expand diversity of thought and equal opportunity for all. Those experts are Edward Blum, founder of Students for Fair Admissions; Devon Westhill, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity; and Kenny Xu, president and primary spokesperson for Color Us United.

After a mass shooting in Philadephia on Monday, the city has filed a lawsuit against two gun manufacturers. Philadelphia has seen more than a 300% increase in ghost guns over the past four years. Philadelphia City Solicitor Diana Cortes joins us. And, Edward Blum is a Republican legal activist and made it his mission to end racial preferences in American society. He joins us to talk about what's next after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action. Then, Hong Kong authorities placed bounties on eight prominent pro-democracy activists living overseas. They're wanted as part of an investigation into mass protests in Hong Kong in 2019. Former lawmaker Nathan Law is one of them and joins us.

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. The Supreme Court's ruling earlier this week has struck down on affirmative action in college admissions. What does this mean? What can we do? Where do we go from here? All of these questions will be answered in this week's episode of AACRE Thursday at APEX Express. Miko Lee and Cheryl Truong are joined by affirmative action experts, Vincent Pan, Co-Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) and Sally Chen, Harvard alum and CAA's Education Equity Policy Manager for a discussion on SCOTUS's repeal of race-conscious admission policies. Make sure to tune in! CAA and APEX Express are proud to be a part of the Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality (AACRE) network. Petition to Universities in support of Affirmative Action Affirmative Action Resources   Let's Talk Affirmative Action show Transcripts Miko Lee: Good evening, you are on APEX Express. This is Miko Lee and Cheryl Truong. Tonight is an AACRE night, APEX Express is proud to be part of the AACRE Network, which is Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality. Cheryl Truong: Tonight, we're talking about the Supreme court's ruling against affirmative action in the repeal of race conscious admission policies just earlier this week week. Joining us today from Chinese for Affirmative Action are co-executive director Vincent Pan and education equity policy manager Sally Chen Miko Lee: Sally and Vin, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Sally, I know that you have had a personal connection to affirmative action. Can you tell us a little bit about your personal connection? And I know you wrote an article that was amazing in the LA Times. Tell us about your experience. Sally Chen: Absolutely. I was born and raised in San Francisco. The daughter of Chinese immigrants who are working class worked in restaurant and service industries all of their time in the United States. And from a young age, I was both a translator and advocate for my parents, whether that was letters from our landlord in the mail, dealing with insurance, calling the bank, and. All of these experiences really shaped my motivations, my aspirations, and ultimately the content of what I wrote about in my college application at the time. I talked really candidly about my background and ultimately matriculated to Harvard in 2015. As a part of my experiences as an organizer, a student organizer on campus involved with various racial justice efforts, including advocating for ethnic studies and for supporting junior faculty of color on campus I came to be involved with student for fair admission versus Harvard in my junior year of college. I ultimately was one of eight students and alumni that testified in support of race conscious policies such as affirmative action for two reasons. One, for how I saw the benefits of race conscious policies reflected in my own admissions experience. I had gotten to look at my admissions file and I saw how much of the reality that I would not have been able to get across all of who I am with my skills, strengths, perspectives, without talking about race and ethnicity, without talking about my background, my upbringing, and second, because of how I saw racial diversity on campus, playing out in really meaningful ways for cross-racial school coalition building or our joint advocacy. And I really think it's important. It's important to highlight that in the course of this case. Students for Fair Admissions, Ed Blum's organization, never brought forward a single student in any of his proceedings to testify, to even show proof that they had been harmed by race conscious policy, and as one of the only eight students who did get to weigh in on this case, on the public record. We all showed really direct support and answered the question that I was disappointed to see that the Supreme Court justices did not answer, did not hear in answering why these policies are important, why racial diversity is important, why racism is still a reality in the society. Miko Lee: Thanks for that Sally. Vin, as the co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action can you talk about the impact of this ruling across the work that you're doing with CAA? Vincent Pan: Sure. I'm happy to do so. Miko and, and thanks for having us on the program. You know, I think that the ruling is devastating on so many different levels. I think most notably it affects college admissions and who will have access to higher education. It's already been a very difficult struggle for students of color, for students from backgrounds that, you know, may have been less traditionally college going. And this will make it even harder for students to present the entirety of themselves for consideration at the most select private institutions of, of higher education. But on another level, I think that impact is, is even worse. Because when you really read and understand the ruling that the supreme court conservative, super majority made and understand, you know, how those individuals got onto the court we can also recognize that this ruling is about going backwards on the whole issue of race and racial justice. Because it is trying to convince America again that the way to deal with racism is to either pretend that it doesn't exist by sticking our head in the sand, or by saying that racism is okay and that we can live with these deep inequities that affect so many of us. So I think for CAA and, and for the communities that we work with and we represent it's a time to really deepen our resolve and our commitment because the work for racial justice is not going to be easier by this decision, but in many ways becomes even more important. Cheryl Truong: In a similar vein, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And so, Sally, I was wondering just because you were a first-generation student at an Ivy league school. I was wondering what your experience was like just navigating these educational systems Sally Chen: Absolutely. As I mentioned, my parents were working class immigrants. They had not attended college themselves. And in my K 12 educational journey, a lot of. What I was able to navigate was, for the most part on my own. My parents were not able to help me with my homework starting in around third or fourth grade, and I nonetheless, I still felt that a lot of the values and the lessons that they taught me were of value. That people who do not often have their voices uplifted should nonetheless be heard. That people who are directly impacted by issues are experts on issues. And when I was writing my college application, my personal statement, I talked a lot about wanting to do work that would be relevant to the communities that I'm from to Asian American communities of the Bay Area that I called home. And I remember when I wrote my personal statement, I actually had advice from my counselor at the time who himself was Asian American. And he said something along the lines of, don't tell an Asian immigrant story. It's not compelling, it's not of interest. And. I remember at the time as a young person feeling utterly crushed honestly, by that advice. And in the end, I didn't listen. One because I had already written my statement and I was not going to rewrite it, being a tired student myself, but second, because I really felt that I wanted to be going to an institution that would. Value the perspectives that I would bring that would see the value of my presence there. And are still able to and are empowered to. Speak directly about the issues that affect our lives, about what shapes our perspectives, and that no student should feel they have to hide who they are or what their needs are, or what their goals and ambitions are either. Miko Lee: Well, number one, thank you young Sally for standing up for yourself, not listening to that counselor and just saying, I'm gonna speak my truth. Yay. Thank you for doing that. This brings up this question that I'm hearing Edward Blum and all these conservatives bring up around a holistic idea of admissions. And having colorblindness. Can both of you talk a little bit about that holistic admissions process? Because Sally, like you're saying, part of your upbringing is being an immigrant, you know, having to translate for your parents. So now with this new ruling, this whole idea of colorblindness, how do you separate those two out? Vin, can you speak a little bit about that process and what does that mean and, how are they gonna go forward? How are people supposed to go forward with this idea of a holistic admission process, but also being colorblind? Doesn't one contradict the other? Vincent Pan: They, they absolutely contradict. And so what makes sense is to have a holistic process that takes into account, not just academic performance, but also extracurriculars, also adversity, also race and ethnicity, gender, immigration status. Like all the things that make us human beings. , as a result of being these full human beings, being able to participate in learning processes with beloved students and classmates and to share those perspectives. And so, why this court ruling makes no sense is because it somehow suggests that we consider everything else but race when we know that race is actually one of the driving and determinant factors of how we experience life. Maybe there's a time or a place where that wouldn't be the case but in the United States, it has probably been one of the most important factors in terms of how people experience life. Not only historically but today. So in some ways colorblindness is just a mask. There's, there's really no such thing as colorblindness in the way, you know, America navigates either it's public policy or it's social and cultural life. Colorblindness becomes a way of, of just saying, we're going to make invisible people of color. And, you know, Blum and, and his allies and the super majority of conservatives on the court, that's really what this has always been about. And it really has been an effort to turn back much of the progress that began with the civil rights era and the in the sixties, to try and reckon with race by more directly confronting and addressing it. Sally Chen: Right. And. Totally agree with everything Vin is bringing up here, and I can speak to a little bit just how holistic admissions works. Naming first that holistic admissions at generally elite institutions include often hundreds of factors including gender, sexuality, religion, geographic diversity. Socioeconomic status includes a large range of factors, and this calling out specifically of race as being problematic is just as ridiculous as Vin has discussed. And if anything, the decision from the court really throws a confusing challenge to colleges and universities around how they can navigate these limitations and move forward. We really see the role of advocates in this space to both show support for and call for accountability from colleges and universities to still hold racial diversity and equity as part of their goal, part of their mission, and that. They need to invest more and double down on the alternatives available to them, and even to implement policy changes that were available to them even before this decision that can open access for more students in particular students of color that I'll plug here on CAA's website. We have an open letter to colleges and universities outlining some of these changes, including eliminating legacy preferences, removing racially biased SAT or ACT tests as evaluation for admissions or merit scholarships, and really looking at racial diversity, after admissions to continue tracking data around who is being admitted and encourage diverse student matriculation to support financial aid or mentorship programs for first generation college students, and to really double down and invest more in these practices that we know work and that are more important than ever. Cheryl Truong: Thanks Sally, for that plug. If folks are interested in signing that open petition that Sally mentioned, we will have it linked in our show notes. We're going to take a quick music break and listen to a Burmese track. “Thai Rhymes with Sound” by Ma Ei Moe. This is a recording by Columbia records from back in around 1932 and features the saung-gauk, an arched harp that is considered the national instrument of Burma. And a little fun fact for all of our listeners out there, the saung gauk is said to be the only surviving harp in Asia. Cheryl Truong: you are tuned in to apex express at 94.1 KPFA and 89.3, KPF B in Berkeley and online@kpfa.org. That song you just heard was a Burmese song called “Thai Rhymes with Sound” by Ma Ei Moe. The singer is singing about the colors and smells of each flower. How in the summer, after the long monsoon season flowers are in bloom. Once again that was “Thai Rhymes with Sound” by Ma Ei Moe. Now, back to the show. Where we will be diving in a little bit on asian american history and Asian Americans, long history of supporting affirmative action. Cheryl Truong: Vin, you mentioned something really important earlier, and I just it's so important that I want to say it again. Asian Americans have had a long history of supporting affirmative action since the 1960s. And yet Blum is perpetuating this harmful narrative about affirmative action attacking, targeting Asians. And weaponizing this fear against other communities of color. I wonder if you can talk a little bit more about this. Vincent Pan: Yeah. Well, you know, the, the narrative it is very problematic. It's very dangerous. And for me personally, I, I find it sickening. ,the reality is that almost all the gains made by Asian Americans, in this