What’s next for diversity efforts as SCOTUS strikes down affirmative action?

KCRW's Left, Right & Center

KCRW

352865, News

4.2 • 4.8K Ratings

🗓️ 30 June 2023

⏱️ 51 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The Supreme Court ruled against long-standing affirmative action practices for public and private universities. Is there any chance this could improve how colleges try to increase diversity on campuses, or will it set back the clock in the push for racial equity?

After last week’s short-lived mutiny, plenty of questions remain about the strength of Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia. What can we take away from how he’s handled the aftermath? How has it impacted support for Putin at home and abroad?

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Florida Governor Ron Desantis have used state policies to bring national attention to their ideological battle. Are the dueling governors just trying to boost their national profiles, or do they accurately represent the direction that their respective parties are headed in?

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Welcome to Left, Right, and Center, the show where we take on all the issues with civilized
0:07.0	yet provocative perspectives from across the political spectrum.
0:10.7	I'm Elise Hugh, host of the TED Talks Daily Podcast and a host at large at NPR, filling
0:15.4	in this week for David Green.
0:17.6	This week, the Supreme Court struck down the use of affirmative action in college admissions.
0:22.4	In a widely anticipated decision, the Court's conservative majority interpreted the equal
0:27.1	protection clause of the 14th Amendment in a way that restricts considering race when
0:32.5	weighing university candidates.
0:34.6	A little context here.
0:35.6	Today's ruling limits the interpretation of a precedent set in 1978 in a case called
0:41.5	Regents of the University of California versus Bocchi.
0:45.2	That case allowed for considering race and admissions decisions as one of the many factors
0:50.1	because diversity serves a compelling state interest.
0:54.2	Both defendants in this year's case Harvard and the University of North Carolina defended
0:58.8	their admissions practices on these grounds.
1:02.0	While the Court didn't dismiss the value of diversity, it ruled that Harvard and UNC's
1:06.6	use of race and admissions decisions was not as narrowly tailored as it should be.
1:12.9	Writing for the majority, Justice Roberts articulates this view, quote, the Court permitted
1:17.6	race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions.
1:22.6	D-programs must comply with strict scrutiny.
1:25.6	They may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and at some point they must end.
1:32.3	It remains unclear exactly how colleges will need to adapt their admissions practices to
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from KCRW, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of KCRW and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.