Speaker 1: From Bloomberg News and I Heart Radio. It's the Big Take.
Speaker 1: I'm West Gasova. Each weekday we dig into one important
Speaker 1: story and today, what will happen if the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court puts an end to affirmative action in college admissions.
Speaker 1: For decades, colleges and universities across the US have promoted
Speaker 1: the value of having a diverse student body on campus.
Speaker 1: One way they've worked towards this the list of things
Speaker 1: the admissions officers consider when they pick up an application,
Speaker 1: like test scorers, special skills, sports, even where a student
Speaker 1: grew up, includes the applicants race or ethnicity. The result
Speaker 1: more non white students get into the nation's top schools.
Speaker 1: But this term, the U. S. Supreme Court will decide
Speaker 1: on two challenges to this way doing things, And if
Speaker 1: the court's new conservative majority strikes down affirmative action in
Speaker 1: college admissions, it will have enormous repercussions for who gets
Speaker 1: into the nation's top schools and who doesn't. To explain
Speaker 1: all this, Bloomberg senior reporter Greg Store joins me. Now, Greg,
Speaker 1: you've been covering with the Supreme Court for a long time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: something like since n whatever that is, So you have
Speaker 1: seen the Supreme Court take up affirmative action, and before
Speaker 1: can you just kind of spell out for us exactly
Speaker 1: what are the two cases that the Court is going
Speaker 1: to hear now and why the results will have such
Speaker 1: a huge effect. Let me start in the late nineteen
Speaker 1: seventies when the Supreme Court said for the first time
Speaker 1: that universities could consider race as a means of ensuring
Speaker 1: diversity in their classes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that precedent
Speaker 1: in two thousand three, and now these two cases before
Speaker 1: the Court, involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina,
Speaker 1: potentially could overturn those precedents and say universities cannot consider
Speaker 1: race as an admissions factor. How do we get to
Speaker 1: the current system of using diversity and admissions. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a really good question. The year and that was when
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decided this case called Baki that had
Speaker 1: to do with the University of California and the medical school.
Speaker 1: There the importance of including young men and women at
Speaker 1: both undergraduate colleges and the medical schools so that they
Speaker 1: other younger boys and girls. May I see, Yes, it
Speaker 1: is possible for a black to go to University of
Speaker 1: Minnesota or to go to Harvard or Yale. That was
Speaker 1: Attorney Archibald Cox, who represented the University of California, which
Speaker 1: was arguing in favor of affirmative action, and Alan Back,
Speaker 1: who brought the case, was a thirty five year old
Speaker 1: white man who would be rejected twice from the medical school,
Speaker 1: and you see Davis. In that case. It was a
Speaker 1: splintered court, and a majority of the court rejected the
Speaker 1: idea that schools could consider race as a means of
Speaker 1: addressing widespread societal discrimination, the vestiges of slavery and Jim
Speaker 1: Crow and all that. The Justice who was in the
Speaker 1: middle of this case, Louis Powell, said, Ah, but what
Speaker 1: they can do is, because universities have a First Amendment
Speaker 1: interest in having a rich, diverse academic environment, they can
Speaker 1: consider race for this purpose of diversity. Here's Archibald Cox again.
Speaker 1: This is essential if we are ever going to give
Speaker 1: true equality in a factual sense to people, because the
Speaker 1: existence or non existence of opportunities, surely we all know
Speaker 1: shaped people's aspirations when they're very young. So that ended
Speaker 1: up being the rationale that for the past almost fifty
Speaker 1: years universities have used and pointed to. So when it
Speaker 1: comes to schools, what is affirmative action? How does it
Speaker 1: actually work? So most selective universities, not as many as
Speaker 1: there used to be, but most selected universities say, we
Speaker 1: want to ensure a certain amount of racial diversity, but
Speaker 1: also other types of diversity on campus, and in order
Speaker 1: to get there, with some applicants, we are going to
Speaker 1: consider their race as one of many factors in the
Speaker 1: admissions process. So both Harvard and North Carolina do what
Speaker 1: they call holistic review, and in many cases, one thing
Speaker 1: they consider is this person is from an underrepresented minority
Speaker 1: group and that will add something to our class. You
Speaker 1: mentioned holistic review exactly what is a holistic review of
Speaker 1: a student's application. Holistic review is the notion that the
Speaker 1: university looks at the entire file. It doesn't assign points
Speaker 1: because you had a three point seven g p A
Speaker 1: or because you come from a rural area. It's more
Speaker 1: of a kind of we're going to consider all those things,
Speaker 1: but we're not going to have rigid criteria for how
Speaker 1: we determine whether or not you're admitted. And the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court made that distinction back in two thousand and three. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that was in Gruder versus Bolinger. We've got a
Speaker 1: clip here of the arguments between Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Speaker 1: and Attorney Kirk Colbo, who represented Barbara Gruder. She was
Speaker 1: a white woman who was rejected by the University of
Speaker 1: Michigan Law School. Race is impermissible because of the Constitutional
Speaker 1: command of equality. The university is certainly free to make
Speaker 1: many different kinds of choices in selecting students, and to
Speaker 1: look for all kinds of different diversity, experiential diversity, perspective diversity,
Speaker 1: without regard to race. But race, because your honor of
Speaker 1: the constitutional command of equality must be beyond the bounds.