country have been in part, due to leadership by African Americans. Uh, in the 1960s on civil rights. It really opened the door for, immigration to be expanded from Asian countries. It opened the door in education and employment. In public contracting, media representation, political representation. So, this idea that somehow Asian Americans could ever afford to be against affirmative action because of some false belief that select school admissions at the smallest, most elite institutions are working against them and to blame that on other people of color, you know, it's, it's quite frankly, it's horrifying and it's also not true. Right. We know through the research and through the evidence that there is discrimination, of course against Asian Americans in all sectors of society, but it very, very rarely, and I would say almost never has anything to do with how affirmative action is practiced. It has to do with anti-Asian racism. So again, the cause of fighting anti-Asian discrimination can be solved with things at college admissions, like better training, more oversight, really making sure that there are not biases that creep into the process. But to suggest somehow that one of the more powerful tools for rectifying systemic discrimination is a cause, it's not just cynical. it's also, I think, reflective of just the lengths that the far right is willing to go. And to really use basic tenants of the Constitution and equal protection and flip them upside down in their head. I'm very, very discouraged when I see Asian Americans who put a fall for these lies. It behooves the rest of us. Asian Americans had to really speak out, you know, speak out in solidarity with other communities that are marginalized and oppressed to speak out in support of, of race conscious programs, whether that's in college, admissions or in the workplace, or in culture and, and media. I think Asian Americans, you know, we, we have our work cut out for us, both in terms of rooting out anti-blackness in our, our own communities in terms of really getting educated on how public policy and complicated areas work. But also, to take this as a challenge to do even more to lead the way to push for policies that makes society work for everyone. Miko Lee: Vin can you back up and speak a little bit more about Asian-Americans history of support for affirmative action? I know there was a 2020 Asian-American voter survey that said that 70% of Asian-Americans actually support affirmative action, even though the narrative has been shifted a lot. But can you go back in time with us a little bit about how AAs have had this history of supporting affirmative action? Vincent Pan: Sure, I'm happy to, you know, so Chinese affirmative action was found in 1969 and it's important to know at the time, affirmative action did not have the same sort of political controversy around it because it was understand as a broad approach and a deal. Simply stated that we have to be proactive to try and fix these problems that we've inherited, that lead to unfairness and discrimination towards women, towards people of color, towards folks who are trans and queer. It's not a hard idea to grasp that you can't take a society that is so unfair and just automatically expect that by doing nothing, things will get better. No. And so for more than five decades in, in all areas of society, CAA and other Asian American groups with other Asian Americans have fought for affirmative action. And they continue to fight for affirmative action. But I think, in some ways they've come to misunderstand just how much affirmative action has benefited us. And so when, you know, I have community members tell me how much they like, say Everything everywhere, All At Once, pushing for Asian Americans, the media is affirmative action. When folks say that they really want to see more Asian American judges or senators or maybe someday the president. That's a form of affirmative action. So it's not surprising that many of the polls do show when people understand what affirmative action is, Asian Americans overwhelmingly support. Now I think what we're seeing though, in terms of this very loud vocal minority is frustration around select school admissions. Or to be quite blunt, maybe their kid didn't get in. Right. That frustration is, is, is driven by a whole number of things, including unhealthy of what higher education in the United States could be, um, but other things as well. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to explain in the future know, like the constructive ways to push against anti-Asian discrimination and to create productive outlets for some of these frustrations. For example, just expanding the pie and making sure that there are more good school and college slots for everyone as opposed to like buying into this idea that a good education or somehow needs to be this very, very scarce commodity by design. Right. But, you know, I think that it's also very true that Asian Americans, and it's really primarily East Asians and South Asians, who I think have got caught up in this. That's also part of this challenge of a growing right wing within our communities that also needs to be confronted. Miko Lee: Thank you for that. , you know, this whole idea around the colorblindness and holistic admissions and really talking about how many students can be allowed into these elite schools. One of the things that the justices didn't address was the bulk of folks that get into these school sites, which is, you know, 43% of Harvard admissions fall into the legacy, donors ,and children's of staff. Those are the folks that are getting this special admissions. Sally, can you talk a little bit about that? Who is getting access into these select schools and why that aspect hasn't been addressed? Sally Chen: Absolutely. Part of what VIN had talked about was the idea that we already knew, which was that college admissions as it stands is not fair, and that there's so much work to be done to make sure that there is meaningful, real access for all students. And one of the first points on our open letter to colleges and universities in calling on them to reassess all the different levers that they have to address inequity in college admissions in this moment is to reexamine exactly what you named this Athletic Legacy Dean's List, children of. Faculty, A L B C category under which, as you named at Elite institutions, this factor is often the first in consideration and even when it is not explicitly named the numbers that you see around students in these types of categories. Applying under early admissions, applying under early action. As a kind of backdoor for them to be able to ensure their admissions in ways that disadvantage certainly first generation students, immigrant students, students of color that are not benefited by these policies. We see that this is one of the key areas where we do need to address what some people have said is, Affirmative action for wealthy white students and that while this still stands, there is a very clear contradiction in how college admissions is allowed to continue to operate. Miko Lee: Thanks for that, Sally. We know already that nine states have passed anti-affirmative action laws and California sadly did this with Prop 209. Vin, can you talk a little bit about the impact that that has had on the uc system in California and how that can be utilized as a model for how we deal with affirmative action in other states and nationally in the future. Vincent Pan: Sure, sure. It's a really important question because there's aspects of Prop 209, the ban on affirmative action in California that overlaps with the ruling that occurred at the Supreme Court. Prop 209 really limited race and gender conscious programs in California's public institutions that deal with education, employment, and contracting, but it did not govern any of the private institutions. And so, you know, the, the private colleges and, and universities in California were not affected by Prop 209. And I should also say that businesses in the private sector were not affected by it either. Supreme Court ruling affects institutions of higher education that are both public and private. And private because most private colleges have received at least some federal funding. And so they will be governed by this as, as well. What we saw in California was a real drop in access for students of color at the UCs. We saw a tremendous drop in the number of minority owned and women owned businesses who were able to obtain public contracts. We saw real slowdown in the diversity of the public sector workforce. And that includes teachers, includes civil servants, it includes firefighters. We also saw, and this is one thing we need to be careful about, sort of an overreaction too, where many government agencies who could still do a lot of different things just decided not to even try not to even ask the question. Through the support and leadership of advocates, it's taken time, but we've been able to get many of these institutions to do better. At some parts of UC, you do see a rebound in the number of students of color because folks have learned to be more assertive and to really understand that they have to do everything that the law will allow. And I think there's a lesson there for public colleges and universities. To what Sally was saying before it's on our petition. This ruling should not be an excuse for college presidents and universities to back down or to shy away from this, this critical question of how we achieve racial justice in society. It's a call to action for them to really make sure they're doing everything possible. And that includes getting rid of the SATs. It includes making their campuses more welcoming for students of color by having stronger ethnic studies programs. It includes really accelerating the need for a more diverse faculty. It also means thinking about how we can get at issues of the adversity that students of color face and being able to account for that in the application process. In California we are unfortunately, with Prop 209, we made it very, very hard for ourselves. To achieve the type of equitable society that we all want. But as hard as it's been, we've recognized that there are multiple tools, and affirmative action was a powerful one, but it was not the only one. We've got to get better at using all of the tools available to us and also developing new ones. Cheryl Truong: So I'm so glad we're actually talking about Prop 209 because it's a point in history where we've already repealed affirmative action and we have seen how it affects our communities. I think 40%, the enrollment of black and Latino communities dropped by 40% with the passing of Prop 209. This is going to change how a lot of young people imagine their futures because now we are being told that we cannot financially succeed or we won't have financial opportunities due to this example of systemic racism. How do you think this repeal of affirmative action is going to impact how families and communities think about our futures? And if you have any advice you'd like to share especially with high schoolers who are trying to navigate the college process in the wake of this repeal. Vincent Pan: Well, I'll, I'll go first and I would love to hear what you think Sally. I think a lot of it is still unclear, right? We know like the pathways are as a result of the ruling and by limiting affirmative action or really ending affirmative action in, in college admissions, it's gonna be much, much, much harder. But a lot of it will depend on what the colleges and universities decide to do. If they decide to take the easy way out and say we really can't prioritize diversity and inclusion anymore, then the numbers of students of color are going to drop dramatically. There's no question about that. But on the other hand, if the colleges and universities say, okay we've got to double down on our commitment to diversity because our schools can't function if they're only serving just one community, the white community or just one community, the rich community. If they really step up and understand that's not acceptable, then they will have to employ every single tool at their disposal with the absence of affirmative action. And they will have to also create new ones. I think if they do that, then perhaps there's more reason to be optimistic. what does that mean for, for students and families? I think they have to stay engaged and to really understand what's happening in, in this space. It's important as Sally has said before, for students to talk about adversity, to present themselves as who they are. and to also know that in many parts of society that there is still discrimination against all students of color and people of color. It'll depend on finding allies in particular universities or colleges and really understanding what they're trying to do in this moment. Are they looking at this as an excuse to go back to when universities were really just for rich white men ? Or are they going to really step up and meet the call that this ruling really demands of all of us. Cheryl Truong: We are deep in conversation with affirmative action specialists, Sally Chen and Vincent Pan from CAA. We're going to take a quick music break and listen to some music by Namgar, an international ethno music collective that fuses traditional Buryat and Mongolian music with pop, jazz, funk, ambient soundscapes, and art- pop. We'll be back in just a moment with more on the supreme court ruling after we listen to “part two” by Namgar. Cheryl Truong: Welcome back. You are tuned in to APEX express on 94.1 KPFA and 89.3 KPFB B in Berkeley and online at kpfa.org. That song you just heard was “part two” by Namgar, an incredible four- piece Buryat- Mongolian ensemble that is revitalizing and preserving the Buryat language and culture through music. Now, back to the show as we continue our conversation with Vincent pan and Sally Chen discussing their valuable insights regarding the Supreme court's recent ruling on affirmative action. Miko Lee: I wanna go back Vin, to something that you just said about getting faculty to look more like the students, and I'm wondering both of your response to actually also getting the Supreme Court to look more like our population , and actions that can be taken to actually change the Supreme Court. Vincent Pan: Well, the Supreme Court questions are as, as many of your listeners know, Supreme Court members are appointed for life and there are not that many of them. It becomes very important to make sure that we have people in the White House who make those appointments. Who I would say not only