THANK YOU DAVID SPUNT ON THAT,
TO KATIE TAKOWSKI, THE FORMER
FEDERAL PROSECUTOR.
KATIE WHAT DO YOU THINK ON THIS?
>> WELL I THINK YOU’RE RIGHT
THERE IS A LOT OF SKEPTICISM
FROM THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES
ON THE COURT AND REALLY THE LAW
STRONGLY DISFAVORS
CLASSIFICATION ON THE BASIS OF
RACE SO IN ORDER TO UPHOLD THESE
ADMISSIONS PROCESSES THAT
CONSIDER RACE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE
FACTOR, THESE UNIVERSITIES
ACCORDING TO THE COURT NEED TO
SHOW THE COMPELLING INTEREST,
AND I THINK THAT’S WHERE THE
STICKING POINT IS HERE,
BECAUSE THE COMPELLING INTEREST
OF CONSIDERING RACE CANNOT JUST
BE RACIAL DIVERSITY ITSELF BUT
REALLY AN OVERALL ARCHING
DIVERSITY ON THE CAMPUS, WHICH
IS LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE, SO I
THINK THE BALANCE HERE IS HOW DO
YOU ACHIEVE OVERALL DIVERSITY
WITHOUT EXPLICITLY CONSIDERING
RACE, WHICH IS WHAT THE
PETITIONERS ARE ASKING FOR
SO I THINK WE ARE LIKELY TO
SEE THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
POLICIES LARGELY OVERHAULED BUT
AGAIN, THE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN
VERY VERY INTERESTING TO LISTEN
TO.
NEIL: IF THE SUPREME COURT,
CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, SAYS
ALL RIGHT, THERE SHOULDN’T BE A
SORT OF INHERENT BUILT-IN
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BIAS HERE,
WOULDN’T THAT CHANGE THE MAKEUP
OF HIRINGS AND EVEN
SELECTIONS BEYOND SCHOOLS, TO
OFFICES?
ISN’T THAT THE FEAR THAT THIS
EXTENDS WAY BEYOND?
>> WELL, CERTAINLY THAT IS THE
FEAR THAT IF YOUR
UNIVERSITIES ARE NOT DIVERSE
THEN PEOPLE POSITIONS IN SOCIETY
WILL LIKELY NOT BE DIVERSE BUT
THERE’S ACTUALLY COUNTER
ARGUMENTS IN A LOT OF RESEARCH
THAT SHOWS NON-RACIAL FACTORS IN
MAKING THESE ADMISSIONS
DECISIONS OFTEN RESULT IN MORE
DIVERSITY IN SOME WAYS WHEN
YOU’RE LOOKING AT SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS, FOR INSTANCE AND CERTAIN
UPBRINGINGS AND BACKGROUNDS THAT
ARE NOT RACE-SPECIFIC THAT YOU
CAN IN FACT AND DO IN FACT IN
MANY SETTINGS ACHIEVE A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DIVERSITY
WITHOUT EXPLICITLY DEDUCTING
POINTS OR ADDING POINTS ON THE
BASIS SOLELY OF SOMEONE’S
RACE.
NEIL: NOW, A LOT OF THESE WILL
GO INTO MATH ELEMENT AND A
CERTAIN PERCENTAGE THAT THE
UNIVERSITY COLLEGES WILL
HAVE FOR , YOU KNOW, ANY ETHNIC
GROUP EVEN DOWN TO GENDER, SO
THIS IS A SET PERCENTAGE.
IF THE COURT WERE TO TAKE THIS
ON TO ITS EXTREME WOULD ALL
OF THAT END, OR IS IT NOT THAT
BLACK AND WHITE?
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT LIKELY
CHANGES HERE?
AGAIN THIS IS A 6-3 CONSERVATIVE
COURT.
>> I THINK THAT I WOULD EXPECT
THAT THAT RACE BE EXPLICITLY
PROHIBITED FROM CONSIDERATION,
AS AN INDEPENDENT FACTOR IN ANY
ADMISSIONS DECISIONS AND OF
COURSE THERE ARE SOMEWHAT KIND
OF SIMILAR TOPICS LIKE A
FAMILIES BACKGROUND, IF PEOPLE
CAME FROM SLAVE BACKGROUND AND
WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE THAT
CONSIDERED, THINGS OF THIS SORT
ARE STILL ON THE TABLE.
I THINK IN TERMS OF THE
INTERPRETATION OF THESE THAT
AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THESE
TWO UNIVERSITIES EXPLICITLY AND
OPENLY ADMIT THEY CONSIDER JUST
SOMEONE’S RACE WITHOUT THE
EXPERIENCES THAT MAY OR MAY
NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AS A
DETERMINING FACTOR AND IN SOME
CASES IT’S EXTREMELY DETERMINING
TO THE EXCLUSION AS WE’VE SEEN
OTHER RACIAL MINORITY GROUPS IN
MANY CASES.
NEIL: YOU KNOW, IF THEY RULE ON
THIS TO THE DEGREE OF SOME
SUSPECT THEY MIGHT, KATIE, I
MEAN, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AFRAID
TO TAKE ON HISTORIC AND
CONTROVERSIAL CASES, AND VERY
DIVISIVE CASES.
ALMOST BY DESIGN.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT’S
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, AND IN THIS
CASE I DON’T EVEN KNOW THAT
THIS IS SO EXTRAORDINARY.
THE CASES IN THE PAST WHERE THE
SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT
SOME CONSIDERATION OF RACE IS A
FACTOR, HAVE ALWAYS HAD A TIME
LIMIT.
THERE WAS ALWAYS A DISCUSSION
THAT THIS WOULDN’T BE
INDETERMINATE AND AT SOME POINT
IT WOULDN’T BE NECESSARY IN
THESE DECISIONS BUT AT THIS
POINT I THINK THE SUPREME
COURT IS REALLY ASKING THE
UNIVERSITIES TO SHOW
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE COMPELLING
INTEREST IS, HOW THIS BENEFITS
EDUCATION, AND THE OVERALL
PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSITIES TO
CONSIDER THE FACTOR OF RACE AND
I DON’T KNOW THEY HAVE GOTTEN
THE CLEARANCE OR JUSTICE THOMAS
KEPT ASKING SPECIFICALLY THAT
QUESTION ABOUT THE EDUCATIONAL
BENEFITS BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE
A COMPELLING INTEREST IN ORDER
TO CLASSIFY PEOPLE ON THE BASIS
OF RACE AND I THINK THAT’S THE
STICKING POINT FOR MANY
CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES IS WHAT
EXACTLY ARE WE ACHIEVING NOT
JUST OVERALL DIVERSITY BUT JUST
EXPLICIT RACIAL DIVERSITY, WHICH
IN THE PAST HAS BEEN NOT ABLE TO
BE CONSIDERED LEGALLY AND SO I’M
NOT SURE THEY HAVE REACHED THAT
HIGH HURDLE OF SHOWING THE
COMPELLING INTEREST HERE.
NEIL: GOT IT.
>> I THINK THE COURT BE FINE TO
OVERTURN THAT.
NEIL: INTERESTING.
WE’LL WATCH VERY VERY CLOSELY