Speaker 1: You say, that's not it can't be a factor at all.
Speaker 1: Is that it is that your position that it cannot
Speaker 1: be one of many factors? Are you your honor? Is it?
Speaker 1: Race itself should not be a factor. If you have
Speaker 1: holistic review where you consider race as just one quality
Speaker 1: in a person's application, that's okay. What you can't do,
Speaker 1: the court said, is automatically give every black applicant ten
Speaker 1: points just because they're black. And so it's not strictly
Speaker 1: that there are a certain number of slots set aside
Speaker 1: in each class for people in different underrepresented minority groups.
Speaker 1: It's part of a broader consideration to try to get
Speaker 1: a wider mixture of people with different perspectives in life experience. Right,
Speaker 1: So we're not talking about a quota. That's what a
Speaker 1: lot of people think of a affirmative action is a
Speaker 1: quota system. Yeah, and the Supreme Court has said you
Speaker 1: cannot do that. Now, what exactly a quota is? You know,
Speaker 1: we could have a debate over that. Back in two
Speaker 1: thousand three, University of Michigan said, what we're trying to
Speaker 1: achieve here in the Supreme Court said it was okay,
Speaker 1: is what we call a critical mass. It's not like
Speaker 1: a Harden and Fast number. But we want to make
Speaker 1: sure we have enough students of minority groups that they
Speaker 1: can feel like individuals and not representatives of their race.
Speaker 1: And everybody can see that members of one race don't
Speaker 1: all think alike. And so now what we have are
Speaker 1: two cases, one involving Harvard University, one the University of
Speaker 1: North Carolina. And they're being brought by this group called
Speaker 1: Students for Fair Admissions. Exactly what are they challenging here
Speaker 1: and and what's this group? So it's a group that
Speaker 1: is basically run by one guy. His name is Edward Blum.
Speaker 1: He's a longtime opponent of racial preferences. They represent students.
Speaker 1: There are in these cases no particular students that are
Speaker 1: challenging the admissions practices, but this group says we're advocating
Speaker 1: on behalf of students who feel like they have been
Speaker 1: discriminated against. In the case of Harvard, they say students
Speaker 1: who are paying the price for the Firm of Action
Speaker 1: program at Harvard tend to be Asian American students who
Speaker 1: are getting kind of docked in the admissions process, and
Speaker 1: students for Fair Representation argueser's basically a ceiling on the
Speaker 1: number of Asian American students that Harvard will admit. So
Speaker 1: that's Harvard. The u n C case University of North
Speaker 1: Carolina is a little bit different. So the u n
Speaker 1: C admissions program is somewhat similar in that they use
Speaker 1: holistic review. They don't, you know, assign points for certain
Speaker 1: test scorers or other qualities. That case tends to focus
Speaker 1: more on whether u n C looked at so called
Speaker 1: race neutral alternatives. Well enough, there's some Supreme Court case
Speaker 1: law that says schools have to look at that first
Speaker 1: and see if it's at least feasible, and the argument
Speaker 1: is they didn't do that. So the cases are being
Speaker 1: considered separately instead of together, but on the same day.
Speaker 1: They are on the same day. There's two primary differences
Speaker 1: between the two cases, in addition to the fact that
Speaker 1: they're just two different admissions processes. One is that Justice
Speaker 1: Katangi Brown Jackson, because she was a member of the
Speaker 1: Harvard Board of Overseers, has recused from that case. So
Speaker 1: she's not going to take part in the Harvard case.
Speaker 1: She's only going to take part in the North Carolina case.