appoint people who look like America, but who actually represent a vision that works for all Americans. In a very small body like that you're gonna have your Clarence Thomas's who, you know, are African-American, but in, in my view, are not representing the interests of, of African-Americans at all. It speaks to the importance of being involved political process and voting and civic engagement throughout the country and being smart about it. I think for folks who say that elections don't matter, here's another example of just how much they do. I think that the representation in all aspects of government is also critical. And again, that's not just the folks who work at college and university say, but it's also in Congress it's also all of our elected officials, and I think that we are making progress in, in this way. But for Asian Americans, we again have to be very, very careful because you do see folks running who are Asian Americans on the far right. It's incumbent upon us not just to vote for someone who looks like us, but to be smart and, and to vote for people who represent the interest of all those who've been left behind, including our communities. Miko Lee: That's right. And I guess I'm asking about expansion of the Supreme Court and actually changing the very function of how it's operating. Sally Chen: I can uplift here specifically on Supreme Court reform. That is one of the areas in which many of our advocates and allies have been thinking about in and planning for, in pivoting in response to this recent slate of decisions that came out. I'll uplift here. Equal Justice Society, one of our , close partners, both in the Prop 16 campaign and ongoing that they have really dug into exploring and researching and educating people on the history of Supreme Court expansion at Pivotal moments in US history and other opportunities for reform and even intervention. Curtailing some of the Supreme Court's power and really calling on the other branches of our federal government to step up here, whether that is our Congress or the executive branch and highlighting equal justice society as well as an expert in that area. Vincent Pan: Yeah, it's a great point, Sally. You know, and I think it is something we all have to look more closely at because you see like ruling, after ruling, after ruling they are all right wing decisions that sort of overturn not only settled law but are really trying to take the country backwards, to a place where none of us want to go. So whether that's on reproductive rights, whether that's on racial justice issues, whether it's on, student loan, debt relief. This term in particular, right? Voting rights, Trans and queer rights. It's just like one after the other. So I do think it does make sense to look at ways to try and get the Supreme Court to do what it was meant to do. And at the same time are so many things for all of us work in the grassroots to, to engage in as, as well. And so when we talk about all these other tools at our disposal, we need to know that many of those occur at the local level. sometimes we have pretty good laws maybe passed at the, the state level, but they're not implemented at the city or township I think that there are always very, and this is one thing I'm really, you know, proud of that we do at CAA and proud of all the folks in AACRE, there's so many ways to push for social justice. And as despondent and, and frustrated and angry as many of us are about the Supreme Court latest rulings, one thing we cannot say is that there aren't things that we can do. And that's one thing in particular that I think for Asian Americans, we have to, you know, we have to step up our game on. Sally Chen: Thanks Vin. And just adding on that, a lot of CAA's work on the ground, whether that's in our civic engagement team or our Chinese digital engagement is engaging directly with students, families, community members, and the message that we want to send to students and their families is that our young people should follow their dream, should be able to celebrate their identities, and reach their full potential, strive for success in ways that are meaningful to them. They should feel able to be unapologetically themselves and at the end of the day know that, we, the broader community, are ultimately with them separately. I did, I was thinking a little bit about the legacy question. I just wanted to add one more piece, if that's okay. Which is that. Reform around the removal of consideration of legacy or significant donations in college admissions is not a new conversation. And in fact, we've seen universities like Amherst College only a few years ago, publicly announced that they would no longer consider legacy as a factor in admissions. And they saw a significant change in the demographics of their student bodies admitted .The number of first generation college students certainly increased and they did see racial diversity overall broaden and that this is not a new change and it's not one that is unprecedented either, and that we really have seen universities already at the forefront of taking action even before this decision came. Vincent Pan: Right. The other piece that I think has been lost in all this is there are more Asian Americans, uh, who attend City College of San Francisco than who are in all of the Ivy Leagues. So there's a real distortion of just how important the Ivy Leagues are in real terms for Asian Americans. Another good thing to know is that more than half of Asian Americans who are in any type of higher education or in community college, Right. So if we understand that the real damage of the Supreme Court ruling on the one hand is in the way, it's changing how this country wants to deal with the issues of race and racism. You know, we could also know that for Asian-Americans who are seeking college, that there also has to be an emphasis on where students are actually at, which is in the community colleges. Community colleges have historically been dramatically under invested in. We know that there need to be better pathways for folks to get from the community colleges into to four year degree programs. I think that the degree that we can at CAA we also wanna lift up the need for all of our communities, not just to always be focusing in on what the media feeds us, which is that we only care about the Ivy Leagues, but to focus in on what we also live and experience. That it is the community colleges, it's the CSUs. It's all these other nontraditional pathways to higher education that our community benefits from. ESL classes, vocational training. Now, all those need support as well. And those are also other ways to drive educational equity across and with other communities of color. Miko Lee: Well, Vincent Pan and Sally Chen, you've given us so many things to think about and so many actions that we can take from fighting for investments in more community colleges to paying attention to Asian American candidates to make sure that we're in values alignment to checking out this open petition that is on the CAA website, which we will put a link to. What else can people do to get involved so that they can actually take action around affirmative action? Sally Chen: Well, certainly our open petition is still available for signatures. We are hoping to, and are rapidly reaching a thousand signatures by the end of this week, but we are preparing to use that as the launching off point for a lot of engagement with colleges and universities, certainly advocates that have relationships to their alma maters, to their networks should engage as much as possible, show their support publicly for the investment in commitment to values of racial diversity and equity, especially at these institutions of higher education .And like Vin had mentioned, a lot of this implementation will , happen at the local and state level. Folks should pay attention to any attempts to broaden this decision beyond the scope of what it should be, of any kind of backing down from originally stated commitments to equity, diversity, inclusion, and to call that out where they see it. Vincent Pan: Yeah, obviously I second what Sally has, has said in terms of ways for folks to get involved, especially on the issue of, of colleges and universities and access and equity to those institutions. You know, I, I think more broadly for Asian Americans, it, it really can't be understated how dangerous a time we are in. And that what, the anti civil rights litigator Ed Blum, has done and the way that our community is now being portrayed that it becomes important. So, so important, even more important for Asian Americans to speak out. To speak out and, and declare themselves as an anti-racist, to declare themselves as a supportive of affirmative action, and to declare them themselves in solidarity with all people who have been oppressed.. It's the time to lift up our histories as activists, as people who have fought for civil rights and social justice. This ruling coupled with everything that we know is going on with the escalation of anti-Asian hate, with the uprising in China, just behooves our community to really to reflect and to, and to move forward and to act, as you said, Miko. And so I think that one of the great ways to support affirmative action in the broad sense is by getting involved with any of the key social justice issues that are currently needing our attention. Again, it's intersectional. And so whether it's voting rights, reproductive rights, trans and queer rights, civil rights, immigrant rights, there's just so much work that all advances this broader ideal that really reflect what affirmative action has always been about. This has to be a wake up call for Asian Americans. Most of us have fought for progress. Most of us know that our fate is intertwined with other communities of color, but there's also far too many who've been on the sidelines. And this should be a wake up call to engage on, on the side of those who have been fighting for justice and equity for all communities and not allowing themselves to be exploited by groups and people who clearly do not have our community's best interests at heart. Miko Lee: That was a great wrap up, VIN. Thank you. Is there anything else either of you would like to add? Vincent Pan: Yeah, I have one thing. There's, there was one part of the ruling that was also very instructive. Part of the conservative majority, the ruling said, well, the only institution of higher education and learning that can still maybe consider race are military academies. In effect saying that no, well, we want diversity in the schools that are preparing people to go and die in wars. Right? But it's not in the rest of of society. And so I thought that was like extremely telling, right? Because I think that these right-wing folks, they really don't believe in colorblind. They only want to use it as a way to mask white supremacy. But in instances where it won't uphold white supremacy, then they will toss it overboard, right? So they want race conscious admissions for military academies. They want race conscious admission for the military. I mean, you know, that tells us everything I think that we need to know about what's motivating them. I'll pause on that. The other thing that I think affirmative action as it was conceived and as it moved in the 1960s benefited white women, and white women have been perhaps the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action programs. And affirmative action programs have always included gender, right? To say that this has been just about affirmative action when it really is about how we understand race in America. Some parts of the community will still continue and say, oh, this is about whether or not the admissions process is fair. But it really is about trying to solve what's always been maybe the most difficult thing to solve in America. The question of race. And that there have not been uprise Of opposition against affirmative action programs that have helped white women. It is only because affirmative action has been a tool that's been able to increase racial diversity at some of these institutions that we've seen such a backlash against it. Miko Lee: Holy cow. I just have a whole nother series of questions about white women beneficiaries, but that's another show. Sally, do you have anything that you wanna add? Sally Chen: I'm good. Thank you both so much, Miko and Cheryl for this interview. Miko Lee: Thank you. Thanks to both of you. I actually additionally have more questions about what's behind this Ed Blum guy, like what's in it for him? I mean I'm kind of blown away. I know we're at time, but I do wanna have a further conversation about that too, because it's like, dude is the rebellion to his progressive parents. He was raised by Jewish progressive parents and he's every progressive's parents nightmare. I just like, what's in it for him? Is this just a money thing? Like what's that about? Vincent Pan: That's great question. Yeah, I don't know, but maybe there's a, a six hour version of this podcast that we could do time where we're just going all different directions. Cheryl Truong: check out our website, kpfa.org to find out more about the fight for affirmative action and equal access to higher education. And to learn more about our wonderful guests, Sally Chen and Vincent pan. We think all of you listeners out there, keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. Cheryl Truong: Apex express is produced by Miko Lee, Paige Chung, Jalena Keane-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar. Shekar, Anuj Vaidya, Kiki Rivera, Swati Rayasam, Nate Tan, Hien Nguyen, Nikki Chan, and Cheryl Truong tonight's show was produced by me cheryl. Thanks to the team at KPFA for all of their support. And thank you for listening. The post APEX Express – 7.6.23 Let's Talk Affirmative Action appeared first on KPFA.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, June 30th, 2023. Page50 ad read concepts: Page50 is a distinctly Christian marketing company striving to help Christian-owned businesses grow and succeed in our digital age. They don’t want to just make a paycheck, they want to change the world, and that means building it alongside you. The mission is bigger than just Sunday. Page50 wants to help Christians recapture the work week, economic and political influence, and the public square. Page50 doesn’t work with just anybody, but if you’re a believer they want to work with you. Visit pagefifty.com (ya gotta spell it out, because i don’t own the page50.com domain) and see what they can do for you. That’s pagefifty.com. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-conscious-college-admissions Supreme Court bans affirmative action in ruling against race-conscious college admissions The Supreme Court ruled to ban the consideration of race as part of admissions decisions at colleges, including Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, ending the decadeslong practice known as affirmative action. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the six-member majority to undo the lasting impacts of the landmark 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which upheld race-conscious admissions at universities. "Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the majority held in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and was joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the UNC case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case due to her past service on the university board. Justices have been mulling since November over two cases brought by the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions, headed by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, a staunch critic of affirmative action policies. The majority held that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Justice Clarence Thomas added that he would "highly doubt" universities could carry on with considering race in admissions policies with the new test that was established Thursday. “In the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence. Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so." During oral arguments in October 2022, the court's inclination to ban affirmative action was evident. The court's six conservatives expressed skepticism toward the practice, even as attorneys for Harvard and UNC, along with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, implored the court to permit the practice to continue. Another case filed in 2014 alleged the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. That suit accused the university of violating the Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection under the law. Banning the use of affirmative action will force elite colleges to reinvent their policies and find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations without using race as a consideration. Several universities have expressed concerns in legal briefs that a decision to overturn affirmative action could result in fewer minority students on campuses. But ahead of the high court's opinion release, legal experts speculated colleges might attempt to maintain a superficial vision for diversity on campus without taking race into consideration. The matter of race-neutral admissions policies that are implemented for racially conscious ends could find its way to the Supreme Court soon. A group of parents, alumni, and community members at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, Virginia, sued the school for changing its admissions process to increase the number of black and brown students and decrease the number of Asian students. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school's new process did not violate federal law. The case's next stop would be the Supreme Court. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1185087587/google-says-it-will-start-blocking-canadian-news-stories-in-response-to-new-law Google says it will start blocking Canadian news stories in response to new law Google said on Thursday that it will block all links to Canadian news articles for people using its search engine and other services in the country in response to a new law that would compel tech companies to pay publishers for content. It comes a week after Meta vowed its own blackout of Canadian publishers on Facebook and Instagram, calling the law "fundamentally flawed." The two tech giants have been battling the Canadian government over the law that would force them to negotiate compensation deals with news organizations for distributing links to news stories. The law, called the Online News Act, passed last week. But it could take months for it to take effect. Once it does, Google and Meta say they will start removing news articles by Canadian publishers from their services in the country. Supporters of the legislation have argued that it could provide a much-needed lifeline to the ailing news industry, which has been gutted by Silicon Valley's ironclad control of digital advertising. Under the law, platforms like Meta and Google would have to come to the negotiating table with news organizations and hammer out compensation deals. Government estimates predict that the law would result in a cash injection of some $329 million into the Canadian news industry, which has been beset by news staff layoffs and other downsizing in recent years. Canada's law was modeled on a similar effort in Australia, where Meta did block news articles for nearly a week before tense negotiations led Meta and Google to eventually strike deals with news publishers. A bill to force tech companies to pay publishers is also advancing in California, where the tech industry has levied similar blackout threats. In Canada, both tech platforms have long been against the law, saying the companies are already helping news companies by directing web traffic to their sites. On Facebook and Instagram, news represents a tiny fraction — on Facebook, it's about 3% — of what people see every day. Google, too, does not consider news articles as essential to its service. So both companies have wagered that it is simply easier to block links to news articles than to start paying news organizations. While most major publishers in Canada back the new law, outside media observers have not been so sure. Tech writer Casey Newton has argued that a tax on displaying links would "effectively break the internet" if it was applied to the rest of the web. Other critics have pointed to the lack of transparency over who actually would receive cash infusion from the tech companies. Some fear the programs could be hijacked by disinformation sites that learn how to game the system. Yet press advocates insisted that tech companies retaliating by threatening to systemically remove news articles will be a blow to civil society and the public's understanding of the world. "At a moment when disinformation swirls in our public discourse, ensuring public access to credible journalism is essential, so it's deeply disappointing to see this decision from Google and Meta," said Liz Woolery, who leads digital policy at PEN America, an organization that supports freedom of expression. Woolery continued: "As policymakers explore potential solutions to the challenges facing the journalism industry, platforms are free to critique, debate, and offer alternatives, but reducing the public's access to news is never the right answer." https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2023-06-28/taiwan-russia-warships-passage-china-10574003.html Taiwan tracks pair of Russian warships off island’s eastern coast Taiwan scrambled aircraft and dispatched ships late Tuesday to monitor the passage of two Russian warships off its eastern coast, according to the island’s Ministry of National Defense. Two Russian frigates traveled northward along the coast toward the East China Sea around 11 p.m. Tuesday, the ministry said in a news release Tuesday. It did not specify how far offshore the ships were. In response, Taiwan’s military used “joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance methods” and “dispatched mission aircraft, ships and shore-mounted missile systems to closely monitor” the Russian vessels, according to the release. The ships continued on course and left Taiwan’s “response area” southeast of Suao, a city on the island’s northeastern edge that is also home to a logistics support naval base, according to the Defense Ministry. While Taiwan reports near-daily activity from the Chinese military off its western coast in the Taiwan Strait — 49 Chinese aircraft and 20 ships have been reported in the waterway since Sunday — Russian activity is less common. The warships’ passage comes less than a week after the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary outfit, organized a brief, two-day rebellion against the Russian government that began Friday with the group taking over military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don and concluded Saturday after they stood down and withdrew from the city. It also comes just over a week after Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Beijing to meet with high-level Chinese officials, including President Xi Jinping, which Blinken described as “candid and constructive” but failed to secure the United States’ top priority of renewed communication between the two countries’ militaries. Beijing considers Taiwan, a functionally independent democracy, to be a breakaway province and aims to reunite it with the mainland. China and Russia remain close allies, with the two countries regularly coordinating military exercises together, although Beijing has not openly endorsed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, June 30th, 2023. Page50 ad read concepts: Page50 is a distinctly Christian marketing company striving to help Christian-owned businesses grow and succeed in our digital age. They don’t want to just make a paycheck, they want to change the world, and that means building it alongside you. The mission is bigger than just Sunday. Page50 wants to help Christians recapture the work week, economic and political influence, and the public square. Page50 doesn’t work with just anybody, but if you’re a believer they want to work with you. Visit pagefifty.com (ya gotta spell it out, because i don’t own the page50.com domain) and see what they can do for you. That’s pagefifty.com. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-conscious-college-admissions Supreme Court bans affirmative action in ruling against race-conscious college admissions The Supreme Court ruled to ban the consideration of race as part of admissions decisions at colleges, including Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, ending the decadeslong practice known as affirmative action. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the six-member majority to undo the lasting impacts of the landmark 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which upheld race-conscious admissions at universities. "Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the majority held in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and was joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the UNC case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case due to her past service on the university board. Justices have been mulling since November over two cases brought by the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions, headed by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, a staunch critic of affirmative action policies. The majority held that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Justice Clarence Thomas added that he would "highly doubt" universities could carry on with considering race in admissions policies with the new test that was established Thursday. “In the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence. Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so." During oral arguments in October 2022, the court's inclination to ban affirmative action was evident. The court's six conservatives expressed skepticism toward the practice, even as attorneys for Harvard and UNC, along with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, implored the court to permit the practice to continue. Another case filed in 2014 alleged the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. That suit accused the university of violating the Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection under the law. Banning the use of affirmative action will force elite colleges to reinvent their policies and find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations without using race as a consideration. Several universities have expressed concerns in legal briefs that a decision to overturn affirmative action could result in fewer minority students on campuses. But ahead of the high court's opinion release, legal experts speculated colleges might attempt to maintain a superficial vision for diversity on campus without taking race into consideration. The matter of race-neutral admissions policies that are implemented for racially conscious ends could find its way to the Supreme Court soon. A group of parents, alumni, and community members at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, Virginia, sued the school for changing its admissions process to increase the number of black and brown students and decrease the number of Asian students. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school's new process did not violate federal law. The case's next stop would be the Supreme Court. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1185087587/google-says-it-will-start-blocking-canadian-news-stories-in-response-to-new-law Google says it will start blocking Canadian news stories in response to new law Google said on Thursday that it will block all links to Canadian news articles for people using its search engine and other services in the country in response to a new law that would compel tech companies to pay publishers for content. It comes a week after Meta vowed its own blackout of Canadian publishers on Facebook and Instagram, calling the law "fundamentally flawed." The two tech giants have been battling the Canadian government over the law that would force them to negotiate compensation deals with news organizations for distributing links to news stories. The law, called the Online News Act, passed last week. But it could take months for it to take effect. Once it does, Google and Meta say they will start removing news articles by Canadian publishers from their services in the country. Supporters of the legislation have argued that it could provide a much-needed lifeline to the ailing news industry, which has been gutted by Silicon Valley's ironclad control of digital advertising. Under the law, platforms like Meta and Google would have to come to the negotiating table with news organizations and hammer out compensation deals. Government estimates predict that the law would result in a cash injection of some $329 million into the Canadian news industry, which has been beset by news staff layoffs and other downsizing in recent years. Canada's law was modeled on a similar effort in Australia, where Meta did block news articles for nearly a week before tense negotiations led Meta and Google to eventually strike deals with news publishers. A bill to force tech companies to pay publishers is also advancing in California, where the tech industry has levied similar blackout threats. In Canada, both tech platforms have long been against the law, saying the companies are already helping news companies by directing web traffic to their sites. On Facebook and Instagram, news represents a tiny fraction — on Facebook, it's about 3% — of what people see every day. Google, too, does not consider news articles as essential to its service. So both companies have wagered that it is simply easier to block links to news articles than to start paying news organizations. While most major publishers in Canada back the new law, outside media observers have not been so sure. Tech writer Casey Newton has argued that a tax on displaying links would "effectively break the internet" if it was applied to the rest of the web. Other critics have pointed to the lack of transparency over who actually would receive cash infusion from the tech companies. Some fear the programs could be hijacked by disinformation sites that learn how to game the system. Yet press advocates insisted that tech companies retaliating by threatening to systemically remove news articles will be a blow to civil society and the public's understanding of the world. "At a moment when disinformation swirls in our public discourse, ensuring public access to credible journalism is essential, so it's deeply disappointing to see this decision from Google and Meta," said Liz Woolery, who leads digital policy at PEN America, an organization that supports freedom of expression. Woolery continued: "As policymakers explore potential solutions to the challenges facing the journalism industry, platforms are free to critique, debate, and offer alternatives, but reducing the public's access to news is never the right answer." https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2023-06-28/taiwan-russia-warships-passage-china-10574003.html Taiwan tracks pair of Russian warships off island’s eastern coast Taiwan scrambled aircraft and dispatched ships late Tuesday to monitor the passage of two Russian warships off its eastern coast, according to the island’s Ministry of National Defense. Two Russian frigates traveled northward along the coast toward the East China Sea around 11 p.m. Tuesday, the ministry said in a news release Tuesday. It did not specify how far offshore the ships were. In response, Taiwan’s military used “joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance methods” and “dispatched mission aircraft, ships and shore-mounted missile systems to closely monitor” the Russian vessels, according to the release. The ships continued on course and left Taiwan’s “response area” southeast of Suao, a city on the island’s northeastern edge that is also home to a logistics support naval base, according to the Defense Ministry. While Taiwan reports near-daily activity from the Chinese military off its western coast in the Taiwan Strait — 49 Chinese aircraft and 20 ships have been reported in the waterway since Sunday — Russian activity is less common. The warships’ passage comes less than a week after the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary outfit, organized a brief, two-day rebellion against the Russian government that began Friday with the group taking over military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don and concluded Saturday after they stood down and withdrew from the city. It also comes just over a week after Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Beijing to meet with high-level Chinese officials, including President Xi Jinping, which Blinken described as “candid and constructive” but failed to secure the United States’ top priority of renewed communication between the two countries’ militaries. Beijing considers Taiwan, a functionally independent democracy, to be a breakaway province and aims to reunite it with the mainland. China and Russia remain close allies, with the two countries regularly coordinating military exercises together, although Beijing has not openly endorsed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, June 30th, 2023. Page50 ad read concepts: Page50 is a distinctly Christian marketing company striving to help Christian-owned businesses grow and succeed in our digital age. They don’t want to just make a paycheck, they want to change the world, and that means building it alongside you. The mission is bigger than just Sunday. Page50 wants to help Christians recapture the work week, economic and political influence, and the public square. Page50 doesn’t work with just anybody, but if you’re a believer they want to work with you. Visit pagefifty.com (ya gotta spell it out, because i don’t own the page50.com domain) and see what they can do for you. That’s pagefifty.com. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-conscious-college-admissions Supreme Court bans affirmative action in ruling against race-conscious college admissions The Supreme Court ruled to ban the consideration of race as part of admissions decisions at colleges, including Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, ending the decadeslong practice known as affirmative action. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the six-member majority to undo the lasting impacts of the landmark 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which upheld race-conscious admissions at universities. "Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the majority held in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and was joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the UNC case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case due to her past service on the university board. Justices have been mulling since November over two cases brought by the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions, headed by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, a staunch critic of affirmative action policies. The majority held that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Justice Clarence Thomas added that he would "highly doubt" universities could carry on with considering race in admissions policies with the new test that was established Thursday. “In the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence. Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so." During oral arguments in October 2022, the court's inclination to ban affirmative action was evident. The court's six conservatives expressed skepticism toward the practice, even as attorneys for Harvard and UNC, along with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, implored the court to permit the practice to continue. Another case filed in 2014 alleged the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. That suit accused the university of violating the Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection under the law. Banning the use of affirmative action will force elite colleges to reinvent their policies and find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations without using race as a consideration. Several universities have expressed concerns in legal briefs that a decision to overturn affirmative action could result in fewer minority students on campuses. But ahead of the high court's opinion release, legal experts speculated colleges might attempt to maintain a superficial vision for diversity on campus without taking race into consideration. The matter of race-neutral admissions policies that are implemented for racially conscious ends could find its way to the Supreme Court soon. A group of parents, alumni, and community members at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, Virginia, sued the school for changing its admissions process to increase the number of black and brown students and decrease the number of Asian students. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school's new process did not violate federal law. The case's next stop would be the Supreme Court. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1185087587/google-says-it-will-start-blocking-canadian-news-stories-in-response-to-new-law Google says it will start blocking Canadian news stories in response to new law Google said on Thursday that it will block all links to Canadian news articles for people using its search engine and other services in the country in response to a new law that would compel tech companies to pay publishers for content. It comes a week after Meta vowed its own blackout of Canadian publishers on Facebook and Instagram, calling the law "fundamentally flawed." The two tech giants have been battling the Canadian government over the law that would force them to negotiate compensation deals with news organizations for distributing links to news stories. The law, called the Online News Act, passed last week. But it could take months for it to take effect. Once it does, Google and Meta say they will start removing news articles by Canadian publishers from their services in the country. Supporters of the legislation have argued that it could provide a much-needed lifeline to the ailing news industry, which has been gutted by Silicon Valley's ironclad control of digital advertising. Under the law, platforms like Meta and Google would have to come to the negotiating table with news organizations and hammer out compensation deals. Government estimates predict that the law would result in a cash injection of some $329 million into the Canadian news industry, which has been beset by news staff layoffs and other downsizing in recent years. Canada's law was modeled on a similar effort in Australia, where Meta did block news articles for nearly a week before tense negotiations led Meta and Google to eventually strike deals with news publishers. A bill to force tech companies to pay publishers is also advancing in California, where the tech industry has levied similar blackout threats. In Canada, both tech platforms have long been against the law, saying the companies are already helping news companies by directing web traffic to their sites. On Facebook and Instagram, news represents a tiny fraction — on Facebook, it's about 3% — of what people see every day. Google, too, does not consider news articles as essential to its service. So both companies have wagered that it is simply easier to block links to news articles than to start paying news organizations. While most major publishers in Canada back the new law, outside media observers have not been so sure. Tech writer Casey Newton has argued that a tax on displaying links would "effectively break the internet" if it was applied to the rest of the web. Other critics have pointed to the lack of transparency over who actually would receive cash infusion from the tech companies. Some fear the programs could be hijacked by disinformation sites that learn how to game the system. Yet press advocates insisted that tech companies retaliating by threatening to systemically remove news articles will be a blow to civil society and the public's understanding of the world. "At a moment when disinformation swirls in our public discourse, ensuring public access to credible journalism is essential, so it's deeply disappointing to see this decision from Google and Meta," said Liz Woolery, who leads digital policy at PEN America, an organization that supports freedom of expression. Woolery continued: "As policymakers explore potential solutions to the challenges facing the journalism industry, platforms are free to critique, debate, and offer alternatives, but reducing the public's access to news is never the right answer." https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2023-06-28/taiwan-russia-warships-passage-china-10574003.html Taiwan tracks pair of Russian warships off island’s eastern coast Taiwan scrambled aircraft and dispatched ships late Tuesday to monitor the passage of two Russian warships off its eastern coast, according to the island’s Ministry of National Defense. Two Russian frigates traveled northward along the coast toward the East China Sea around 11 p.m. Tuesday, the ministry said in a news release Tuesday. It did not specify how far offshore the ships were. In response, Taiwan’s military used “joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance methods” and “dispatched mission aircraft, ships and shore-mounted missile systems to closely monitor” the Russian vessels, according to the release. The ships continued on course and left Taiwan’s “response area” southeast of Suao, a city on the island’s northeastern edge that is also home to a logistics support naval base, according to the Defense Ministry. While Taiwan reports near-daily activity from the Chinese military off its western coast in the Taiwan Strait — 49 Chinese aircraft and 20 ships have been reported in the waterway since Sunday — Russian activity is less common. The warships’ passage comes less than a week after the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary outfit, organized a brief, two-day rebellion against the Russian government that began Friday with the group taking over military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don and concluded Saturday after they stood down and withdrew from the city. It also comes just over a week after Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Beijing to meet with high-level Chinese officials, including President Xi Jinping, which Blinken described as “candid and constructive” but failed to secure the United States’ top priority of renewed communication between the two countries’ militaries. Beijing considers Taiwan, a functionally independent democracy, to be a breakaway province and aims to reunite it with the mainland. China and Russia remain close allies, with the two countries regularly coordinating military exercises together, although Beijing has not openly endorsed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The cases concerned admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). The court's conservative majority ruled 6-3 against UNC and 6-2 against Harvard. The justices sided with an organisation called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by a conservative activist, Edward Blum. The group argued before the court last October that Harvard's race-conscious admissions policy violated Title VI the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, colour or national origin. Affirmative action is one of the most contentious issues in US education. It first made its way into policy in the 1960s, and has been defended as a measure to increase diversity.

