POPULARITY
9 episodes with Grutter
6 episodes with Grutter
2 episodes with Grutter
3 episodes with Grutter
3 episodes with Grutter
2 episodes with Grutter
2 episodes with Grutter
2 episodes with Grutter
2 episodes with Grutter
Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College. In this case, the court considered this issue: May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does Harvard College's and UNC's race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The case was decided on June 29, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Harvard and the UNC admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion. First, the Court concluded that Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) had organizational standing because it is a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith. Second, while the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was to ensure that laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, both the Supreme Court and the nation failed to uphold this principle, most notably in Plessy v Ferguson, which sanctioned “separate but equal” facilities. However, the landmark case Brown v Board of Education overturned this, and the equal protection principle has since expanded to various areas of life. Any exceptions to equal protection must satisfy “strict scrutiny”; that is, the government must show that the racial classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In Regents of the University of California v Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell's opinion became the touchstone for evaluating the constitutionality of race-based admissions, reasoning that diversity in the student body could be a “compelling state interest,” but that race could only be used as a “plus” in admissions and not as a quota. In Grutter v Bollinger, the Court adopted Powell's viewpoint, while also setting limits to ensure race-based admissions did not result in stereotyping or harm to non-minority applicants, and stating that such race-based programs should eventually come to an end. Harvard's (and UNC's, in the consolidated case) race-based admissions systems fail to meet the strict scrutiny, non-stereotyping, and termination criteria established by Grutter and Bakke. Specifically, the universities could not demonstrate their compelling interests in a measurable way, failed to avoid racial stereotypes, and did not offer a logical endpoint for when race-based admissions would cease. As a result, the programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court noted that nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined (except Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case against Harvard). The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support
Summary of Chapter 10: Equal Protection. Chapter 10 explores the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no person shall be denied "the equal protection of the laws." This chapter delves into how courts interpret and enforce this principle, focusing on different levels of judicial scrutiny, issues of discrimination, and the implementation of affirmative action across various classifications such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age. 1. Levels of Scrutiny. The judiciary employs three main levels of scrutiny to assess whether a law or government action violates the Equal Protection Clause: Rational Basis Review: This is the most lenient standard, applied in cases that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Laws are upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: This is a more rigorous standard applied to cases involving gender discrimination or classifications based on legitimacy. Laws must be substantially related to an important government interest to be upheld. Strict Scrutiny: The most stringent standard, used in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications like race or national origin. Laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. II. Discrimination and Affirmative Action. The chapter also discusses how the Equal Protection Clause addresses discrimination and the constitutionality of affirmative action policies: Race Discrimination: The courts apply strict scrutiny to any laws or policies that classify individuals based on race. Landmark cases like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia demonstrate how the courts have struck down laws that perpetuate racial inequality. Gender Discrimination: Gender-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Significant cases such as Reed v Reed and United States v Virginia have shaped the legal landscape for gender equality. Affirmative Action: The chapter examines the contentious legal debates surrounding affirmative action, particularly in higher education and employment. Cases like Regents of the University of California v Bakke and Grutter v Bollinger illustrate the delicate balance the courts strike between remedying past discrimination and avoiding new forms of inequality. III. Equal Protection in Race, Gender, and Other Classifications. The chapter further explores how the Equal Protection Clause has been applied to various forms of discrimination: Race: Beyond the classic cases of racial segregation, the chapter discusses how the courts have dealt with affirmative action and racial classifications in education and employment. Gender: It examines the evolution of gender discrimination law and the impact of major Supreme Court decisions in advancing gender equality. Sexual Orientation: Recent advancements in LGBTQ+ rights are highlighted, with cases like Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges demonstrating the application of Equal Protection to sexual orientation. Disability and Age: The chapter discusses how the courts address discrimination based on disability and age, typically applying a more deferential standard but recognizing the importance of protecting vulnerable groups. Conclusion. Chapter 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the Equal Protection Clause and its critical role in promoting justice and equality. Through various levels of scrutiny, the judiciary ensures that laws and government actions do not arbitrarily or unjustly discriminate against individuals. The chapter underscores the ongoing challenges and debates surrounding affirmative action and the application of equal protection to various classifications, reflecting the evolving nature of civil rights in America. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
Summary of Chapter 10: Equal Protection. Chapter 10 explores the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no person shall be denied "the equal protection of the laws." This chapter delves into how courts interpret and enforce this principle, focusing on different levels of judicial scrutiny, issues of discrimination, and the implementation of affirmative action across various classifications such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age. 1. Levels of Scrutiny. The judiciary employs three main levels of scrutiny to assess whether a law or government action violates the Equal Protection Clause: Rational Basis Review: This is the most lenient standard, applied in cases that do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Laws are upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: This is a more rigorous standard applied to cases involving gender discrimination or classifications based on legitimacy. Laws must be substantially related to an important government interest to be upheld. Strict Scrutiny: The most stringent standard, used in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications like race or national origin. Laws must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. II. Discrimination and Affirmative Action. The chapter also discusses how the Equal Protection Clause addresses discrimination and the constitutionality of affirmative action policies: Race Discrimination: The courts apply strict scrutiny to any laws or policies that classify individuals based on race. Landmark cases like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia demonstrate how the courts have struck down laws that perpetuate racial inequality. Gender Discrimination: Gender-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Significant cases such as Reed v Reed and United States v Virginia have shaped the legal landscape for gender equality. Affirmative Action: The chapter examines the contentious legal debates surrounding affirmative action, particularly in higher education and employment. Cases like Regents of the University of California v Bakke and Grutter v Bollinger illustrate the delicate balance the courts strike between remedying past discrimination and avoiding new forms of inequality. III. Equal Protection in Race, Gender, and Other Classifications. The chapter further explores how the Equal Protection Clause has been applied to various forms of discrimination: Race: Beyond the classic cases of racial segregation, the chapter discusses how the courts have dealt with affirmative action and racial classifications in education and employment. Gender: It examines the evolution of gender discrimination law and the impact of major Supreme Court decisions in advancing gender equality. Sexual Orientation: Recent advancements in LGBTQ+ rights are highlighted, with cases like Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges demonstrating the application of Equal Protection to sexual orientation. Disability and Age: The chapter discusses how the courts address discrimination based on disability and age, typically applying a more deferential standard but recognizing the importance of protecting vulnerable groups. Conclusion. Chapter 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the Equal Protection Clause and its critical role in promoting justice and equality. Through various levels of scrutiny, the judiciary ensures that laws and government actions do not arbitrarily or unjustly discriminate against individuals. The chapter underscores the ongoing challenges and debates surrounding affirmative action and the application of equal protection to various classifications, reflecting the evolving nature of civil rights in America. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
Dr. Baron Grutter is a unique dentist savvy with tech skills. He talks about his background in computer programming, buying a practice one year out of dental school, and what he did to scale up the tech side of his practice, and what dentists can do to scale theirs. Ladies & Gentlemen, you're listening to "Confessions From A Dental Lab" and we're happy you're here. Subscribe today and tell a friend so we can all get 1% better :) Connect with Dr. Grutter on instagram at barongrutterdds and email him at bgrutterdds@gmail.com Follow KJ & NuArt on Instagram: @lifeatnuartdental Learn more about the lab at nuartdental.com
Education Headline RoundupThis week's stories:Liberty University, a large evangelical Christian university in Virginia, was fined a hefty $14 million by the U.S. Department of Education. The fine stemmed from the university's failure to comply with the Clery Act, a federal law regarding campus safety.Lawmakers in Greece's parliament have voted effectively to end a state monopoly on university education amid protests and demonstrations in central Athens that drew 18,000+ people.Nebraska's State Board of Education has voted 5-3 against a rule change process that would have enabled the defining and banning of sexually explicit books and materials from school libraries and removed a requirement for schools to purchase a minimum number of new books each academic year.Landmark Supreme Court Cases that Changed U.S. Education: Part IIWelcome to part two of our discussion of pivotal Supreme Court cases that have shaped the landscape of student rights, privacy, religious freedom, and affirmative action in education. This week, we're covering:Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)This case significantly impacted student press freedom, allowing schools to restrict student speech in school-sponsored publications under certain conditions. We discuss the balance between student free speech and school authority. Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009)The strip search of a 13-year-old student raised questions about student privacy and the limits of school searches. We analyze the Supreme Court's decision and its impact on school policies regarding student searches.Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)Examining the intersection of state scholarship programs and religious freedom, we look at how this case challenged the separation of church and state and its implications for educational funding and religious schools.Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)This case highlighted the clash between religious expression and public school policies. We discuss the implications of the Court's decision on the role of religion in public life and the rights of students and educators.Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023)In this recent landmark case, we analyze the impact of affirmative action policies on college admissions and the Court's ruling on diversity and racial discrimination in higher education.Join us as we contemplate each case's significance in shaping the rights and responsibilities of students, educators, and institutions in the United States.Questions for Reflection:How do these Supreme Court decisions impact the rights of students and educators in schools today?What are the broader implications of these rulings for education policy and practice?How can we ensure a balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining a safe and inclusive learning environment in schools?Sources & Resources:Liberty University Hit With Record Fines for Failing to Handle Complaints of Sexual Assault, Other Crimes — ProPublicaU.S. Department of Education Imposes $14 Million Fine Against Liberty University for Clery Act ViolationsState Education Board rejects rule to ban sexually explicit books in all school librariesBoard of Education votes 'no' on rule impacting content in school libraries | Nebraska Public Media.State Ed Board rejects measure defining and banning sexually explicit materials in school libraries • Nebraska ExaminerFacts and Case Summary - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier | United States CourtsHazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier | OyezHAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Petitioners v. Cathy KUHLMEIER et al. | Supreme Court | US LawSafford Unified School District v. Redding | OyezEspinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue | Constitution CenterStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | Definition, Questions, Grutter v. Bollinger, Affirmative Action, & Decision | BritannicaStudents for Fair Admissions v. Harvard FAQ: Navigating the Evolving Implications of the Court's Ruling - Stanford Center for Racial JusticeKennedy v. Bremerton School District | OyezSupreme Court Sides With Coach Over Prayers at the 50-Yard Line - The New York TimesSupreme Court school prayer ruling in Lee v. Weisman and family's quest - The Washington PostBoard of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley | BritannicaRegents of the University of California v. Bakke | OyezRegents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteLau v. Nichols | OyezSan Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez | Oyez1973: San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez - A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in the United StatesThe Worst Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960 | TIMEAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English LanguageCoach Who Won Supreme Court Case Over Prayers on the Field Resigns | New York TimesEspinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue - Institute for Justice20-1199 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (06/29/2023)Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | OyezKEY FACTS Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeStudents for Fair Admissions v. Harvard FAQ: Navigating the Evolving Implications of the Court's Ruling - Stanford Center for Racial JusticeFrequently Asked Questions on Justices - Supreme Court of the United StatesHarvard Overhauls College Application in Wake of Affirmative Action Decision | Newsdiscrimination | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.