Speaker 1: The other difference is that because North Carolina is a
Speaker 1: state run school, the constitutions Equal Protection Clause applies to it.
Speaker 1: The equal Protection Clause doesn't apply to Harvard because it's
Speaker 1: a private entity. The Harvard case is not about the Constitution.
Speaker 1: It is about the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four,
Speaker 1: and in particular Title six of that law. And that
Speaker 1: law basically says, if you receive federal funding, which almost
Speaker 1: all universities do, you cannot discriminate on the basis of
Speaker 1: a lot of things, including race. The Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: said that the standard under that law is basically the
Speaker 1: same as the equal Protection clause, but they are at
Speaker 1: least different kind of legal arguments, So that could potentially
Speaker 1: cause some different analyzes in the two cases. So what
Speaker 1: are you listening for in these arguments? So going into
Speaker 1: this argument, there is an awful lot of reason to
Speaker 1: think that the Court's conservative majority is likely to overturn
Speaker 1: at least the two thousand three Greater decision, which reaffirmed
Speaker 1: that universities could use race as an admissions factor. And
Speaker 1: this was the case. The court heard two cases that year.
Speaker 1: One involved the undergraduate program at the University of Michigan,
Speaker 1: one involved the law school, and the court sort of
Speaker 1: split the difference. It upheld the law school program, and
Speaker 1: that ended up being the blueprint that a lot of
Speaker 1: universities around the country could use to continue trying to
Speaker 1: diversify their campuses. So I'll be listening to anything that
Speaker 1: kind of cuts against the sense going in that the
Speaker 1: Court is inclined to over rule Grouder and abolish the
Speaker 1: use of race in admissions. Certainly, we're going to be
Speaker 1: listening for what the newest Justice, Cantangi Brown Jackson, has
Speaker 1: to say. She sort of laid down a marker in
Speaker 1: an earlier case involving voting rights, where she argued that
Speaker 1: the Constitution allows the government to consider race for a
Speaker 1: lot of purposes. The Equal Protection Clause was put in
Speaker 1: place after the Civil War with an idea that the
Speaker 1: government could do things that would take race into account.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to be listening for Chief Justice John Roberts,
Speaker 1: because while we think of John Roberts, and he has
Speaker 1: been in other cases like the abortion case last term,
Speaker 1: the justice who doesn't want to go as far as
Speaker 1: some of his more conservative colleagues in the context of race,
Speaker 1: he's been very outspoken. He in a case shortly after
Speaker 1: he became Chief Justice, famously said that the way to
Speaker 1: stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
Speaker 1: discriminating on the basis of race. He would like to
Speaker 1: see a color blind constitution, at least based on his
Speaker 1: past comments. So be listening to see if there's any
Speaker 1: change with anybody on those things they've said in the past.
Speaker 1: When we come back. My conversation with Greg Store continues.
Speaker 1: If the Court does overturn affirmative action in college admissions,
Speaker 1: will that have any sort of knock on effect beyond
Speaker 1: universities when it comes to job hiring the workplace or
Speaker 1: or elsewhere it might well and one thing to pay
Speaker 1: attention to. Let me just start with the workplace. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is both a constitutional case and a case under
Speaker 1: the Civil Rights Act. If the Court says we're looking
Speaker 1: at the Civil Rights Act to say you cannot consider
Speaker 1: race as a factor, well, that Civil Rights Act, a
Speaker 1: different provision of it also applies to private companies. And
Speaker 1: so some people are wondering is the next step after
Speaker 1: the court. If the Court says you can't consider race
Speaker 1: as an admissions factor, will the court then say, okay,
Speaker 1: let's take another look at whether companies can consider race
Speaker 1: as a factor in hiring another job related activities. If
Speaker 1: they make it a constitutional case, then it is easier
Speaker 1: to see that principle applying to other areas of law.
Speaker 1: So for example, voting and the extent to which a
Speaker 1: state may consider race as part of redistricting. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of thing that could be implicated if the Court
Speaker 1: issues a constitutional ruling in this case. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: will hear the cases, but there won't be a ruling
Speaker 1: until later this year, probably next year, where I think
Speaker 1: we're probably looking at one of those cases that where
Speaker 1: the decision comes out at the end of the court's
Speaker 1: term in in late June. Is there a chance, because
Speaker 1: they're deciding these separately, that you have different outcomes in
Speaker 1: each case. It's certainly theoretically possible, given the reality of
Speaker 1: this court. At a practical matter, it's probably unlikely, But
Speaker 1: it could be that the arguments end up being very
Speaker 1: different because one is focused on what the Equal Protection
Speaker 1: Clause means, what it meant when it was ratified after
Speaker 1: the Civil War, and the other one drills down into
Speaker 1: the words of the Civil Rights Act and what those mean.