UnHerd's Freddie Sayers meets Edward Blum to discuss affirmative action and his career-long crusade against it. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For 40 years, affirmative action policies were created in the United States to address a lack of women and people of colour in the workplace and at university. They have been questioned before, and are now under scrutiny once again in the Supreme Court. Two cases are being brought by a group called Students for Fair Admissions challenging the way race is considered in the admissions process at Harvard and North Carolina Universities. The case against Harvard specifically alleges discrimination against Asian Americans, which the prestigious college denies. But affirmative action is divisive and means different things to Americans. Nomia Iqbal speaks to Edward Blum, the man bringing the case to court, and to students on either side of the debate. Is the policy a helping hand, or an unfair handout?

3 Safety Advocates and Hobby Industry Groups Challenge CPSC's Unlawful, IrrationalMagnet BanThe Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has approved a draconian new “magnetsafety standard” for non-toy products, which broadly bans high-powered hobby magnets foradults. CPSC relied on flawed studies and failed, contrary to the Consumer Product Safety Act(CPSA), to properly account for magnets' benefits or the costs of removing them from themarket. More fundamentally, CPSC is unconstitutionally structured, because it is an independentagency exercising executive power outside the President's control. NCLA has filed an opening brief in Magnetsafety.org, et al. v. CPSC, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuitto vacate the magnet ban for a second time—this time because it was promulgated in violation ofCPSA provisions by an unconstitutionally structured agency.Mark interviews NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin on NCLA's new magnet banlawsuit. 4 Harvard and UNC Face Racial Discrimination Challenge at SCOTUSStudents for Fair Admissions, led by long-time affirmative action critic Edward Blum, has suedboth Harvard and UNC, and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule its prior decisions andhold that the consideration of race as part of a holistic college admissions process in order toachieve a diverse student body violates the Equal Protection Clause.Vec interviews President Devon Westhill of the Center for Equal Opportunity on the upcomingSupreme Court cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissionsv. UNC.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