Education Headline RoundupThis week's headline roundup brings an update to the evolving story of U.S. colleges & universities rescinding test-optional admissions policies. Yale, MIT, and Georgetown have joined Dartmouth in reinstating a requirement that students submit test scores with their college applications. Students at Dartmouth attended a tense office hours session on Feb. 5 with university administrators to voice concerns with the College's reinstatement of mandatory test score submission, arguing that it will result in a less diverse applicant pool. In other Dartmouth news from last week, the college also just settled in class-action suit involving 17 elite universities that alleged they engaged in an anti-competitive tuition price-fixing scheme that may have disadvantaged certain applicants due to their financial status.The Chicago Board of Education has voted unanimously to remove school resource officers from Chicago Public Schools by the start of next academic year. This decision followed years of debate and advocacy, driven by several key factors, including concerns about disproportionate policing impact on minority students and the efficacy of SRO programs in preventing safety incidents. Advocates proposed investing in social workers, counselors, and restorative justice programs as more effective and equitable approaches to address safety concerns.Harvard University is forming a working group to explore formalizing a policy of “institutional neutrality” following recent controversies involving pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli student demonstrations that ultimately led to the resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay.Landmark Supreme Court Cases That Changed U.S. Education: Part IJoin us as we embark on a two-part series exploring landmark Supreme Court cases that have profoundly impacted the landscape of education in the United States. This week's episode includes discussions of the following cases:Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Challenging racial segregation in public schools.Engel v. Vitale (1962) & Abington School District v. Schempp (1963): Establishing the separation of church and state in public education.Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): Defining students' First Amendment rights to symbolic expression.San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973): Addressing disparities in school funding across districts.Lau v. Nichols (1974): Ensuring equal educational opportunity for students with limited English proficiency.Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): Addressing the use of affirmative action in college admissions.Board of Education v. Rowley (1982): Establishing the standard for providing education to students with disabilities.Stay tuned for Part II!Sources & Resources:Yale University Joins Dartmouth, MIT, and Georgetown in Requiring Applicants to Submit Standardized Test Scores; Kaplan Survey Suggests Other Schools Will Join ThemChicago Board of Education votes to remove police officers from schools.Chicago Board of Education unanimously votes to remove school resource officers from CPSStudents voice complaints about testing requirement reinstatement during ‘tense' office hours - The DartmouthClass-action lawsuit accuses 17 elite universities of running 'price-fixing cartel'‘This Has to Stop': Harvard Set to Consider Institutional Neutrality | NewsBrown v. Board of Education (1954) | National ArchivesPlessy v. Ferguson (1896) | National ArchivesFacts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale | United States Courtshttps://books.google.com/books?id=Qc5Ove6xYf8C&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=falseAbington School District v. Schempp :: 374 U.S. 203 (1963)First Amendment and Religion | United States CourtsSchool District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1963) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteSchool District of Abington Township v. Schempp | First Amendment & Education | BritannicaThe Schempp-Murray Decision On School Prayers and Bible ReadingTinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).Tinker v. Des Moines | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteThe Young Anti-War Activists Who Fought for Free Speech at School | History| Smithsonian MagazineMcCreary County v. American Civil Liberties UnionMcCreary County v. ACLUSafford Unified School District v. Redding | OyezEspinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue | Constitution CenterStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | Definition, Questions, Grutter v. Bollinger, Affirmative Action, & Decision | BritannicaStudents for Fair Admissions v. Harvard FAQ: Navigating the Evolving Implications of the Court's Ruling - Stanford Center for Racial JusticeKennedy v. Bremerton School District | OyezSupreme Court Sides With Coach Over Prayers at the 50-Yard Line - The New York TimesSupreme Court school prayer ruling in Lee v. Weisman and family's quest - The Washington PostBoard of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley | BritannicaRegents of the University of California v. Bakke | OyezRegents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteLau v. Nichols | OyezSan Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez | Oyez1973: San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez - A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in the United StatesThe Worst Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960 | TIME
In this episode, the hosts discuss Justice O'Connor's role as the “swing vote” as the Court addressed major fault lines in our society on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gender equality. Planned Parenthood v. Casey https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/ Grutter v. Bollinger https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/
Princeton University Press' Our Compelling Interests series focuses on diversity, in racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious, and other forms. Some of the titles in this series so far include The Walls around Opportunity: The Failure of Colorblind Policy for Higher Education by Gary Orfield, Out of Many Faiths: Religious Diversity and the American Promise By Eboo Patel, and The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy, by Scott E. Page. Earl Lewis is the Thomas C. Holt Distinguished University Professor of history, Afroamerican and African Studies, and Public Policy and director of the Center for Social Solutions at the University of Michigan. From March 2013-2018, he served as President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Nancy Cantor is Chancellor of Rutgers University – Newark. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and member of the National Academy of Medicine, she previously led Syracuse University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was provost at the University of Michigan, where she was closely involved in the defense of affirmative action in 2003 Supreme Court cases Grutter and Gratz. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Princeton University Press' Our Compelling Interests series focuses on diversity, in racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious, and other forms. Some of the titles in this series so far include The Walls around Opportunity: The Failure of Colorblind Policy for Higher Education by Gary Orfield, Out of Many Faiths: Religious Diversity and the American Promise By Eboo Patel, and The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy, by Scott E. Page. Earl Lewis is the Thomas C. Holt Distinguished University Professor of history, Afroamerican and African Studies, and Public Policy and director of the Center for Social Solutions at the University of Michigan. From March 2013-2018, he served as President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Nancy Cantor is Chancellor of Rutgers University – Newark. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and member of the National Academy of Medicine, she previously led Syracuse University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was provost at the University of Michigan, where she was closely involved in the defense of affirmative action in 2003 Supreme Court cases Grutter and Gratz. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
Princeton University Press' Our Compelling Interests series focuses on diversity, in racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious, and other forms. Some of the titles in this series so far include The Walls around Opportunity: The Failure of Colorblind Policy for Higher Education by Gary Orfield, Out of Many Faiths: Religious Diversity and the American Promise By Eboo Patel, and The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy, by Scott E. Page. Earl Lewis is the Thomas C. Holt Distinguished University Professor of history, Afroamerican and African Studies, and Public Policy and director of the Center for Social Solutions at the University of Michigan. From March 2013-2018, he served as President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Nancy Cantor is Chancellor of Rutgers University – Newark. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and member of the National Academy of Medicine, she previously led Syracuse University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was provost at the University of Michigan, where she was closely involved in the defense of affirmative action in 2003 Supreme Court cases Grutter and Gratz. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network.
Princeton University Press' Our Compelling Interests series focuses on diversity, in racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious, and other forms. Some of the titles in this series so far include The Walls around Opportunity: The Failure of Colorblind Policy for Higher Education by Gary Orfield, Out of Many Faiths: Religious Diversity and the American Promise By Eboo Patel, and The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy, by Scott E. Page. Earl Lewis is the Thomas C. Holt Distinguished University Professor of history, Afroamerican and African Studies, and Public Policy and director of the Center for Social Solutions at the University of Michigan. From March 2013-2018, he served as President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Nancy Cantor is Chancellor of Rutgers University – Newark. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and member of the National Academy of Medicine, she previously led Syracuse University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was provost at the University of Michigan, where she was closely involved in the defense of affirmative action in 2003 Supreme Court cases Grutter and Gratz. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy
Princeton University Press' Our Compelling Interests series focuses on diversity, in racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious, and other forms. Some of the titles in this series so far include The Walls around Opportunity: The Failure of Colorblind Policy for Higher Education by Gary Orfield, Out of Many Faiths: Religious Diversity and the American Promise By Eboo Patel, and The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy, by Scott E. Page. Earl Lewis is the Thomas C. Holt Distinguished University Professor of history, Afroamerican and African Studies, and Public Policy and director of the Center for Social Solutions at the University of Michigan. From March 2013-2018, he served as President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Nancy Cantor is Chancellor of Rutgers University – Newark. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and member of the National Academy of Medicine, she previously led Syracuse University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was provost at the University of Michigan, where she was closely involved in the defense of affirmative action in 2003 Supreme Court cases Grutter and Gratz. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education
Princeton University Press' Our Compelling Interests series focuses on diversity, in racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious, and other forms. Some of the titles in this series so far include The Walls around Opportunity: The Failure of Colorblind Policy for Higher Education by Gary Orfield, Out of Many Faiths: Religious Diversity and the American Promise By Eboo Patel, and The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy, by Scott E. Page. Earl Lewis is the Thomas C. Holt Distinguished University Professor of history, Afroamerican and African Studies, and Public Policy and director of the Center for Social Solutions at the University of Michigan. From March 2013-2018, he served as President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Nancy Cantor is Chancellor of Rutgers University – Newark. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and member of the National Academy of Medicine, she previously led Syracuse University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was provost at the University of Michigan, where she was closely involved in the defense of affirmative action in 2003 Supreme Court cases Grutter and Gratz. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
Princeton University Press' Our Compelling Interests series focuses on diversity, in racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious, and other forms. Some of the titles in this series so far include The Walls around Opportunity: The Failure of Colorblind Policy for Higher Education by Gary Orfield, Out of Many Faiths: Religious Diversity and the American Promise By Eboo Patel, and The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy, by Scott E. Page. Earl Lewis is the Thomas C. Holt Distinguished University Professor of history, Afroamerican and African Studies, and Public Policy and director of the Center for Social Solutions at the University of Michigan. From March 2013-2018, he served as President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Nancy Cantor is Chancellor of Rutgers University – Newark. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and member of the National Academy of Medicine, she previously led Syracuse University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was provost at the University of Michigan, where she was closely involved in the defense of affirmative action in 2003 Supreme Court cases Grutter and Gratz. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Don't Force It: How to Get into College without Losing Yourself in the Process
In today's episode, I sit down with Jay Rosner to explore the realm of standardized testing, discuss fairness in education, and dissect the recent legal battles over affirmative action in college admissions.BIOJay Rosner is an admission testing and test-prep expert based in the San Francisco Bay area. He is the Executive Director of The Princeton Review Foundation, a small nonprofit that provides heavily subsidized, high-quality test-prep programs for organizations serving low- income, underrepresented minority students. His multifaceted work focuses upon fairness in admissions tests, and he speaks and writes about testing as an activist, advocate, expert witness, consultant, researcher, organizer and lapsed lawyer. Jay testified as an expert witness on the LSAT on behalf of minority student intervenors at the trial of the landmark Grutter affirmative action case. More recently, he organized the intervention by individual minority students in SFFA v. Harvard, and had been an ongoing participant in the process leading to the historic 2020 decision by the University of California system to become test free in undergraduate admissions. His research contribution is his non- technical analysis of how test question selection methods subjectively and consistently produce dramatic test score disparities. Jay's current focus is reducing the discriminatory impacts primarily of the LSAT, and secondarily, of the MCAT and SAT, in order to enhance integration and fair representation. Follow Jay on LinkedInAccess free resources and learn more about Sheila and her team at Signet Education at signeteducation.com or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheilaakbar/.
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-based admissions at college campuses nationwide after hearing companion cases by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) that challenged admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). SFFA overturned the 2003 ruling by a more liberal Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed that a student's race could be used as one of multiple factors in admissions decisions at the University of Michigan. Affirmative action was rejected by the conservative majority on the bench, which agreed that UNC's policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that Harvard's affirmative action plan discriminates against Asian American students, a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But did it really change the way campus admissions will operate? In their forthcoming paper in the Texas Law Review, “The Goose and the Gander: How Conservative Precedents Will Save Campus Affirmative Action,” Professor Guha Krishnamurthi of the University of Maryland Carey Law School contends (along with his co-author Peter Salib) that though affirmative action is legally dead, race will still figure into holistic admissions procedures-- just not as a check-box item. In this episode of Discovery, we speak with Prof. Krishnamurthi about the previous state of play in race-based admissions and his opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against campus affirmative action has no practical effect on the way schools operate. He argues that due to the Supreme Court's decades-old rulings that statistical proof cannot carry a constitutional discrimination claim, universities will only be liable in litigation if they admit that they practice affirmative action, so most schools will pursue diversity by other means, simply by operating in the shadows.