Speaker 1: And you're expecting, if you're going to look into your
Speaker 1: crystal ball without holding you to your answer, what do
Speaker 1: you think the outcome will be. It's really hard to
Speaker 1: see how the Supreme Court leaves intact the ability of
Speaker 1: universities to consider race in the admissions process. Given the
Speaker 1: sixth three conservative majority, it's a really heavy lift to think,
Speaker 1: even if the three liberal justices vote the way we
Speaker 1: think they probably will, to say universities can keep doing this.
Speaker 1: To see how they're going to get two more votes
Speaker 1: to do that without John Roberts being one of them,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty tall order. Greg Star, thanks for being here,
Speaker 1: sure thing. If it's Greg says, the Supreme Court does
Speaker 1: abolish affirmative action in higher education, what are schools gonna do?
Speaker 1: Kelsey Butler is a reporter on Bloomberg's Equality team, and
Speaker 1: she's been talking to admissions officers all over the place
Speaker 1: to find out. So we're just talking to Greg Store,
Speaker 1: who says, pretty much, Supreme Court is going to overturn
Speaker 1: affirmative action in college admissions. You and Patricia Hurtado teamed
Speaker 1: up to try to find out what will that mean,
Speaker 1: What is the future of college admissions look like? How
Speaker 1: do you go about measuring that? So what we did
Speaker 1: was we looked at the places where affirmative action has
Speaker 1: already gone away. There are ten states where affirmative action
Speaker 1: has disappeared in the admissions process, and we looked at
Speaker 1: the data to kind of show what has happened, what
Speaker 1: tactics those schools have employed, if they've gone far enough,
Speaker 1: if they haven't, what's been most successful and what has it.
Speaker 1: So let me just clarify here is that under the
Speaker 1: law now, public schools and states can decide not to
Speaker 1: allow affirmative action in admissions, and if they change this
Speaker 1: by some report means no states will be allowed to
Speaker 1: use it, exactly. And in a lot of those states,
Speaker 1: voters have actually gone to the polls and basically said
Speaker 1: that they don't want affirmative action in the admissions process.
Speaker 1: And you know, that's something that has happened in California,
Speaker 1: in Michigan, and you know, we've seen the ramifications of
Speaker 1: that and what has happened to college admissions in those
Speaker 1: states in the aftermath of affirmative action no longer being
Speaker 1: allowed in admissions. Basically, none of the tactics, aside from
Speaker 1: considering race and admissions, goes far enough and pretty much
Speaker 1: every scenario, the most underrepresented groups end up being less
Speaker 1: likely to get admittance into the most elite institutions pretty much.
Speaker 1: And what are the most under represent any grips. This
Speaker 1: had a huge impact on African Americans, on black students,
Speaker 1: and we also saw a huge impact on Native American
Speaker 1: and Indigenous students. And we also saw a drop off
Speaker 1: in many cases in Latino enrollment. And that's as the
Speaker 1: nation has become more and more diverse, and you know,
Speaker 1: as Latino population has grown, the trend line hasn't really
Speaker 1: been the same in those most selective schools Selective schools
Speaker 1: essentially are those schools that are hard to get into,
Speaker 1: that there's a chance you might not get into. It's
Speaker 1: not a school that necessarily just accepts everyone with open arms.