During this holiday season, you likely encountered public nativity scenes depicting the birth of Jesus, presenting the family with very rare exceptions as white. And the same can be said of his ubiquitous adult portrait –– with fair skin and hair a radiant gold, and eyes fixed on the middle distance. In this segment from 2020, Eloise talks to Mbiyu Chui, pastor at the Shrine of the Black Madonna in Detroit, about unlearning Jesus's whiteness. She also hears from Edward Blum, author of The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America, about how the image came dominate in the U.S., and psychologist Simon Howard on how White Jesus has infiltrated our subconsciouses. Lastly, Eloise speaks to Rev. Kelly Brown Douglas, womanist theologian and Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary, about the theology of the Black Christ. This is segment first aired in our October 1st, 2020 program, God Bless.  

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 

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)

When we really take a moment to step back and think, it's easy to agree that Jesus had brown skin because he was from the Middle East. If that's the case, why is Christ so often depicted as white with light skin, hair, and eyes? In this episode we uncover the roots of white Jesus, explain the impact this depiction has made on us and our communities, and discuss why it's important to use more accurate depictions of Christ in your home. First Name Basis Patreon Community Support First Name Basis and our mission to create anti-racist communities by joining our Patreon community! Members of our Patreon community come together once a month for a Q-and-A session or a Policy Party to learn more. For Q-and-A sessions, Patreon members ask me and my husband Carter their pressing questions about anti-racism, inclusion and what's going on in the world. For Policy Parties, we invite community experts to help all of us take our values into our communities and make change to policies relevant to their area of expertise. Trust me, both of these added opportunities to learn are opportunities you don't want to miss! To learn more about becoming a Patreon member, visit patreon.com/firstnamebasis. Articles, Studies & Podcasts Referenced In The Episode  First Name Basis Podcast, Season 2, Episode 24: “Cancel Culture Part 3: Removing Statues” First Name Basis Podcast, Season 2, Episode 15: “Diversity & Inclusion In LDS Art” “Where Did ‘White Jesus' Come From?” On the Media podcast “‘Color of Christ': A Story of Race and Religion in America,” Terry Gross interview with Edward Blum, NPR “How Jesus Became White And Why It's Time To Cancel That” by Emily McFarlan Miller, Religion News Service “What's The Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims?” by Dave Roos, History.com “The Harlem Renaissance,” History.com “Colonel Henry Stanley Todd, The Priory, and the Nazarene” by Claudia S. Fortunato Psychologist Simon Howard from Marquette University “Dylann Roof Appeals Death Penalty in South Carolina Church Massacre” The Associated Press “Archaeologists In Turkey Believe They Are Digging Up The Original Santa Claus,” by Ephrat Livni. Quartz Megyn Kelly: Jesus & Santa Are White Song Credit: “Sleeper” by Steve Adams” and “Dive Down” by VYEN 

DMT Presents Expresso That!Commentary for those on the run. A less than 15-minute take on a topic of choice. Join Eboni in her discussion of Supreme Court Cases against Affirmative Action 2022 By the way...we've got podcasts and YouTube. Check the links below  https://linktr.ee/ArchonstormSupport the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/DMTExpressoThat )

25 de enero | San Juan, ArgentinaHola, maricoper. Este semana empecé a preparar exámenes finales de la universidad porque el título no va a sacarse solo. Recibo apoyo moral y recomendaciones de series de no más de dos temporadas para escapar de las responsabilidades estudiantiles. ¡Espero que estés bien!Bienvenido a La Wikly diaria, una columna de actualidad y dos titulares rápidos para pasar el resto del día bien informado. Si quieres comentar las noticias en nuestra comunidad privada de Discord, puedes entrar rellenando este formulario.Si te han mandado esta newsletter, suscríbete para recibir más entregas de La Wikly:Leer esta newsletter te llevará 6 minutos y 30 segundos.Si lo piensas, era bastante random. Bienvenido a La Wikly.

Thanks for tuning into the second part of the affirmative action series! This week, I am joined on the podcast by Eden Senay and Nina Todd, the co-presidents of the Black Student Alliance at Yale, and Kevin Quach and Michelle Liang, the previous co-moderators of the Asian American Student Alliance at Yale! Together, we have a conversation about how our perceptions of affirmative action have changed throughout time, misconceptions about affirmative action, the Yale DOJ lawsuit, media coverage of affirmative action and how it takes away attention from other necessary work, our ideal college admissions and education systems, discussions we've had about affirmative action in our own spaces, and more. --- I also wanted to briefly say something about the violence and domestic terrorism that took place at the Capitol this past week. For the past couple of days, I've felt such overwhelming anger and sadness that I haven't really been able to say anything eloquent out loud or on social media. But I wanted to be transparent on this platform—in every way possible, the Homecoming Podcast absolutely condemns this behavior and these white supremacist ideologies. Those people aren't patriots, they weren't just “protestors.” The fact that there were Asians and Asian Americans there, too, and some of the Capitol police and security officers were willingly taking selfies with the rioters, and the police seemed to offer little resistance...I'm just so disappointed and disheartened, and I have so many questions. For now, please, everyone, check in with friends and family members in Washington D.C. and others living in places where riots occurred. I hope you all are taking time to sit and process things, reflect, learn from new things popping up on social media and the news, and take care of yourselves. I'm still sitting here trying to process things, but if you need support or someone to talk to, you can definitely reach out to me. --- Follow Homecoming on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/homecomingpod/) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/homecomingpod) to get to know our guests better, receive quick access to updates, and see behind-the-scenes content! You can also find resources from all of our episodes so far here: https://linktr.ee/homecomingpod. --- Follow BSAY on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bsayale/ Follow AASA on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/yaleaasa/ Affirmative action resources doc I've put together (includes history, Harvard case, Yale DOJ lawsuit, about Edward Blum, and more): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pt55QhpN4-8iIhisi5WzuIwM0pBm8X6kpA_s9vkLCh0/edit?usp=sharing --- Thanks to mariokhol and Pixabay for the music! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/homecomingpod/support

WELCOME TO SEASON 2 OF HOMECOMING!!! The Season 2 opener kicks off an informative two-part series on affirmative action, an extremely relevant topic in the U.S. and the Asian American community. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard will likely go to the Supreme Court, and decades of precedent for affirmative action policies are at stake. But what is affirmative action? And what has been the role of Asian Americans in affirmative action policies in college admissions? In part 1 of the series, Janelle Wong, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland and an expert in political attitudes and their relationships with race and religion, joins me to talk about the origins and misconceptions of affirmative action, SFFA v. Harvard, the Yale DOJ lawsuit, and the role of Asian Americans in these cases and policies. Next week, in part 2, a few student leaders and I will debrief and have a conversation about affirmative action, education equity, and how we've navigated (conversations about) college admissions in our own circles. --- Follow Homecoming on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/homecomingpod/) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/homecomingpod) to get to know our guests better, receive quick access to updates, and see behind-the-scenes content! You can also find resources from all of our episodes so far here: https://linktr.ee/homecomingpod. --- Affirmative action resources doc I've put together (includes history, Harvard case, Yale DOJ lawsuit, about Edward Blum, and more): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pt55QhpN4-8iIhisi5WzuIwM0pBm8X6kpA_s9vkLCh0/edit?usp=sharing Read more about Professor Wong and her work: https://amst.umd.edu/faculty/janelle-wong/ National Asian American Surveys on AAPI opinions on public policy issues for which Professor Wong was the principal investigator: http://naasurvey.com/data/ --- Thank you to mariokhol and Pixabay for the intro and outro music! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/homecomingpod/support

When we really take a moment to step back and think it’s easy to agree that Jesus had brown skin because he was from the Middle East. If that’s the case, why is Christ so often depicted as white with light skin, hair, and eyes? In this episode we uncover the roots of white Jesus and explain the impact this depiction has made on us and our communities.    Join the First Name Basis Patreon Community Make sure to join our Patreon Community to take part in our monthly Q&A sessions and download the detailed notes from this episode!   First Name Basis Website   Join us on Instagram    Where Did ‘White Jesus’ Come From?   ‘Color of Christ’: A Story of Race and Religion in America Terry Gross interview with Edward Blum   How Jesus Became White And Why It’s Time To Cancel That by Emily McFarlan Miller   Cancel Culture Part 3: Removing Statues (First Name Basis Podcast)   What’s The Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims?   The Harlem Renaissance    Colonel Henry Stanley Todd, The Priory, and the Nazarene   Psychologist Simon Howard from Marquette University   Dylann Roof Appeals Death Penalty in South Carolina Church Massacre    Archaeologists In Turkey Believe They Are Digging Up The Original Santa Claus   Megyn Kelly: Jesus & Santa Are White   Diversity & Inclusion In LDS Art (First Name Basis Podcast Season 2 Ep 15)   Song Credit: “Sleeper” by Steve Adams” and “Dive Down” by VYEN 

In a time where monuments are being toppled, institutions and icons reconsidered, we turn to a portrait encountered by every American: "White Jesus." You know, that guy with sandy blond hair and upcast blue eyes. For On the Media, Eloise Blondiau traces the history of how the historically inaccurate image became canon, and why it matters. In this segment, Eloise talks to Mbiyu Chui, pastor at the Shrine of the Black Madonna in Detroit, about unlearning Jesus's whiteness. She also hears from Edward Blum, author of The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America, about how the image came dominate in the U.S., and psychologist Simon Howard on how White Jesus has infiltrated our subconsciouses. Lastly, Eloise speaks to Rev. Kelly Brown Douglas, womanist theologian and Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary, about the theology of the Black Christ. This is a segment from our October 1st, 2020 program, God Bless.