On this day in legal history, September 21, 1981, the United States Senate approved the nomination by President Reagan of Sandra Day O'Connor to the United States Supreme Court–making her the first female Supreme Court justice. O'Connor, who often leaned conservative, used her political experience from her time in the Arizona state Senate to shape her judicial views. She was known for filing concurring opinions that aimed to limit the scope of majority rulings. She faced opposition from the time of her nomination from anti-abortion and religious groups. During her tenure, O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and often served as the swing vote in contentious cases. Initially aligning closely with conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, her voting record later became more moderate as the Court's composition shifted. She played a pivotal role in key decisions, including those related to abortion rights, affirmative action, and campaign finance.She was involved in landmark cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the constitutionality of race-based admissions to universities, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the core constitutional precept of Roe v. Wade. O'Connor retired in 2006 but left a lasting impact on American jurisprudence, particularly in her nuanced approach to complex legal issues.O'Connor also had a brief stint in acting, appearing as Queen Isabel in a 1996 Shakespeare Theatre production of Henry V. In a landmark decision, she cast the deciding vote in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, which ended the Florida vote recount and paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency. She later expressed reservations about the court's involvement in the case.In another historic moment, O'Connor became the first woman to preside over an oral argument in the Supreme Court during the case of Kelo v. City of New London on February 22, 2005. Later that year, at the age of 75, she announced her plans to retire from the bench. Following her retirement, she took on the ceremonial role of the 23rd chancellor of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, a position first held by George Washington. Her groundbreaking career remains a significant chapter in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.The Federal Circuit's active judges have suspended 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for one year for failing to undergo medical testing as part of a disability and misconduct investigation. Initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, the probe began after Newman allegedly had a cardiac incident and raised questions about her productivity. The investigation is notable for its public nature, a rarity in judicial disability investigations. Legal scholars suggest that such probes may become more frequent as the average age of federal judges has risen to 69.Newman has contested the investigation, framing it as bullying and arguing that it was motivated by her frequent dissents in favor of stronger patent rights. The council stated that Newman's non-compliance with medical tests hampers their ability to assess her fitness for duty. A special committee had recommended the suspension, citing Newman's consistent refusal to cooperate.Newman's lawyer, Greg Dolin, criticized the investigation's procedures and called the renewable suspension "unlawful" under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman plans to appeal the council's order and has also filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement. She submitted two medical reports affirming her mental fitness, which the council dismissed as inadequate.The case has drawn public attention, contrasting sharply with Newman's recent accolades at a legal conference. Affidavits from court staff depict her as struggling with memory loss and paranoia, adding another layer of complexity to this unprecedented judicial probe.Embattled 96-Year-Old Judge Suspended in Disability Probe (2)A high-stakes antitrust lawsuit has been filed against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) by around 1,200 former fighters, including Nate "Rock" Quarry. The suit alleges that UFC confines athletes to perpetual contracts and pays them far less than they would earn in a competitive market. The case has been fast-tracked for trial next spring and is closely watched as it could set a precedent for athletes in various sports to fight for better pay using antitrust law.The UFC, owned by Endeavor Group Holdings, generated a record revenue of $1.14 billion last year and reaches over 900 million households globally. Fighters are required to sign exclusive deals, often including four fights per year. However, the UFC allegedly withholds the last fight in a contract until the fighter agrees to renew, effectively trapping them in a cycle of successive contracts.The fighters argue that the UFC is a "monopsony," a sole buyer in a market, and accuse it of abusing this power. Monopsony cases are rare but have gained attention under the Biden administration. While there are other combat sports promotions, the plaintiffs argue that UFC controls the majority of fighters in nearly all weight classes and has also bought or shut down its rivals.The class action status of the lawsuit increases the risk for UFC, as it could be compelled to pay up to $4.8 billion in treble damages. The case could also encourage athletes in other industries to file similar suits. UFC has petitioned to appeal the class certification, arguing that the court erroneously certified the class.The case also highlights the financial struggles of fighters, who are independent contractors paid per bout. While top fighters can earn millions, most fighters have to fund their own training and equipment, leaving them with little net income. The case aims not just for compensation but also to bring about a change in the sport, offering fighters better terms and ending the cycle of perpetual contracts.UFC Fighters Test Antitrust Law to Escape ‘Perpetual' ContractsThe U.S. federal judiciary has enough funds to operate for at least two weeks if the government shuts down due to a lapse in funding. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated that court fees and other available funds could be used to continue hearing cases. Some case deadlines may be rescheduled if federal agency attorneys are not working during the shutdown. If the funds do run out, the judiciary would operate on a limited basis, retaining only the staff necessary for mission-critical work.Current government funding is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, putting pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal on a short-term funding bill. Infighting among House Republicans and disagreements between the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have jeopardized the passage of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. House Republicans have proposed allocating $8.7 billion to the federal judiciary for the next fiscal year, while Senate Democrats have proposed $8.56 billion. Both fall short of the judiciary's request for $9.1 billion.Judge Lavenski Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expressed that a potential government shutdown is a "consistent matter of concern" and that plans are being considered to keep the judiciary operational. The judiciary, which employs nearly 30,000 people, almost ran out of money during the last government shutdown in 2018. The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, used for electronic filing of documents, remained operational during the previous shutdown. The U.S. Supreme Court, which opens its new term on October 2, has used non-appropriated funds in the past to continue short-term operations.Judiciary Has Funds for Two Weeks if Government Shuts Down (1)A legal team that successfully sued Tesla's board of directors for allegedly overpaying themselves is now seeking $229 million in legal fees, amounting to $10,690 an hour. The request was made in a filing in Delaware's Court of Chancery on September 8. If approved, this would be one of the largest fee awards ever resulting from a shareholder lawsuit against a board. The case took several years to build and focused on the compensation paid to Tesla's directors from 2017 to 2020.The 12 director defendants, including James Murdoch and Larry Ellison, had agreed to return $735 million in compensation and forego another potential $184 million. They also agreed to overhaul the board's compensation determination process. The settlement money will be paid to Tesla and indirectly benefit shareholders, making this a derivative lawsuit.The law firms involved in the case estimate the total settlement value at $919 million and are seeking 25% of that sum as their fee. They are also requesting about $1 million in expenses. Partners and staff from the law firms involved have billed thousands of hours on the case.Courts typically review fee requests by balancing the need to reward risk and effort against the risk of a disproportionate windfall that could undermine public confidence in the legal system. David Paige, founder of Legal Fee Advisors, described the fee request as "extraordinary" compared to typical hourly rates for corporate attorneys, which can go up to $2,000.Tesla's directors have not yet objected to the fee request but are expected to do so, according to court filings. A hearing to approve the settlement and the legal fees is scheduled for October 13, and Tesla shareholders have until Friday to file any objections.In 2012, Delaware courts approved an hourly rate that worked out to $35,000 in a Southern Copper shareholder lawsuit, setting a precedent that the outcome achieved should be the focus, not the hourly rate.Lawyers who sued Tesla board for excess pay want $10,000 an hour | ReutersA recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that a majority of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, support the ongoing strikes in the auto industry and Hollywood. The poll found that 58% of Americans back the United Auto Workers union's strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis for better pay and benefits. In the entertainment industry, 60% support the strikes by screenwriters and actors for better pay and protections. Among Democrats, the support is especially strong, with 72% backing the auto workers strike and 79% supporting the Hollywood strike. Interestingly, a significant number of Republicans also expressed support for the strikes, despite the party's traditional pro-business stance. The poll reflects a broader trend of increased union activism in the U.S., with 2023 on track to become the busiest year for strikes since 2019.Americans broadly support auto, Hollywood strikes -Reuters/Ipsos pollA U.S. authors' trade group, including renowned writers like John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, has filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of unlawfully training its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, on copyrighted works from these authors. The Authors Guild, which filed the suit, is also concerned that the training data may have been sourced from illegal online book repositories. OpenAI has defended its actions by claiming that the use of internet-scraped training data falls under "fair use" according to U.S. copyright law. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal landscape where AI companies are facing challenges over the data used to train their systems.John Grisham, other top US authors sue OpenAI over copyrights | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In this episode, a panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—explore the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. They also explore the Roberts Court's application of originalism in recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on June 28, 2023. Additional Resources Moore v. Harper (2023) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023) Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Counterman v. Colorado (2023) J. Joel Alicea, “The Moral Authority of Original Meaning,” Notre Dame Law Review (2022) Joel Alicea, “Originalism and the Rule of the Dead,” National Affairs (2022) Sherif Girgis, “Living Traditionalism,” N.Y.U. L.Rev (2023) Sherif Gergis, “Dobb's History and the future of Abortion Laws,” SCOTUSblog (2022) Anastasia Boden, “Supreme Court's Sidestep Leaves Native Kids Without Answers,” Volokh Conspiracy (June 2023) Anastasia Boden, “Discourse: Irrational Basis,” Pacific Legal Foundation, (August 2022) Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
The Non-Prophets, Episode 22.29.2 featuring Cynthia McDonald, Aaron Jensen and Teo el AteoHow The End Of Affirmative Action Reroutes The Talent PipelineForbes, By Corinne Lestch, July 9, 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnelestch/2023/07/09/how-the-end-of-affirmative-action-reroutes-the-talent-pipeline/?sh=518ad1495886 Clarence Thomas Wins Long Game Against Affirmative Action Bloomberg Law, By Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, June 29, 2023,https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4073736-thomas-in-rare-occurrence-reads-affirmative-action-opinion-from-bench/ Supreme Court Decision https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf “In the decades since, I have repeatedly stated that Grutter was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Today, and despite a lengthy interregnum, the Constitution prevails,” - Justice Clarence Thomas.Recently the Supreme Court decided that affirmative action is no longer constitutional because it ruled that it violates the 14th Amendment which states that there should be no laws that restrict people based on color or their race.What had made the 14th amendment relevant was it's attempt to even the playing field among all constituents in the United States when it came to them being able to get employment and for them to be able to go to school but that is not what happened.Even though black people were citizens and paying taxes they did not have access to the same facilities as their white counterparts. Plessy vs Ferguson (a decision made in the 1800's) allowed schools to be funded separately.In most black neighborhoods, especially in the south, there were substandard school buildings, and children in the sixth and seventh grade that were provided books from second and third grade. Plessy was used to uphold Jim Crow and specifically segregation laws saying that separate but equal was okay.The modern Civil Rights Movement really started to take a new form after the death of Emmett Till. Black rights activists like Dr. King, Malcolm X, Philip Randolph, Ralph Abernathy, and James Baldwin were all a part of this movement.The Movement wasn't necessarily pushing for integration they were just pushing for equal facilities. One of the reasons being is when they started to integrate the schools black students faced violence from white mobs, white students, and parents who were vehemently trying to keep black students out.Ultimately, Thurgood Marshall argued before the US Supreme Court in the Brown vs the Board of Education case. The court overturned Plessy vs Ferguson by ruling against the Board of Education and Marshall later became the first black Justice on the court.This helped pave the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which allowed Affirmative action. Which required organizations to select people with more diverse backgrounds. It was not limited to black people, it helped any person that was considered a minority. The data has shown that white women have been one of the groups that happened to benefit greatly from affirmative action.Affirmative action has caused schools to make more of an attempt to recruit students who actually had the grades and merit but may not have gotten into a particular school like a Harvard because of their minority status. When the Court's decision was released, Justice Thomas took the unusual step of actually reading from his own concurring opinion. Something not typically done, but this has been a goal of his for decades. For a Justice who is known for saying nothing for years, it is not unlike him to take a victory lap.It's interesting to specifically question how Justices like Clarence Thomas really would want to go back to a colorblind Constitution when in actuality the Constitution was never colorblind.