Speaker 1: So their desirable schools and also schools where people who
Speaker 1: graduate tend to be attractive to employers and tend to
Speaker 1: do pretty well in part because they went to a
Speaker 1: school that has a really good reputation. It's not just
Speaker 1: about going to college. It's also about the fact that
Speaker 1: the most elite institutions have a lot to do with
Speaker 1: who becomes powerful in our nation's society. If you go
Speaker 1: to a school with a really recognizable brand name, you're
Speaker 1: going to be much more likely to be able to
Speaker 1: rise the ranks in your career, rise the ranks and
Speaker 1: government become a kind of powerful player in shaping our
Speaker 1: society for the future. College, of course, has always been
Speaker 1: a path to upward mobility, and it also affects how
Speaker 1: much money you make, what sort of income you have,
Speaker 1: in what you're able then to do for your children
Speaker 1: years later. Certainly, and I thought this was such a
Speaker 1: great and fascinating example out of California. The University of
Speaker 1: California system has had to contend with this since affirmative
Speaker 1: action was banned in the nineties, there was a huge
Speaker 1: study done on not only how many people got in
Speaker 1: the door and there was a steep drop off in
Speaker 1: black and Latino students getting into the most selective schools,
Speaker 1: but also what happened after. And this was an analysis
Speaker 1: of over ten thousand students. Black and Latino students were
Speaker 1: less likely to earn over a hundred thousand dollars a year,
Speaker 1: and they were also less likely to kind of sign
Speaker 1: up for majors that would then set them up to
Speaker 1: be higher earners in the future. So again not just
Speaker 1: about getting in the door as a freshman, but also
Speaker 1: about what your earning potential, what you're kind of bank
Speaker 1: account is going to look like in the future. Kelsey
Speaker 1: walk us through what it looks like in a school
Speaker 1: that does allow racial preferences in building a student body.
Speaker 1: You know, what has come up in my reporting and
Speaker 1: talking to admissions officers is that race informs so much
Speaker 1: of people's identity and who they are. When you're a
Speaker 1: high school student. It might determine where you live, what
Speaker 1: opportunities you've had up to that point. It's not the
Speaker 1: only deciding factor it's just one of them. And you know,
Speaker 1: I do really want to emphasize that race, though it's
Speaker 1: part of the consideration, is not the only thing. And
Speaker 1: none of the students that are getting admitted that our
Speaker 1: minority students to these elite institutions are underqualified. They're all
Speaker 1: getting in the door because they deserve to be there. Now,
Speaker 1: schools that do this, is it effective? Certainly? And you know,
Speaker 1: the way that we really see this is um what
Speaker 1: happens when it goes away. I think a really good
Speaker 1: example of that is the University of Michigan. They've been
Speaker 1: extremely vocal about kind of what happened at their institution
Speaker 1: when affirmative action went away in two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: the last year before race based admissions went into effect,
Speaker 1: of the schools undergrads were minorities and UM then affirmative
Speaker 1: action was banned. It took until one for the percentage
Speaker 1: of minority students to hit that level again, and that
Speaker 1: took millions of dollars, a very long laundry list of
Speaker 1: concerned efforts to kind of boost the enrollments of minority students,
Speaker 1: and it still took over a decade without affirmative action.
Speaker 1: There is going to be a drop off in the
Speaker 1: most underrepresented cohorts of students. Kelsey, please stick around. We'll
Speaker 1: talk more after the break. So what are schools that
Speaker 1: don't allow racial preferences in selecting students? What are they
Speaker 1: doing instead? So, one interesting thing that I didn't really
Speaker 1: kind of think about before I started reporting this story
Speaker 1: is that, yes, admissions is one part of the process,
Speaker 1: but it's just that one part um. So a lot
Speaker 1: of the schools that I talked to said that they're
Speaker 1: kind of preparing to like widen the funnel for the
Speaker 1: people that are applying to their schools, So that means
Speaker 1: doing marketing campaigns, having their own alums that are part
Speaker 1: of underrepresented groups, reach out to their high schools, um
Speaker 1: developing relationships with community groups or high school counselors in
Speaker 1: underrepresented areas to basically get the pool of applicants to
Speaker 1: be more diverse, so then in the end, the student
Speaker 1: body can be more diverse. And that doesn't move the
Speaker 1: needle quite as much, quite as fast, but it is
Speaker 1: an option. How are they preparing for the day when
Speaker 1: they will no longer be allowed to use affirmative action?
Speaker 1: What are they doing to try to make up for it.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of different solutions that schools have done,
Speaker 1: um you know, in the absence of affirmative action. One
Speaker 1: of the most popular is admitting the top let's say
Speaker 1: four percent or ten percent of each high school in
Speaker 1: a state. So we saw that in Texas, which went
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that was constitutional.
Speaker 1: What it does, even though it looks race neutral on
Speaker 1: the face, it kind of relies on the fact that
Speaker 1: neighborhoods are segregated, so you have the best performing students
Speaker 1: from a let's say a neighborhood with mostly minorities that
Speaker 1: have an opportunity to go to schools. And the idea
Speaker 1: behind that is that it still provides a pathway for
Speaker 1: those from underrepresented groups to get admittance to the best
Speaker 1: schools because of the way race really is baked into
Speaker 1: so many structural things. In the US. Another proxy is
Speaker 1: considering socioeconomic status. So we know that on average, a
Speaker 1: white family has six times the wealth of a black
Speaker 1: family in the US, and so if you kind of
Speaker 1: filter for socioeconomic status, you know, it's not perfect and
Speaker 1: it won't get you to a dent of where you
Speaker 1: need to be, but it can sometimes get underrepresented groups
Speaker 1: that have been financially disadvantaged in the door without blicitly
Speaker 1: using race. Another option is getting rid of legacy admissions.