Who is Edward Blum, the enigmatic figure that founded Students for Fair Admissions and played a pivotal role in Fisher vs. Texas? Take a journey into the mind of Edward Blum to better understand how the man crusading against race-conscious policies is thinking. Join DJ and Karina in unraveling the paradigms that inhabit his mind.

Who is Edward Blum, the enigmatic figure that founded Students for Fair Admissions and played a pivotal role in Fisher vs. Texas? Take a journey into the mind of Edward Blum to better understand how the man crusading against race-conscious policies is thinking. Join DJ and Karina in unraveling the paradigms that inhabit his mind.

Recently, a man by the name Edward Blum and the Students for Fair Admissions have teamed up to sue Harvard for discriminating against its Asian American applicants with its affirmative action policy. Affirmative action has been one of the hottest debates for a while within our community and I thought that it would be really helpful to have Quyen Dinh, Executive Director from the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, also known as SEARAC, on the podcast to share her personal story as well as SEARAC’s findings on the important impact affirmative action and data disaggregation has had on our Southeast Asian American community. Quyen Dinh is the Executive Director of the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC). As Executive Director, Quyen has advocated for Southeast Asian Americans on key civil rights issues including education, immigration, criminal justice, health, and aging.  Born to Vietnamese refugees, Quyen identifies as a second-generation Vietnamese American. She holds a Masters of Public Policy from the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the University of California, Berkeley. Quyen was born in New Orleans, LA, and grew up in Orange County, CA and San Jose, CA.  She currently resides with her husband in Washington, DC.   Follow SEARAC on: https://twitter.com/SEARAC https://www.facebook.com/searac/ https://www.instagram.com/searac/

In this episode you will hear: 02:24 In this week’s news we’re reviewing an article featured on CNN.com “The Harvard Admission Trial Puts the School’s Dirty Secrets On Display” by Joan Biskupic. The case, brought by a conservative group engineered by Edward Blum, argues that the university disfavors Asian-Americans. The trial has drawn overflow crowds and intense media attention. 18:15 We are in Chapter 43 of 171 Answers and we’re talking about whether it matters if you take the SAT or the ACT. 27:24 This week’s question is from a mom who wants to know how to get scholarships if her child is already in college. 37:23 Mark wraps-up with Nancy Beane of Westminster Schools in the final Part II of how much emphasis should be placed on prestige in selecting a college. 47:29 Mark’s recommended resource of the week is the website nacacfairs.org Don’t forget to send your questions related to any and every facet of the college process to   Every episode of Your College-Bound Kid will align with a chapter from the book 171 Answers to the Most-Asked College Admission Questions. To get a copy visit  and if you want to see what future episodes will cover just click the red button “See exactly what 171 Answers covers.

On today's show, we're discussing the role of race and class in college admissions. In a federal court case in Boston, Harvard University has been sued by a group of Asian-American students who were denied admission to the elite institution. They allege that Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants and holds them to higher standards.The group, called Students for Fair Admissions, is led by conservative activist Edward Blum and seeks to end race-conscious admissions. In response, Harvard has defended its practices, and many students, alumni and other colleges and universities have expressed support for continuing to consider race as a factor in the application process.The trial, which ended on Nov. 2, drew national attention and sparked conversations about the future of affirmative action in college admissions. The federal judge is expected to reach a decision in early 2019. We welcome three guests to the conversation today:Julie J. Park is an associate professor of education at the University of Maryland, College Park, and the author of Race on Campus: Debunking Myths with Data. Aaron Mak is a reporter for Slate Magazine where he covers technology. Brenda Shum is director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Lazare joins us to discuss a recent Intercept article, "The Washington Post, as it Shames Others, Continues to Pay and Publish Undisclosed Saudi Lobbyists and Other Regime Propagandists," by Glenn Greenwald. It questions the Washington Post grieving one of its journalists while at the same time continuing ties with the Saudi regime: "In the wake of the disappearance and likely murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, some of the most fervent and righteous voices demanding that others sever their ties with the Saudi regime have, understandably, come from his colleagues at that paper ... addressing unnamed hypothetical Washington luminaries who continue to take money to do work for the despots in Riyadh, particularly Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, or 'MbS' as he has been affectionately known in the Western press." But Greenwald says Post writers should ask those question of themselves, given the paper's history of favorable reporting on Saudi Arabia's government. What do we make of these headlines?WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange is back online — well, partially. It's been six months since the Ecuadorian government suspended his internet access after he discussed issues concerning the country's diplomatic relations. Assange took refuge in Ecuador's London Embassy after British courts ordered his extradition to Sweden to face questioning in a sexual molestation case. That case has since been dropped. But friends and supporters say Assange now fears he could be arrested and eventually extradited to the United States if he leaves the embassy. He has had contact only with lawyers since Ecuador suspended his communications with the outside world. What's the significance behind this move, and what and we expect next?A federal lawsuit alleging Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants goes to court this week in Boston. While the case focuses on Harvard, it could have big consequences for higher education, especially if it moves on to the US Supreme Court. At stake are 40 years of legal precedent allowing race to be one factor in universities' decisions of which students to admit. The group that filed the suit, Students for Fair Admissions, led by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, charges that Harvard engages in "racial balancing," which is illegal and discriminates against Asian-American applicants by rating them lower on intangible traits like courage, kindness and leadership. What's going on with this Harvard case? According to Students for Fair Admissions, none of the anonymous, Asian-American plaintiffs who claim they were denied admission will testify. Still, Lee Cheng, a lawyer and secretary for the Asian American Legal Foundation, which supports the lawsuit, thinks the group has a chance of winning.GUESTS:Daniel Lazare — Journalist and author of three books: The Frozen Republic, The Velvet Coup and America's Undeclared War.Brian Becker — Co-Host of Loud & Clear on Sputnik News Radio.Michael Meltsner — Former dean of Northeastern University School of Law, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law and author of With Passion: An Activist Lawyer's Life.

ABOUT THIS EPISODE An ongoing controversy is whether colleges and universities should be free to consider race and ethnicity in admissions, and how the use of race relates to "merit." As indicated in a recent Gallup poll, many people think merit should trump race or ethnicity, but what do they really mean by "merit"? Whose interests are at stake? What will happen if colleges and universities can't consider race and ethnicity as they decide whom to admit? I discuss these questions with Julie J. Park, a University of Maryland professor in the Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education. LINKS --Julie Park's profile at the University of Maryland (https://education.umd.edu/directory/julie-j-park) --"Most in U.S. Oppose Colleges Considering Race in Admissions," Gallup (https://news.gallup.com/poll/193508/oppose-colleges-considering-race-admissions.aspx) --Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended To Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It, by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr. (https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-%C2%92s-Universities/dp/0465029965) --The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, William G. Bowen & Derek Bok (https://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-Bowen/dp/0691050198) --Race on Campus: Debunking Myths With Data, by Julie J. Park. (https://www.amazon.com/Race-Campus-Debunking-Myths-Data/dp/1682532321) --Students for Fair Admissions (https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/) --New York Times profile on Edward Blum (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/us/affirmative-action-lawsuits.html) --"Justice Department Backs Lawsuit Led By Maine Resident Challenging Harvard's 'Racial Balancing'," Portland Press Herald (https://www.pressherald.com/2018/08/30/doj-sides-with-harvard-students-suing-over-race-based-admissions-policy/) Cover art credit: Tyler de Noche (Wikimedia Commons) Special Guest: Julie Park.