Our consultants receive a lot of questions from clients about applying to MBA programs through The Consortium for Graduate Study in Management. I've heard myths that suggest that applying to one (or more) of the 22 Consortium schools through The Consortium's application is disadvantageous. But as the former director at two Consortium schools, I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth — provided you meet The Consortium's minimum qualifications. Though the requirements, participating schools, and corporate partners have changed over The Consortium's 57-year history, not only is the organization the best deal in town but it also gives its members an alumni network that extends throughout the 22 member schools. The Consortium history and mission Initially, The Consortium provided opportunities for young African-American men to have a fair chance at rising up the corporate ladder via the MBA. Later, The Consortium added Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and women to its mix. Membership came along with the fellowship. However, after the Supreme Court decided the Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger cases, The Consortium opened its doors to offer membership to selected applicants that further The Consortium's mission to promote the “inclusion in global business education and leadership . . . of African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Native Americans.” Members do not need to belong to one of these groups but must demonstrate the mission through community and professional action and impact. Thus, membership is no longer race based but rather mission driven. Applicants must also demonstrate the ability to succeed in a Consortium member school's MBA program. Consortium member benefits Like the undergraduate Common App, candidates can apply to up to six schools with only one application for a fraction of the cost that the candidate would incur by applying to each school separately. The Consortium membership grants the candidate access to the orientation and corporate partners. Many members receive internship offers before the start of school. To summarize the benefits: Applicants can use a single application for up to six schools at one low cost. Members gain access to a vast alumni network of 22 schools, including mentorship from among the approximately 9,000 Consortium alumni (formal or informal). Students gain access to corporate sponsors at orientation if selected as a member. If selected as a fellow, students receive full tuition and a stipend. READ: The Consortium Application: Tips for Your CGSM Essays >> Consortium member schools Consortium Member SchoolAverage GMAT Score (Class of 2024)Average Undergraduate GPA (Class of 2024) Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business7023.33 Columbia University, Columbia Business School7293.60 Cornell University, Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management7103.30 Dartmouth College, Tuck School of Business7263.52 Emory University, Goizueta Business School 7003.38 Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business6973.29 Indiana University-Bloomington, Kelley School of Business6853.38 New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business7333.62 Indiana University-Bloomington, Kelley School of Business6853.38 New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business7333.62 Rice University, Jones Graduate School of Business7023.43 Stanford University, Stanford Graduate School of Business7373.76 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Kenan-Flagler Business School 7063.43 The University of Texas at Austin, McCombs School of Business7063.48 University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business7293.64 University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA Anderson School of Management711NA* University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Michigan Ross School of Business7203.50 University of Rochester, Simon Business SchoolNA*NA*
On June 28th the Supreme Court ruled that race can no longer be considered as a factor in university admissions – a move that ends affirmative action as we know it. The decision devalues the diversity that defines our schools, workplaces, institutions, and communities. In this episode we're re-sharing a conversation between Epicenter's S. Mitra Kalita and Lee Bollinger that took place in April – in anticipation of this ruling. Throughout his career Bollinger has fought for the use of racial preferences to promote diversity – perhaps most notably with his role in Grutter v. Bollinger which was effectively overruled last week. A Legacy of Discrimination: The Essential Constitutionality of Affirmative Action:https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-legacy-of-discrimination-9780197685747?cc=us&lang=en& Lee Bollinger's Last-Ditch Case to Save Affirmative Action:https://time.com/charter/6270379/lee-bollingers-last-ditch-case-to-save-affirmative-action/ Epicenter-NYC membership: https://checkout.fundjournalism.org/memberform?org_id=epicenternyc&campaign=7018a000000yJx6AA See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—join for an in-depth comparative look at the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. We explore originalism's modern history and application by current members of the Roberts Court through the examples of recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Moore v. Harper (2023) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023) Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) National Constitution Center, "Second Amendment," Interactive Constitution Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Counterman v. Colorado (2023) John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick, "The Letter and the Spirit: A Unified Theory of Originalism," Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
*****Watch on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v2xdg7m-bret-and-heather-180th-darkhorse-podcast-livestream.html*****In this 180th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of the world through an evolutionary lens.We begin by discussing Bret's 2021 conversation with RFK Jr., which DarkHorse released this week—why the delay, and what revelations are therein? Then we discuss adjuvants in killed virus vaccines, and whether the intentional awakening of the immune system with adjuvants may contribute to allergies. And we discuss affirmative action, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision this week, which found in a 6 – 3 decision that using race as a factor in college admissions is unlawful. Reviewing some of the relevant legal history—the ratification of the 14th Amendment (1868), Plessy v Ferguson (1896), Brown v Board of Education (1954), University of California v Bakke (1978), and Grutter v Bollinger (2003)—we then discuss the opinions put forth by both the majority and dissent in this case.*****Our sponsors:Biom: NOBS is a different, superior kind of toothpaste. Try it, you'll never go back. Go to www.betterbiom.com/darkhorse to get 15% off your first month supply, until July 17, 2023.American Hartford Gold: Get up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order. Call 866-828-1117 or text “DARKHORSE” to 998899.Seed: Start a new healthy habit today with Seed probiotics. Visit https://seed.com/darkhorse, and use code darkhorse, to get 25% off your first month of Seed's DS-01® Daily Synbiotic.*****Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://a.co/d/dunx3atCheck out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.orgHeather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comFind more from us on Bret's website (https://bretweinstein.net) or Heather's website (http://heatherheying.com).Become a member of the DarkHorse LiveStreams, and get access to an additional Q&A livestream every month. Join at Heather's Patreon.Like this content? Subscribe to the channel, like this video, follow us on twitter (@BretWeinstein, @HeatherEHeying), and consider helping us out by contributing to either of our Patreons or Bret's Paypal.Looking for clips from #DarkHorseLivestreams? Check out our other channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAWCKUrmvK5F_ynBY_CMlIATheme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.*****Q&A Link: https://rumble.com/v2xdh70-your-questions-answered-bret-and-heather-180th-darkhorse-podcast-livestream.htmlMentioned in this episode:Supreme Court Decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard / UNC, decided June 29, 2023: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-decision-on-race-based-admissions/0a725aaabb459074/full.pdfUC Regents v Bakke: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regents_of_the_university_of_california_v_bakke_(1978)Grutter v Bollinger: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/grutter_v_bollinger_(2003)Support the show
Mukherjee is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Ph.D. student in American politics at Boston College, where her dissertation will focus on affirmative action. Razib asks Mukherjee to discuss the origin of affirmative action as it is practiced in the US today, starting with the Bakke decision in 1978, and then moving on to Grutter vs. Bollinger in 2003. She then moves to the details of the current cases, in particular Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, where the plaintiffs assert that Harvard University discriminates against Asian Americans in admissions, and engages in “racial balancing.” Razib and Mukherjee then explore the implications of the decision. Razib wonders about the implication for Harvard in particular, which is, to great extent, the finishing school of the American ruling class. Is Harvard's mission sustainable if 40% of the student body is Asian American? Mukherjee points out that these demographic trends, the rise of Asian Americans proportionally and the decline of historically represented groups, have been occurring despite affirmative action, for example, the decline of Jewish Americans in the Ivy League over the last generation. Additionally, both Razib and Mukherjee agree universities are certain to engage in both evasion and massive resistance to the ruling. Mukherjee argues that the current moves against standardized testing anticipate the program of evasion that we can expect in the future, where holistic admissions can allow the administrators' preferences to continue.
Judge Amul Thapar and former Judge Bernice Donald, both of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, discuss Thapar's new book, The People's Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Amul Thapar, The People's Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him Kelo v. New London (2005) Bernice Donald and Don Willett, "How to counter today's tribalism and build ‘a more perfect union'," The Washington Post Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Connick v. Thompson (2011) Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
To many Americans, Clarence Thomas makes no sense. For more than 30 years on the Court, he seems to have been on a mission — to take away rights that benefit Black people. As a young man, though, Thomas listened to records of Malcolm X speeches on a loop and strongly identified with the tenets of Black Nationalism. This week on More Perfect, we dig into his writings and lectures, talk to scholars and confidants, and explore his past, all in an attempt to answer: what does Clarence Thomas think Clarence Thomas is doing? Voices in the episode include: • Juan Williams — Senior Political Analyst at Fox News • Corey Robin — Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center • Angela Onwuachi-Willig — Dean of Boston University School of Law • Stephen F. Smith — Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School Learn more: • 1993: Graham v. Collins • 1994: Holder v. Hall • 1999: Chicago v. Morales • 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger • 2022: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College • 2022: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina • “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas” by Corey Robin • “Black Conservatives, Center Stage” by Juan Williams • “Just Another Brother on the SCT?: What Justice Clarence Thomas Teaches Us About the Influence of Racial Identity” by Angela Onwuachi-Willig • “Clarence X?: The Black Nationalist Behind Justice Thomas's Constitutionalism” by Stephen F. Smith • “My Grandfather's Son” by Justice Clarence Thomas Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.
In 2003, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick published a piece titled "The Diversity Lie" in which he discussed the recently decided Grutter v. Bollinger case. Twenty years later, the Supreme Court is on the precipice of deciding two important affirmative action cases in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. How has Professor Fitzpatrick's analysis held up against the test of time? How has the Supreme Court changed? What does the future hold for affirmative action? Can universities install a program of race-neutral affirmative action? Professors Brian Fitzpatrick and Randall Kennedy joined us to consider these questions and more as we reflect on the 20th anniversary of Grutter v. Bollinger.Featuring:--Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law School--Professor Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor, Harvard Law School--[Moderator] Ted Frank, Director, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
Happy Thursday and happy almost-May, loyal readers. I'm very happy to announce that this upcoming month, we'll be reading and discussing “Why Is Affirmative Action In Peril?” by Emily Bazelon. You may know that the Supreme Court will be ruling on two affirmative action cases in June. It's a big deal, given the current composition of the Court. Unless one of the conservative justices changes their mind, affirmative action might be dead.I deeply appreciated Ms. Bazelon's article because she offers context for the upcoming decisions. Instead of discussing the current cases in detail, Ms. Bazelon explains the history of affirmative action and tells the story of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the 1978 landmark decision that still serves as legal precedent.Today's issue is a three-parter. You get:* an introduction to this month's article* a podcast episode with me and fellow Article Clubber Melinda, where we share why we liked the article so much* an invitation to join this month's discussion on May 21Before that, though — a little bit about the author: Ms. Bazelon is a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine and is the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School. She is also the author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration, which won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in the current-interest category, and of the national best-seller Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy. She is a co-host of Slate's Political Gabfest, a weekly podcast. Ms. Bazelon has generously agreed to record a podcast interview.I hope you'll read the article and join our discussion on Sunday, May 21, at 2 pm PT. You can find out more information about the article and discussion below.Why Is Affirmative Action In Peril?The Supreme Court most likely will strike down affirmative action in June. This article explains why. According to journalist and law lecturer Emily Bazelon, it all comes down to understanding Regents v. Bakke, the 1978 decision that banned racial quotas but preserved affirmative action. In order to lure enough justices, lawyer Archibald Cox devised a strategy that centered the benefits of diversity, rather than the responsibility of reparations, as the reason affirmative action should continue. In other words: Let's forget that the 14th Amendment's purpose was to give equal rights to Black Americans. In the short term, the tactic worked. The Court sided with Mr. Cox 5-4, and affirmative action has endured despite many challenges, including in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. Texas (2016). But now with a much more conservative court, Ms. Bazelon suggests that affirmative action's “diversity” rationale may be similar to abortion's “privacy” rationale — way too flimsy to survive. (35 min)This month, I warmly invite you to read, annotate, and discuss “Why Is Affirmative Action in Peril?” as part of Article Club.If you're interested, this how things will go:* This week, we'll read the article* Next week, we'll annotate the article as a group* The following week, we'll hear from Ms. Bazelon in a podcast interview* On Sunday, May 21, 2:00 - 3:30 pm PT, we'll discuss the article on Zoom.If this will be your first time participating in Article Club, I'm 100% sure you'll find that you'll feel welcome. We're a kind, thoughtful reading community. Feel free to reach out with all of your questions.Thank you for reading this week's issue. Hope you liked it.
In June of this year, the Supreme Court is expected to roll back affirmative action. Among those taking a stand is Lee Bollinger. Bollinger is the current president of Columbia University and throughout his career he's fought for the use of racial preferences to promote diversity – perhaps most notably with his role in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that's at risk of being overturned. Today, Bollinger continues to push for race-based admissions with his new book “A Legacy of Discrimination: The Essential Constitutionality of Affirmative Action”, co-authored with Geoffrey Stone. In this episode Epicenter's S. Mitra Kalita talks to Bollinger about the book and what he sees as the biggest challenges ahead. A Legacy of Discrimination: The Essential Constitutionality of Affirmative Action:https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-legacy-of-discrimination-9780197685747?cc=us&lang=en& Lee Bollinger's Last-Ditch Case to Save Affirmative Action:https://time.com/charter/6270379/lee-bollingers-last-ditch-case-to-save-affirmative-action/ Epicenter-NYC membership: https://checkout.fundjournalism.org/memberform?org_id=epicenternyc&campaign=7018a000000yJx6AA Our intro music: http://karavikamusic.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court's conservative majority appears likely to strike down affirmative action, in a decision expected by this summer. The practice of considering race as a tool to counteract discrimination has been in place at many colleges and universities, and in some workplaces, since the civil-rights era. But a long-running legal campaign has threatened the practice for decades. David Remnick talks with two academics who have had a front-row seat in this fight. Ruth Simmons tells him, “For me, it's quite simply the question of what will become of us as a nation if we go into our separate enclaves without the opportunity to interact and to learn from each other.” Simmons was the Ivy League's first Black president, and more recently led Prairie View A. & M., in Texas. Lee Bollinger, while leading the University of Michigan, was the defendant in Grutter v. Bollinger, a landmark case twenty years ago in which the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action. The Court's current conservative majority is likely to overturn that precedent. Remnick also speaks with Femi Ogundele, the dean of undergraduate admissions at the University of California,Berkeley. Consideration of race in admissions at California state schools has been banned for nearly thirty years. “A lot of us are being kind of tapped on the shoulder and asked, ‘How are you doing what you're doing in this new reality?' ” he says. “I want to be very clear: I do not think there is any race-neutral alternative to creating diversity on a college campus,” Ogundele tells Remnick. “However, I do think we can do better than what we've done.”