Speaker 1: We know this comes up a lot when we talk
Speaker 1: about these very elite institutions, and there's a big one,
Speaker 1: right if you went to Harvard or Yale, your kid
Speaker 1: has a much better chance of getting into Harvard Yale exactly.
Speaker 1: So we know that schools are trying to do away
Speaker 1: with legacy admissions. Amherst just recently said that they're going
Speaker 1: to do it, and they think that this is going
Speaker 1: to be one of the things that's going to help
Speaker 1: boost diversity at the school. There was a recent study
Speaker 1: that showed that legacies aren't necessarily more qualified or better students,
Speaker 1: but they do tend to be less racially diverse the
Speaker 1: non legacies. So it's just another kind of tool in
Speaker 1: the tool belt that schools are considering and thinking about.
Speaker 1: Is that really realistic, because you know that sort of
Speaker 1: legacy enrollment is also a big driver of fundraising certainly,
Speaker 1: and it is a really big consideration. You know. One
Speaker 1: thing that came up a lot was this I idea
Speaker 1: of all this kind of calculus that admissions offices now
Speaker 1: have to do. How much money they're going to be
Speaker 1: willing to spend too, like I said, grow that funnel
Speaker 1: so that their applicant pool can be more diverse. How
Speaker 1: much money they're potentially willing to give up from things
Speaker 1: like legacy admissions, and how much does this matter to them?
Speaker 1: And how much money are they willing to put forward
Speaker 1: to maybe only move the needle a little bit. When
Speaker 1: you look down the road five or ten years from now,
Speaker 1: given how long it's taken for schools that did away
Speaker 1: with fromtive action to recoup the losses in underrepresented students,
Speaker 1: how big a dip can we anticipate seeing in students
Speaker 1: who otherwise would have been admitted, and how long will
Speaker 1: it take to bring it back up? So what I
Speaker 1: expect that will happen in the very near term. In
Speaker 1: the years immediately followings, we'll see a sharp drop off.
Speaker 1: For example, in California at u c l A, we
Speaker 1: saw the percentage of black students dropped by like fift
Speaker 1: So we'll see that immediate drop off. And for those
Speaker 1: schools that don't put the resources, the creativity, and the
Speaker 1: time into continuing to reach out to underrepresented groups, to
Speaker 1: coming up with novel solutions to using proxies. They're never
Speaker 1: going to catch up because the schools that have done
Speaker 1: all that and spent millions of dollars over a decade
Speaker 1: are still barely getting there and even falling ashore. As
Speaker 1: it is, we haven't really seen the all the policies
Speaker 1: that the schools are going to potentially put in place.
Speaker 1: And you know, one question that is a really really
Speaker 1: big one is schools want to know where the line
Speaker 1: is going to be drawn. Are they able to still
Speaker 1: come up with recruiting programs that target let's say, black
Speaker 1: students or is that not even going to be allowed?
Speaker 1: So where is that line drawn? Where? How far are
Speaker 1: they allowed to go? Essentially like where does admissions process
Speaker 1: per se start? Kelsey Butler, thanks so much for taking
Speaker 1: the time. Thank you. You can find more stories by
Speaker 1: Kelsey Butler and Patricia Hurtado and Greg Store on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com. Thanks for listening to us here at the
Speaker 1: Big Take the Daily podcast from Bloomberg and I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more shows from my heart Radio, visit the i
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app app podcast, or wherever you listen. Read
Speaker 1: Today's story and subscribe to our daily newsletter at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash Big Take, and we'd love to hear
Speaker 1: from you. Email us with questions or comments to Big
Speaker 1: Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer of The
Speaker 1: Big Take is Vicky Burgalina. Our senior producer is Katherine Fink.
Speaker 1: Our producer is Rebecca Chasson. Our associate producer is sam
Speaker 1: Goa Bauer. Hilda Garcia is our engineer. Original music by
Speaker 1: Leo Sidrin. I'm West Cassova. We'll be back tomorrow with
Speaker 1: another Big Take. H