In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court's conservative majority appears likely to strike down affirmative action, in a decision expected by this summer. The practice of considering race as a tool to counteract discrimination has been in place at many colleges and universities, and in some workplaces, since the civil-rights era. But a long-running legal campaign has threatened the practice for decades. David Remnick talks with two academics who have had a front-row seat in this fight. Ruth Simmons tells him, “For me, it's quite simply the question of what will become of us as a nation if we go into our separate enclaves without the opportunity to interact and to learn from each other.” Simmons was the Ivy League's first Black president, and more recently led Prairie View A. & M., in Texas. Lee Bollinger, while leading the University of Michigan, was the defendant in Grutter v. Bollinger, a landmark case twenty years ago in which the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action. The Court's current conservative majority is likely to overturn that precedent. Remnick also speaks with Femi Ogundele, the dean of undergraduate admissions at the University of California,Berkeley. Consideration of race in admissions at California state schools has been banned for nearly thirty years. “A lot of us are being kind of tapped on the shoulder and asked, ‘How are you doing what you're doing in this new reality?' ” he says. “I want to be very clear: I do not think there is any race-neutral alternative to creating diversity on a college campus,” Ogundele tells Remnick. “However, I do think we can do better than what we've done.”
Retchin Buckets permit the Gem-turners access to the P.G. Nine Line. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jason-scarabin/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jason-scarabin/support
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)
This week on SA Voices From the Field we interviewed Art Coleman about Race Based Admissions and where we are as a country when it comes to this ever-changing landscape. Art Coleman is a Managing Partner and co-founder of EducationCounsel LLC. He provides policy, strategic, and legal counseling services to national non-profit organizations, postsecondary institutions, school districts and state agencies throughout the country, where he addresses issues associated with: student access, diversity, inclusion, expression, and success; faculty diversity, inclusion and expression; and institutional quality, accountability and accreditation. Mr. Coleman previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, where, in the 1990s, he led the Department's development of the Department's Title VI policy on race-conscious financial aid, as well as OCR's first comprehensive Title IX sexual harassment policy guidance. Mr. Coleman was instrumental in the establishment of the College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative (ADC) in 2004, which he has helped lead since its inception. He was also a member of a thought leadership panel that helped inform the development of the January 2022 report, Toward a More Equitable Future for Postsecondary Access, published by NACAC and NASFAA. With a focus on issues of diversity and higher education admissions, he has also authored amicus briefs in: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) & Gratz v. Bollinger (2003); Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (I and II, 2013 and 2016); and in the 2022 SFFA v. Harvard/UNC cases. His advocacy work also includes the development of a successful federal amicus strategy and numerous federal appellate briefs on behalf of transgender students throughout the United States. Mr. Coleman is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education, where he teaches a masters level course on enrollment management law and policy. In 2022, he received the Rossier School's Adjunct Faculty Teaching Award, with the recognition that as “one of the nation's leading legal voices supporting access, diversity and inclusion,” he “does a masterful job at simplifying complex concepts and highlighting the complexities of seemingly simple concepts.” He has testified before the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He is a current Executive Committee member of the Board of Directors of the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA); and he is a past member of the Board of Directors of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network); the Lab School of Washington, which serves students with learning differences; and a past chairman of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. A former litigator, Mr. Coleman is a 1984 honors graduate of Duke University School of Law and a 1981 Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Virginia. Art Coleman shared a few links to examples of things he mentioned in the podcast: https://educationcounsel.com/?publication=engaging-campus-stakeholders-on-enrollment-issues-associated-with-student-diversity-a-communications-primer https://professionals.collegeboard.org/pdf/playbook-understanding-race-neutral-strategies.pdf Please subscribe to SA Voices from the Field on your favorite podcasting device and share the podcast with other student affairs colleagues!
In 1978, the Supreme Court allowed colleges to take race into account when crafting their incoming classes. Throughout the '80s and '90s, that's what many schools did: To get a diverse incoming class, universities used race as one factor among many. But some schools get a lot of applicants — tens of thousands of students applying for just a few thousand spots. How do you complete an individualized review of so many people? How do you make sure you consider race consistently across those tens of thousands? Is there a way to streamline the process while still complying with what Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. said the Equal Protection Clause requires? This is the second episode of UnCommon Law's three-part series about the Supreme Court's biggest affirmative action in education cases. In the first episode we looked at the 1978 case of Allan Bakke, an applicant to medical school who was denied admission. In this episode, we explore the 2003 cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. Guests include: Diego Bernal — Texas state representative and former president of the Latino Law Students Association at the University of Michigan Law School Michelle Adams — Professor at the University of Michigan Law School Greg Stohr — Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News Ted Shaw — Professor at the University of North Carolina, and former president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund Terence Pell — President of the Center for Individual Rights Marvin Krislov — President of Pace University, and former vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan Lee Bollinger — President of Columbia University, and former president of the University of Michigan Agnes Aleobua — Principal of Citizens Academy Glenville in Cleveland, and former student intervenor at the University of Michigan Christina Rodriguez — Professor at Yale Law School and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016). The case I'll be reading today is similar to a 2003 case I read a couple of weeks ago, Grutter v. Bollinger. Both involved white females who had applied for admission to a particular university and were subsequently denied. In this case, Abigail Fisher applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. In keeping with the Court's ruling in Grutter, the University of Texas considered many factors in the admissions process, including race. Fisher sued the University arguing that the University's consideration of race in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court disagreed and so did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, it held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard in its decision. The case was remanded, the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the admissions process indeed satisfied the strict scrutiny standard. Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here. Contact the Show. Music by Epidemic Sound.
The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (11/01/2022): 3:05pm- While appearing on CNN with Don Lemon, Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate John Fetterman claimed he has always been a strong supporter of fracking. However, a montage from RNC Research reveals he has opposed fracking in Pennsylvania until just recently. 3:15pm- According to a report from The Hill, U.S. and global diesel supplies are “seriously low”—with domestic diesel supplies dwindling to a mere 25-days-worth. With winter just around the corner, will diesel shortages only exacerbate inflation? 3:30pm- According to CNN Business, customers are beginning to turn to McDonald's as food prices rise. Despite McDonald's being forced to raise its prices 10% year-over-year, grocery store prices have increased 13%—making the fast-food restaurant a less expensive alternative. 3:45pm- Is it too early for Christmas music? 4:05pm- In a recent opinion editorial for The Atlantic, Brown University economist Emily Oster advocated on behalf of a “pandemic amnesty”—forgiving overly protective policies to combat COVID-19 that ultimately proved to be ineffective or negatively impactful, including remote learning and extreme masking policies. Should we just overlook these government encroachments on individual liberties? 4:40pm- While on Fox News, Virginia Lt. Governor Winsome Sears reacted to American Teacher Federation president Randi Weingarten's support for a “pandemic amnesty.” Sears explained, “[Weingarten] was one of the major proponents of closing our schools. And unfortunately, most of these Democrat governors listened to her and did exactly that.” 5:00pm- After a rain-induced postponement on Monday night, the Phillies will face off against the Houston Astros for Game 3 from Citizen Bank Park tonight! 5:10pm- While appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy suggested that Republicans who are campaigning on “crime relentlessly” are engaging in racism—stating they're adopting a strategy similar to “Nixon's Southern Strategy.” 5:20pm- During s press conference on Monday, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said her office will detain Paul Pelosi's alleged attacker David DePape without bail. 5:40pm- Dr. EJ Antoni—Research Fellow for Regional Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest editorial, “Like FDR's New Deal, Biden's Tax-and-Spend Policies Have Been an Economic Wrecking Ball.” Dr. Antoni debunks the myth being espoused by Democrats that the Biden Administration is making the economy stronger. Dr. Antoni writes: “The idea that Biden's agenda somehow saved a stalled economy is also fallacious. Biden inherited an economy growing at a $1.5 trillion annualized rate. In only a year, the administration's policies have caused the economy to shrink, contracting in the first six months of this year.” 6:10pm- While speaking with radio host John Catsimatidis, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stated that the federal government is primarily responsible for the U.S. Southern border being overwhelmed. 6:15pm- On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—which challenges the constitutionality of race-based admission practices established by Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts' questioning of Lawyer for Harvard University Seth Waxman seemed to indicate he believes race is the determinative factor for at least a small portion of college applicants—violating the Equal Protection Clause. Waxman countered by arguing that being a good oboe player could also be the determinative factor. Roberts explained, “we did not fight a Civil War about oboe players.” 6:40pm- Bikini baristas in Everett, Washington have won their court battle over the constitutionality of their skimpy uniforms. 6:55pm- Who Won Social Media? + Zeoli's Final Thought
The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:10pm- While speaking with radio host John Catsimatidis, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stated that the federal government is primarily responsible for the U.S. Southern border being overwhelmed. 6:15pm- On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—which challenges the constitutionality of race-based admission practices established by Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts' questioning of Lawyer for Harvard University Seth Waxman seemed to indicate he believes race is the determinative factor for at least a small portion of college applicants—violating the Equal Protection Clause. Waxman countered by arguing that being a good oboe player could also be the determinative factor. Roberts explained, “we did not fight a Civil War about oboe players.” 6:40pm- Bikini baristas in Everett, Washington have won their court battle over the constitutionality of their skimpy uniforms. 6:55pm- Who Won Social Media? + Zeoli's Final Thought
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—which challenges the constitutionality of race-based admission practices established by Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts' questioning of Lawyer for Harvard University Seth Waxman seemed to indicate he believes race is the determinative factor for at least a small portion of college applicants—violating the Equal Protection Clause. Waxman countered by arguing that being a good oboe player could also be the determinative factor. Roberts explained, “we did not fight a Civil War about oboe players.”
1. Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions? 2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003). Is Harvard violating Title VI by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1199.html
1. Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions? 2. Can a university reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-707.html
QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-university-of-north-carolina/
QUESTION PRESENTED:(1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
3:05pm- According to reporting from The Intercept's Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted to “influence tech platforms” via “a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use.” Klippenstein and Fang write that “disinformation” was not clearly defined in the leaks obtained—though, DHS was planning to target stories regarding the origins of COVID-19 and the Biden Administration's troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. 3:20pm- After voting in Delaware over the weekend, President Joe Biden addressed the home invasion and assault on the husband of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Biden linked election denialism to the violent attack that left Paul Pelosi with a fractured skull. Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton accused Republicans, and the Supreme Court, of conspiring to steal the 2024 Presidential Election. Will Biden remain consistent and condemn members of his own political party? 3:45pm- Should the federal government decide what is, and is not, “disinformation”—ultimately censoring stories that don't meet their subjective definition? 4:05pm- On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—which challenges the constitutionality of race-based admission practices established by Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park argued that “racially diverse schools” offer “educational benefits.” Justice Clarence Thomas seemingly dismissed the validity of that claim, stating: “I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too.” 4:15pm- In her most recent Wall Street Journal, Allysia Finely explained the hypocrisy of Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers advocating in favor of race-based college admissions while concurrently condemning school choice for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. 4:25pm- According to Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin, the man charged with assaulting Paul Pelosi was in the United States illegally. 4:35pm- While speaking over the weekend, President Joe Biden mistakenly claimed the United States consisted of 54 states. 4:40pm- On Monday, President Joe Biden condemned U.S. oil companies for “excess profits” and using those profits to return cash to shareholders instead of investing in methods to increase oil production. However, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board points out, “current profits follow steep losses in the pandemic” and “the progressive climate lobby and [Biden's] own Administration's climate policies have been urging” against new drilling and refining. While running for president, Biden vowed “no more drilling on federal lands…No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period” and that under his leadership the country would transition away from fossil fuels. 4:55pm- On Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd blamed online extremism for the assault on Paul Pelosi—seemingly suggesting that social media must do more to censor rhetoric and “apocalyptic language.” 5:05pm- Jennifer Sey—former Levi's brand President—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her new book, “Levi's Unbuttoned: The Woke Mob Took My Job But Gave Me My Voice.” During the pandemic Sey spoke out against pro-longed remote learning for K-12 students—expressing concern over the potential impact on education quality. Because the sentiment was unpopular in corporate America, Sey was forced to leave her job. In the new book, Sey writes that corporate America has embraced “woke capitalism” and has managed to exploit “social-justice politics” and transformed “it into social-justice consumerism.” “Levi's Unbuttoned: The Woke Mob Took My Job But Gave Me My Voice” releases on November 15th and is available for pre-order now. 5:40pm- According to NJ.com, residents of Westfield, New Jersey are unhappy over their depiction in Netflix's new mini-series “The Watcher.” 6:05pm- On Friday, Elon Musk officially purchased Twitter, Inc. for $44 billion. Almost instantaneously, traditional news outlets like the New York Times expressed concern over the purchase—alleging that Musk's pledge to respect free speech could result in hateful speech becoming widespread on Twitter's social media platform. 6:45pm- While speaking with Al Sharpton on MSNBC, New York Governor Kathy Hochul called Republicans “master manipulators”—claiming that violent crime is not a problem in Democrat-run states. 6:55pm- Who Won Social Media? + Zeoli's Final Thought
The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—which challenges the constitutionality of race-based admission practices established by Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park argued that “racially diverse schools” offer “educational benefits.” Justice Clarence Thomas seemingly dismissed the validity of that claim, stating: “I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too.” 4:15pm- In her most recent Wall Street Journal, Allysia Finely explained the hypocrisy of Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers advocating in favor of race-based college admissions while concurrently condemning school choice for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. 4:25pm- According to Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin, the man charged with assaulting Paul Pelosi was in the United States illegally. 4:35pm- While speaking over the weekend, President Joe Biden mistakenly claimed the United States consisted of 54 states. 4:40pm- On Monday, President Joe Biden condemned U.S. oil companies for “excess profits” and using those profits to return cash to shareholders instead of investing in methods to increase oil production. However, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board points out, “current profits follow steep losses in the pandemic” and “the progressive climate lobby and [Biden's] own Administration's climate policies have been urging” against new drilling and refining. While running for president, Biden vowed “no more drilling on federal lands…No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period” and that under his leadership the country would transition away from fossil fuels. 4:55pm- On Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd blamed online extremism for the assault on Paul Pelosi—seemingly suggesting that social media must do more to censor rhetoric and “apocalyptic language.”
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—which challenges the constitutionality of race-based admission practices established by Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park argued that “racially diverse schools” offer “educational benefits.” Justice Clarence Thomas seemingly dismissed the validity of that claim, stating: “I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too.”
A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger to hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger to hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Oct. 31 in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the latest cases to look at the legality of the limited use of race and ethnicity in college admissions. Pace University President Marvin Krislov and ACE General Counsel Peter McDonough join host Jon Fansmith for a preview of the hearing and what to watch for. Krislov was vice president and general counsel at the University of Michigan during the landmark 2003 admissions case Grutter v. Bollinger. Here are some of the links and references from this week's show: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., Petitioner v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., Petitioner v. University of North Carolina, et al. ACE Leads Nearly 40 Associations Urging the Supreme Court to Reaffirm the Legality and Value of Race-Conscious Admissions Using Race in College Admissions Protected by First Amendment, Groups Say The Washington Post (sub. req.) | Aug. 1, 2022 Over 6 in 10 Americans Favor Leaving Race Out of College Admissions, Post-Schar School Poll Finds The Washington Post (sub. req.) | Oct. 22, 2022 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Ban on Affirmative Action NPR | April 22, 2014 Fisher v. University of Texas (I and II)
This episode, we continue reading the 2003 opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, starting with Part III. Access this SCOTUS opinion in full here.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The question before the court was whether the consideration of race in the University of Michigan Law School's admissions process violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a five-to-four decision, the Court held that, because race was only one factor in an individualized review every applicant, it did not violate applicant's rights equal protection of the law. Access this Supreme Court Opinion on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound.
The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:05pm- John O. McGinnis—George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University—joins show to talk about his recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “Amy Coney Barrett's Modest Way to End Racial Preferences.” In the editorial, Professor McGinnis writes, “Grutter v. Bollinger… held the pursuit of diversity satisfies the strict scrutiny required to overcome the constitutional presumption against discrimination under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. But the justices can put a stop to racial preferences without reaching the constitutional question. Universities are required to abide by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is unambiguous about preferential admission on the basis of race.” 5:25pm- While appearing on Pod Save America with Dan Pfeiffer (former Senior Advisor in Obama's White House) and Jon Favreau (former Obama Speechwriter), former President Barack Obama described Senate candidate John Fetterman as authentic and praised him for being a “regular guy.” 5:30pm- During Friday's episode of Real Time, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson questioned the seriousness with which host Bill Maher has taken the pandemic since he had contracted COVID-19. 5:45pm-While appearing on MSNBC with Nicolle Wallace, former FBI agent Peter Strozk claimed the terror attacks in New York City on September 11th were “nothing compared to” the January 6th riots at the U.S. Capitol. 5:50pm- During Monday night's Georgia Gubernatorial debate, candidate Stacey Abrams claimed that she was not behind in the polls—however, a review of RealClearPolitics polling averages shows she is currently down by 7-points and has not led in any of the 28 most recent polls listed on their website.
John O. McGinnis—George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University—joins show to talk about his recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “Amy Coney Barrett's Modest Way to End Racial Preferences.” In the editorial, Professor McGinnis writes, “Grutter v. Bollinger… held the pursuit of diversity satisfies the strict scrutiny required to overcome the constitutional presumption against discrimination under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. But the justices can put a stop to racial preferences without reaching the constitutional question. Universities are required to abide by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is unambiguous about preferential admission on the basis of race.”
3:05pm- In a recent CNN piece, Andrew Kaczynski and Olivia Alafriz investigate U.S. Senate candidate John Fetterman's claim that he has “always supported” fracking in Pennsylvania. Their reporting reveals that his claim isn't accurate, writing: “Fetterman's message about the [fracking] industry has often depended on his audience” and in 2016 he advocated on behalf of a “moratorium in Pennsylvania on fracking.” 3:40pm- Samuel Gregg—Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy and Senior Research Faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research—joins the show to talk about his new book, “The Next American Economy: Nation, State, and Markets in an Uncertain World.” In the book, Greg vociferously defends capitalism and free markets in a world that is becoming increasingly accepting of socialism. 4:05pm- While speaking at an event hosted by the Democratic National Committee, President Joe Biden spoke about the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and the subsequent overturning of Roe v. Wade. Biden issued a stark warning to “the court and extreme Republicans” who seek to curb abortion access—and vowed to veto any anti-abortion legislation, should it arrive on his desk. 4:30pm- Mark Hemingway—Investigative Reporter at RealClearPolitics—joins the show to discuss his report, “Armed and Beltway-ish: More Federal Bureaucrats Than U.S. Marines Authorized to Pack Heat.” Recently, there have been several high-profile raids conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding seemingly minor regulatory infractions—but does the EPA have the authority to enforce its mandates via an armed raid? 4:50pm- Matt has never seen The Shawshank Redemption—and a long list of other beloved films. 5:05pm- John O. McGinnis—George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University—joins show to talk about his recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “Amy Coney Barrett's Modest Way to End Racial Preferences.” In the editorial, Professor McGinnis writes, “Grutter v. Bollinger… held the pursuit of diversity satisfies the strict scrutiny required to overcome the constitutional presumption against discrimination under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. But the justices can put a stop to racial preferences without reaching the constitutional question. Universities are required to abide by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is unambiguous about preferential admission on the basis of race.” 5:25pm- While appearing on Pod Save America with Dan Pfeiffer (former Senior Advisor in Obama's White House) and Jon Favreau (former Obama Speechwriter), former President Barack Obama described Senate candidate John Fetterman as authentic and praised him for being a “regular guy.” 5:30pm- During Friday's episode of Real Time, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson questioned the seriousness with which host Bill Maher has taken the pandemic since he had contracted COVID-19. 5:45pm-While appearing on MSNBC with Nicolle Wallace, former FBI agent Peter Strozk claimed the terror attacks in New York City on September 11th were “nothing compared to” the January 6th riots at the U.S. Capitol. 5:50pm- During Monday night's Georgia Gubernatorial debate, candidate Stacey Abrams claimed that she was not behind in the polls—however, a review of RealClearPolitics polling averages shows she is currently down by 7-points and has not led in any of the 28 most recent polls listed on their website. 6:05pm- A comprehensive review of Monday night's fiery debate between U.S. Senator from Utah Mike Lee and candidate Evan McMullin. 6:30pm- In his new editorial, Andrew C. McCarthy documents a whistleblower report which alleges the Chinese government paid the Biden family approximately $6 million for work done while Joe Biden served as Vice President. Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have called for the Department of Justice to investigate. 6:55pm- Who Won Social Media? + Zeoli's Final Thought
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #SCOTUS: Revisiting Grutter vs Bollinger (2003). Bill McGurn, WSJOpinon https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-invidious-racial-boxes-supreme-court-unc-affirmative-action-discrimination-oconnor-hispanic-asian-label-admissions-11661196819
Major universities are essentially huge businesses with massive infrastructure and numerous employees. They are large housing, food, athletic teams, and healthcare providers and are engaged in construction projects. All public and private roles within universities that receive federal funds are subject to government regulation with the same kinds of human resources problems as regular businesses. Legal issues besiege many universities; unlike corporations, which are used to a regulatory environment, universities are often not well equipped or staffed to address the myriad of legal issues they are facing now. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by American lawyer and academic administrator Michael K. Young, and partner at Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office, former Ambassador Crystal Nix-Hines. Together they discuss the legal issues surrounding higher education. Firstly, they discuss issues surrounding the changing landscape of universities' role in protecting their students and what those institutions are doing to protect themselves from legal cases and liabilities they are sent. They briefly touch on the cases against Penn State regarding sexual harassment. Does the changing landscape raise questions about the fine line between universities' duty to protect students on and off-campus incidents? This issue leads to John asking whether the political sphere plays a role in this. Former Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, changed the law, shifting away from the law created by the Obama administration around sexual harassment, with universities highlighting concerns that Secretary DeVos's standards made it more difficult for students to pursue claims against their alleged offenders. Together they touch on the issues surrounding higher education and sports teams. Athletics budgets have been reduced in recent years, paired with the question of equality of opportunity for all genders, which has made it difficult to pinpoint what equality looks like from a legal point of view. They turn to legal issues surrounding diversity in admissions, and standardized tests, with litigation on this going back a decade. They discuss why the mission of equality is so vital to modern universities and consider the Supreme Court's upcoming consideration of the lawsuits brought against the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. They debate whether the Supreme Court is likely to overturn or reaffirm its prior holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Will the Court decide that race cannot be considered a factor in admissions at all?Finally, John wraps up the podcast by asking about the types of issues being litigated in universities right now, with the majority of claims coming from the COVID-19 pandemic; 370 suits against 200 universities as a result of universities shifting to remote learning during the pandemic lockdowns.Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Alexander RossiProducer www.alexishyde.com
This week Russ and Clint talk with Dr. Baron Grutter. Baron is a general dentist who loves ortho and surgery and recently moved from MO to MI. We discuss how the move went for him and his family and his transition with a new office. We talk about his path to becoming a teacher as well as being a reluctant vegan. Clint this week decided to show up late as he was too busy "driving safely" to make it on time. If you want to learn more about digital design, orthodontics, and surgery from Baron, go to his website https://www.barongrutterdds.com/ to learn more
Gail Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law and a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. She joins the podcast to explain the connections between civil rights law and wokeness, how disparate impact criminalizes everything and leads to arbitrary government power, and the real-world consequences of these laws in corporate and university settings. She and Richard also discuss why Republicans are afraid to push back against civil rights law, the current Critical Race Theory controversy as a sign things are changing, and the importance of politicians being pressured by their base. Finally, Gail gives practical advice on what the most important components of an anti-woke agenda would look like, and how she'd like to see politicians treat these issues going forward. A full transcript of the conversation is available here. Gail Heriot, “The Roots of Wokeness: Title VII Damage Remedies as Potential Drivers of Attitudes Toward Identity Politics and Free Expression.” Gail Heriot, “Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal.” Gail Heriot, “The Department of Education's Obama-Era Initiative on Racial Disparities in School Discipline: Wrong For Students and Teachers, Wrong on the Law.” Richard Hanania, “Woke Institutions is Just Civil Rights Law.” Eugene Volokh, “Harassment Law and Free Speech Doctrine.” Myart v. Ill. Fair Employment Com. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Grutter v. Bollinger Gratz v. Bollinger Bostock v. Clayton County Sign up for CSPI's Substack newsletter: https://cspi.substack.com. Follow CSPI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CSPICenterOrg. Subscribe to our YouTube for video podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvs4ugq0xSvbvwArpFJG6gA. Learn more about CSPI: https://cspicenter.org.
Breaking news: The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two petitions pending before the Supreme Court which have gained national attention. Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. University of North Carolina both ask the Court to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, a nearly twenty-year-old […]
Breaking news: The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two petitions pending before the Supreme Court which have gained national attention. Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. University of North Carolina both ask the Court to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, a nearly twenty-year-old Supreme Court decision that allowed higher education institutions to consider race in admission decisions.Beyond challenging Grutter, the petitioners suing Harvard allege the college's admissions policies discriminate against Asian Americans in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In both the Harvard and UNC cases, lower courts have so far upheld the use of race in admissions. And after the Court called for the views of the Biden Administration, the United States filed a brief urging the Court not to get involved in the Harvard matter. Nevertheless, the case is proceeding to the Court in what is sure to be a significant battle on the topic of whether schools can consider a student's race when making admissions decisions.Join Will Trachman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education, for a litigation update discussing both cases. Will is currently General Counsel to Mountain States Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in both the Harvard and UNC petitions, urging the Court to grant certiorari.Featuring:--Will Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation
Charles Fain Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor of City Journal. Gabriel Rossman is a sociologist at UCLA. They join Richard to debate the relationship between woke institutions, civil rights law, and corporate culture. Each has written a recent article on this topic: Richard's “Woke Institutions is Just Civil Rights Law,” Charles' “The Geneology of Woke Capital,” and Gabriel's “Why Woke Organizations All Sound the Same.” They also discuss the history of affirmative action, successes and failures of the conservative legal movement, the connection between the civil rights policies of the Reagan administration and pop culture, status quo bias and negative polarization, and whether Americans still believe in meritocracy. Click here to watch the video version of the podcast on YouTube. Richard Hanania, “Woke Institutions is Just Civil Rights Law.” Charles Fain Lehman, “The Geneology of Woke Capital.” Gabriel Rossman, “Why Woke Organizations All Sound the Same.” John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” Frank Dobbin and John R. Sutton, "The Strength of a Weak State: The Rights Revolution and the Rise of Human Resources Management Divisions.” Wikipedia, “Grutter v. Bolinger.” Sign up for CSPI's Substack newsletter: https://cspi.substack.com. Follow CSPI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CSPICenterOrg. Subscribe to our YouTube for video podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvs4ugq0xSvbvwArpFJG6gA. Learn more about CSPI: https://cspicenter.org.
In Season 2, Episode 3 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which involved the question of whether a law school admissions policy that considered race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 5-4 majority opinion decided that the law school's admission policy complied with the Equal Protection Clause and was written by Justice O'Connor and joined in whole by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens, and Justice Breyer. The Court found that the law school's stated interest that it wanted to maintain diversity of its student body was a compelling government interest and that compelling interest withstood strict scrutiny by the Court. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurrence, joined by Justice Breyer, agreeing in the judgment and in the overall opinion, but elaborating on Justice O'Connor's point in reference to the timeline she expected universities and other institutions to maintain race as one of the considerations that go into the admissions process. Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Alejandro Cruz, and Amir Badat discuss Justice Ginsburg's impact on this case. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Alejandro Cruz Amir Badat
Nichola Raihani is a professor of evolution and behaviour at University College London. Her research focuses on the evolution of punishment and paranoia. In this conversation, we talk about the fieldwork she did for her PhD in the Kalahari desert, the evolution of punishment, proximate and ultimate explanations, cleaner fish, and Nichola's book The Social Instinct.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).Timestamps00:05: Surnames in science03:33: Behavioural ecology or psychology?13:37: What's it like to do fieldwork in the Kalahari desert, habituating birds to humans?20:41: The evolution of punishment29:51: Proximate and ultimate explanations in evolution46:05: What can we learn about human cooperation by studying cleaner fish?Podcast linksWebsite: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcastNichola's linksWebsite: http://www.seb-lab.org/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=u6_SEO4AAAAJTwitter: https://twitter.com/nicholaraihaniBen's linksWebsite: www.bjks.blog/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJ Twitter: https://twitter.com/bjks_tweets ReferencesAndreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The economic journal.Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Punishment in animal societies. Nature.Laland, K., Uller, T., Feldman, M., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., ... & Strassmann, J. E. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?. Nature News.Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W., & Uller, T. (2011). Cause and effect in biology revisited: is Mayr's proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science.Raihani, N.J. (2021). The Social Instinct. Penguin. Raihani, N. J., & Bshary, R. (2019). Punishment: one tool, many uses. Evolutionary Human Sciences. Raihani, N. J., Thornton, A., & Bshary, R. (2012). Punishment and cooperation in nature. Trends in ecology & evolution.Raihani, N. J., & McAuliffe, K. (2012). Human punishment is motivated by inequity aversion, not a desire for reciprocity. Biology letters.Raihani, N. J., McAuliffe, K., Brosnan, S. F., & Bshary, R. (2012). Are cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus, inequity averse?. Animal Behaviour.Raihani, N. J., Grutter, A. S., & Bshary, R. (2010). Punishers benefit from third-party punishment in fish. Science.Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie.
The tragedy of the commons is a frequent excuse for the often ill effects of efficient corporate industry. Curbing bad behavior can seem impossible - so we look to see how biology beats cheaters throughout the natural world. In the process, mother nature schools us in corporate accountability. Fortunately, cheaters don't seem to win in the long run! PODCAST INFO: Spotify: https://spoti.fi/39IDJBD RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss Full episodes playlist: https://bit.ly/3sP1WgR Clips playlist: https://bit.ly/2OieYEG Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/demystifysci - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/demystifyingscience - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/demystifysci/ We wrote and performed the music in this episode! Shilo Delay: https://soundcloud.com/laterisgone And everywhere else (Spotify, etc..) https://g.co/kgs/fc8WbA Citations: Anupama Khare et al. Cheater-resistance is not futile. Nature, Published online 30 September 2009 DOI: 10.1038/nature08472 Andersen, S. B., Marvig, R. L., Molin, S., Johansen, H. K., & Griffin, A. S. (2015). Long-term social dynamics drive loss of function in pathogenic bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(34), 10756-10761. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. doi:10.1126/science.7466396 Balasundaram, Nimalathasan, Social Responsibility of Business: A Case Study of Grameen Phone in Bangladesh (July 26, 2009). Analele of University Bucharest, Economic and Administrative Sciences, 227-237 (2009), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2117904 Bastiaans, E., Debets, A. & Aanen, D. Experimental evolution reveals that high relatedness protects multicellular cooperation from cheaters. Nat Commun 7, 11435 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11435 Bshary, R., & Grutter, A. S. (2005). Punishment and partner switching cause cooperative behaviour in a cleaning mutualism. Biology letters, 1(4), 396–399. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0344 Corporate Accountability: https://www.corporateaccountability.org/who-we-are/history/ Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science. 1968 Dec 13;162(3859):1243-8. PMID: 5699198. Homo economicus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus Strassmann, J. E., & Queller, D. C. (2011). Evolution of cooperation and control of cheating in a social microbe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), 10855–10862. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102451108 Wenseleers, T., Helanterä, H., Hart, A. and Ratnieks, F.L.W. (2004), Worker reproduction and policing in insect societies: an ESS analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 17: 1035-1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00751.x Velicer, G. J., Kroos, L., & Lenski, R. E. (2000). Developmental cheating in the social bacterium Myxococcus xanthus . Nature, 404(6778), 598–601. doi:10.1038/35007066 Velicer, G. J., Kroos, L., & Lenski, R. E. (1998). Loss of social behaviors by myxococcus xanthus during evolution in an unstructured habitat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(21), 12376–12380 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.21.12376 Consumers want more responsible businesses (stats from University of Virginia Darden School of Business faculty members James Rubin and Barie Carmichael): https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10487-corporate-social-accountability.html --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/demystifying-science/support
Since the Supreme Court first upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions in 1978, the clock has been counting down to a time when it would no longer be necessary. Instead of winding down their use of racial preferences, colleges have doubled down, to the point that one justice called it “affirmative action gone berserk.” From Bakke to Grutter to Fisher and beyond, has the time come for the Supreme Court to embrace a Constitution that “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”? Tune in to find out! Special thanks to guests Roger Clegg and John Yoo. Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegalSend comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This episode gives a brief overview of the 2003 cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, the first major Supreme Court cases about the use of race in university admissions since the 1968 Bakke case.
Marcel de Grutter, Executive Director OPEN-SCS, explains, what the OPEN-SCS does, what serialization is, he talks about developments driven forward by COVID-19, and the role OPC-UA plays as the base communication architecture. If you have a proposal for topics or are interested in appearing on the OPC Foundation podcast, maybe you want to join one the VDMA or other OPC UA Companion Specification working groups, or maybe you want to become a member of the OPC Foundation or otherwise, please mail the OPC Foundation at office@opcfoundation.org" https://opcfoundation.org/ If you, dear listener, want to learn more about VDMA and their OPC UA initiatives, you can visit their website at opcua.vdma.org
In this episode, Pitt ACLU Club discusses the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, and it's influence on Affirmative Action. Arguments for and against this are also further explored.
In episode #8, we get the incredible opportunity to hear Grace Grutter's story. Grace has been featured on NBC Today's Show and has actually been the catalyst to changing an important law for children's healthcare screenings in Missouri. Six years ago, Grace had a beautiful daughter, Nella. Just after she was born, Nella was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, which is fatal in children. Grace was told that Nella had weeks, maybe months left to live. Today, Nella is thriving. She is a miracle little girl. This holy conversation between Grace and myself is a conversation about short conversations with God, surrendering to His plan and finding joy in the midst of brutal pain. We talk about marriage and even how our pain points become part of our story. Grace has become an advocate for normalizing disability and shining a light on the dignity of all lives. This is such an important conversation, and I'm so glad you all get to join in the conversation!
In this episode we chat with Grace Grutter, whose daughter, Nella, was the inspiration behind Go Shout Love starting back in 2014. When doctors had set the expectation to be prepared to bury their daughter, a stranger connecting on Facebook provided a hope for Nella's life despite a diagnosis of SMA. Grace shares that story as well as learning to embrace joy, choosing to thrive, and discovering the power of a life well-loved.Visit www.goshout.love to meet this month's featured kiddo and take advantage of the special monthly subscription offer mentioned in the episode. Also, be sure to connect with Grace on Instagram (www.instagram.com/bowennellaandco) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/PrayersforNella/).
On the show today, I get caught up with my good friend Baron Grutter. Dr. Grutter is a practicing dentist near Kansas City, MO. He claims to be a very general...Continue Reading...
My guest today is the amazing Grace Grutter. Grace is a mom of three, including a daughter who has Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). While SMA does have a terminal diagnosis, Nella has already met and exceeded many milestones that doctors thought were never going to be possible for her. Grace has a tremendous understanding of what it means to live each day like it could be your last and her journey is nothing short of inspiring. Show Notes: Be sure to follow Grace on Instagram Today's show is sponsored by... If you're looking to eliminate toxic chemicals from your home, you need to closely examine the cleaners you are using. That's why I love Branch Basics. These amazing cleaning products based with water and their chemical-free concentrate, can clean everything from bathrooms to windows, and you can have peace of mind knowing they are safe for your family. My listeners can get 15% off a Starter Kit by going to www.branchbasics.com and enter EMP at checkout. And... Lola is a feminine care and hygeine company, helping women everywhere access to clean and safe tampons, pads, liners and wipes. They make their products with ingredients you can feel good about and they are offering my listeners 40% off when you sign up for subscription. Go to mylola.com and enter code EEP.
Dr. Baron Grutter is a the Co-owner of the Blue Sky Bio Academy and course director for the Blue Sky Bio Digital Orthodontics course. Dr. Grutter is also a 3D printing expert who has printed everything from ortho aligners to special reading glasses for his daughter. Not only is he a talented Dentist with a knack for 3D Printing, he is also a strong advocate for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) research and a huge supporter for SMA awareness. Listen as Dr. Grutter talks to Glenn and Vinh about topics ranging from money saving tips using 3D printers to his love for Double Chicken Chopped salads from Subway. Notes of Interest: *Dr. Baron Grutter is the owner and practicing Dentist at Happy Rock Dental *Dr. Grutter teaches courses ranging from surgical implant planning to Digital Ortho for Blue Sky Bio *He is the owner of two 3D printing machines – Form2 and Moonray 3D Printers *Dr. Baron Grutter's daughter Nella was born with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) *SMA is a genetic disease affecting the part of the nervous system that controls voluntary muscle movement. *Dr. Grutter is very active in the SMA community and a big supporter of Cure SMA organization *He has created a special Facebook page (Prayers for Nella) for those who want to follow Nella's progress *Dr. Baron Grutter will be teaching Digital Ortho in upcoming courses in LA and Chicago *Use promo code “NiftyThrifty” to get $200 off the Digital Ortho Course *Fake Arnold Schwarzenegger makes an appearance Links from the show: Happy Rock Dental – https://www.happyrockdental.com/ Dr. Baron Grutter Course Page – https://www.barongrutterdds.com/ Blue Sky Bio Academy – http://www.blueskybio.academy/public/main.cfm Prayer for Nella FB Page – https://www.facebook.com/PrayersforNella/ Cure SMA – http://www.curesma.org/ GWENDOLYN STRONG FOUNDATION – https://thegsf.org/ The Nifty Thrifty Dentist CE Event – http://niftybackup.getpracticegrowth.com/ce-event/ Legwork PRM – https://www.legworkprm.com/ Keating Dental Arts – https://keatingdentalarts.com/ Wallace Specialty Insurance – http://www.insurance4dds.com/ Online Dental Consulting – https://onlinedentalconsulting.com/ Acknowledgements “Sandstorm” is property of Darude No copyright infringement intended
Trying new things always has some risk involved but today’s guest, Dr. Baron Grutter, has pushed the limits and found that taking chances pays off more often than not. Listen in to get some great information and motivation from Baron as he explains how he got to where he is and discusses how he navigated his dentistry career and came out as a leader, teacher and innovator in the field. You can find show notes and more information by clicking this link: http://bit.ly/2CHHBQx
Jason and Alan are joined by the one and only Dr. Baron Grutter (sounds like "butter," please excuse our mispronunciation on the show) to talk about all things digital dentistry! If you're interested in implementing some of the newest and most innovative digital technologies in your office, this episode is for you! Baron walks us through the state of digital dentistry including his amazing workflow for implants and in office ortho aligners! Did you know that using free software and an investment of about $100 (including labor!) you can plan and execute your own orthodontic aligners? Get ready to take some notes...this one is amazing! Links from the show: Blue Sky Bio Plan software Meshmixer software BaronGrutterDDS.com Digital Dentistry 365 Facebook group Meshmixer Dental Users Facebook group Blue Sky Bio User Group Facebook group Dr. Grutter as a Juggalo Time is short for you to sign up for The Voices of Dentistry Summit 2018 (January 26-27th at the DoubleTree in Scottsdale, AZ)! Up to 16 hours of CE and a chance to meet your favorite dental podcasters for the ridiculous price of $897! The Dental Hacks Nation closed Facebook group has over 20,000 members! Head over there to interact with other Dental Hacks listeners, guests and Brain Trust members every day, all day! Remember...if you don't have any thing "dental" on your FB page, we might decline your membership request. So IM the group or email us at info@dentalhacks.com. Our friends at Zirc are back! Go check out their amazing Crystal HD mirror at www.dentalhacks.com/mirrors. You'll never use another mirror once you switch! Dr. Jason Smithson is teaching Day to Day Composite Resins at Cosmedent's Center for Esthetic Excellence in Chicago on March 22-24th! This is where it all began for Jason and Alan...do not miss this course! Check it out at www.dentalhacks.com/Smithson Quicker and more predictable posterior composites...it's the holy grail of everyday dentistry. The secret...the Bioclear Method! Go check out the posterior composite system from Bioclear at www.dentalhacks.com/posterior. Go Hack Yourself: Jason: Ozark on Netflix Al: Lexicon Valley podcast If you have any questions or comments for us please drop us an email at info@dentalhacks.com or find us (and like us!) at www.facebook.com/dentalhacks. Or, if you prefer...give us a call at (866) 223-5257 and leave us a message. You might be played in the show! If you like us, why not leave us a review on iTunes? It helps us get found by like minded people and might even help us get into "What's Hot" in the iTunes store! Go to this link and let the world know about the Dental Hacks! Finally, if you aren't an Apple person, consider reviewing us on Stitcher at: stitcher.com/podcast/the-dentalhacks-podcast! If you would like to support the podcast you can check out our Patreon page! Although the show will always remain free to download, our Patreon supporters get access to special bonus content including (at least) one extra podcast episode every months! Also be sure to check out the Dental Hacks swag store where you can find t-shirts, stickers coffee mugs and all sorts of other things that let the world know you're a part of the Hacks Nation!
Dr. Domingue and Dr. Moody interview Dr. Baron Grutter from Gladstone, MO. Dr. Grutter discusses 3D printers, creating guides and a case with Dr. Domingue on accelerated orthodontic movement by creating a guided surgery kit. To learn more about Dr. Grutter and his practice, visit www.happyrockdental.com. For information about courses and to see his free training videos, visit www.BaronGrutterDDS.com, or his YouTube channel at www.YouTube.com/user/BGrutterDDS To learn more about Dr. Grutter’s hobby, visit https://onewheel.com The views expressed in this episode are those of the individual participants and not necessarily that of the AAID. EVERGREEN TEXT: Founded in 1951, the Academy is the first professional organization in the world dedicated to implant dentistry. Its membership includes general dentists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, periodontists, prosthodontists and others interested in the field of implant dentistry. As a membership organization, we currently represent over 5,500 dentists worldwide. Want to be a guest on the podcast? Email us at podcast@aaid.com. Subscribe to us on iTunes, Stitcher Radio, Podcasts, SoundCloud and, of course, check out our website at www.aaidpodcast.com.
On this episode, we revisit Edward Blum, a self-described “legal entrepreneur” and former stockbroker who has become something of a Supreme Court matchmaker: he takes an issue, finds the perfect plaintiff, matches them with lawyers, and helps the case work its way to the highest court in the land. His target: laws that differentiate between people based on race — including ones that empower minorities. 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. The key voices: Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman for the 18th district of Texas The key cases: 1977: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger 2013: Shelby County v. Holder 2013: Fisher v. University of Texas (1) 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas (2) The key links: More Perfect Season 1: The Imperfect Plaintiffs Blum's websites seeking plaintiffs for cases he is building against Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Wisconsin Students for Fair Admissions' complaint; and Harvard's response. “To become leaders in our diverse society, students must have the ability to work with people from different backgrounds, life experiences and perspectives. Many colleges across America – including Harvard College – receive applications from far more highly qualified individuals each year than they can possibly admit. When choosing among academically qualified applicants, colleges must continue to have the freedom and flexibility to consider each person’s unique backgrounds and life experiences, consistent with the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to provide the rigorous, enriching, and diverse campus environments that expand the horizons of all students. In doing so, American higher education institutions can continue to give every undergraduate exposure to peers with a deep and wide variety of academic interests, viewpoints, and talents in order to better challenge their own assumptions and develop the skills they need to succeed, and to lead, in an ever more diverse workforce and an increasingly interconnected world.” - Robert Iuliano, senior vice president and general counsel of Harvard University Special thanks to Guy Charles, Katherine Wells, and Matt Frassica. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.
Episode Highlights: -Owning multiple practices -Key CE courses everyone should take -How to break into digital dentistry -The best 3d printers on the market -The top dental facebook groups -How to stay healthy and happy as a dentist todayContinue Reading001: Practicing With 1,000 Other People with Dr. Baron Grutter
Major American corporations are pressuring their outside law firms to meet diversity goals both firm-wide and in the legal teams assigned to the company’s work. For example, Facebook announced this year that the law firm teams working on its matters must consist of at least 33 percent women and minorities. This pressure has resulted in the widespread use of race and gender preferences in hiring, promotion, and work assignment decisions by America’s premier law firms. Are these preferences legal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981? Are they good policy? Curt Levey, a constitutional law attorney who has worked on several affirmative action cases – including the University of Michigan cases (Grutter and Gratz) – joined us to analyze the arguments on both sides of these questions. -- Featuring: Curt Levey, President, The Committee for Justice and Legal Affairs Fellow, FreedomWorks
T-Bone winds up his series on Millennial dentists with today’s interview of Dr. Baron Grutter. Dr. Grutter has fully embraced Continuing Education and dental technology, which has resulted in his practice growing by over 70%. On this episode, Dr. Grutter explains the role of technology in expanding his practice, and talks about why he was willing to invest in expensive technology so early in his career. Listen to discover how dental technology empowers you to add services and advance your life and career.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tbonespeaks/message
After a delicious meal at Chipotle Peyman and I sat down and got to talk with Dr. Baron Grutter who is a Michigan native currently practicing in the Midwest. I loved this episode because it really answers so many of the questions new dentists have and we get to see how things unfolded for him looking back in hindsight on everything. Questions such as dealing with debt, buying equipment for practice, buying a second office, hiring associates are just some of the stuff we got into. And if that's not enough we also hit on all the exciting things Baron has his hands in currently on the technology side. Baron is a part of the Blue Sky Bio team an open source software for all things implants, 3D printing, and now aligners for ortho. He currently teaches a number of courses on these subjects. For more info check his website out at www.BSPOrthoTraining.com to find out more about when courses are available! Thanks again for listening and keep spreading the word!
This week's case is Fisher v. University of Texas, where a rejected applicant seeks to declare the school's affirmative action program a violation of the Constitution and Equal Protection. In addition to the Supreme Court precedent that brought us here, Brett and Nazim also discuss their own experiences applying for law school and how they ended up at the same place at the same time.
Affirmative action, in various forms, has been around for decades. In a number of famous cases, from Bakke in 1978 to Grutter in 2003, the Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education admissions programs, within limits. But does the Supreme Court's approval of affirmative action mean that a state must keep such programs in place? That was the issue in the 2014 Supreme Court case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. One of Stewart's students at the University of Tennessee has recently written about the Schuette case. The student's name is Russ Swafford, and his "case note" is so good that it will soon be published in the Tennessee Law Review. Please join us for a fascinating discussion about this controversial area of constitutional law.
No, not that President. Another president, and one who knows a great deal about the subject: Jonathan R. Alger, the new President of James Madison University. In his old job as Assistant General Counsel at the University of Michigan, President Alger oversaw two of the most important affirmative action cases in U.S. history. Those two cases - Grutter and Gratz - emphasized the importance of diversity in higher education. And those two cases might get reversed this term. Is educational diversity a constitutional basis for affirmative action programs in college and university admissions? Join us for the inside story of the Grutter and Gratz cases, and what might happen to them when the the Supreme Court decides Fisher v. the University of Texas.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear "Fisher v. University of Texas." This case could bring about the end of college admissions policies based on race. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, along with Huffington Post Supreme Court Correspondent Mike Sacks and UCLA School of Law Professor Richard Sander, examine the possible fate of affirmative action in college admissions.
Mike & Jay open the show with a discussion of the response to the attack on Paul Pelosi, which sent the 82-year-old spouse of the Speaker of the House to the hospital with a fractured skull. Next is a look at Supreme Court oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard. It seems likely that the Court will find racial preferences in college admissions unconstitutional, overturning its 2003 precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger. Then the Guys turn to Chief Justice Roberts order preventing the House Ways and Means Committee from seeing Donald Trump's tax returns. They consider the right of the committee to obtain the records, separation of powers issues, and how much this is likely to matter in the end.Following that it's the tumultuous takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk. Is Twitter being unfairly targeted by “woke” activists as Musk seems to think? Will Donald Trump soon be back on the platform and, if so, how much will this matter to his soon to be announced 2024 presidential campaign?The episode closes with final thoughts on the 2022 midterm elections – Mike is preparing for what he sees as the almost inevitable, followed by some grim years for Democrats.The Politics Guys on Facebook | TwitterListener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. You can support us or change your level of support at patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support. On Venmo, we're @PoliticsGuys.Interested in starting your own podcast? Check out RedCircle, home of The Politics Guys.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2020.04.23.057513v1?rss=1 Authors: Ollivier, M., Beudez, J., Linck, N., Grutter, T., Compan, V., Rassendren, F. Abstract: Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is an extracellular signaling molecule involved in numerous physiological and pathological processes. Yet, in situ characterization of the spatiotemporal dynamic of extracellular ATP is still challenging due to the lack of sensor with appropriate specificity, sensitivity and kinetics. Here we report the development of biosensors based on the fusion of cation permeable ATP receptors (P2X) to genetically encoded calcium sensors (GECI). By combining the features of P2X receptors with the high signal to noise ratio of GECIs, we generated ultrasensitive green and red fluorescent sniffers that detect nanomolar ATP concentrations in situ and also enable the tracking of P2X receptor activity. We provide the proof of concept that these sensors can dynamically track ATP release evoked by neuronal depolarization or by extracellular hypotonicity. Targeting these P2X-based biosensors to diverse cell types should advance our knowledge of extracellular ATP dynamics in vivo. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
