WEBVTT - The Supreme Court May End Affirmative Action 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.400 --> 0:00:12.200 It's been more than forty years since the Supreme Court 0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:17.120 first considered affirmative action, and now it's new conservative majority 0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:20.759 is signaling it's ready to eliminate the consideration of race 0:00:20.800 --> 0:00:25.000 and college admissions. In oral arguments on challenges to affirmative 0:00:25.040 --> 0:00:29.160 action programs at the University of North Carolina and Harvard College, 0:00:29.560 --> 0:00:34.360 several conservative justices suggested it had run its courts, referring 0:00:34.400 --> 0:00:37.720 to the two thousand three Grutter decision, in which Justice 0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:41.840 Sandra Day O'Connor anticipated the use of racial preferences would 0:00:42.000 --> 0:00:45.239 no longer be necessary in twenty five years. Here are 0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:49.320 Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. You 0:00:49.400 --> 0:00:52.040 don't think that University of North Carolina has to stop 0:00:52.680 --> 0:00:56.760 in twenty five years and at the mark, So what 0:00:56.800 --> 0:00:59.080 are you saying when you're up here in are you 0:00:59.080 --> 0:01:01.760 still the fending it like this is just indefinite, It's 0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:04.880 going to keep going on. I don't see how you 0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:08.000 can say that the program will ever end. Your position 0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:12.319 is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity, which 0:01:12.360 --> 0:01:15.440 is necessary for the sort of education you want. It's 0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:18.720 not going to stop mattering at some particular point. My 0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:22.399 guest is former United States Solicitor General Gregory gar a 0:01:22.480 --> 0:01:25.920 partner at Latham and Watkins. He won the landmark case 0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:29.600 of Fisher versus the University of Texas, which upheld the 0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:33.880 race conscious admissions program used by that university. Gregg looking 0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:37.600 at the legal analysis after the arguments, it seems that 0:01:38.120 --> 0:01:42.240 the almost universal conclusion was that the Court is ready 0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:46.000 to throw out the consideration of race in college admissions. 0:01:46.280 --> 0:01:48.880 Did you come to that conclusion as well? I did? 0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:51.280 I mean, I think, certainly, based on the oral arguments, 0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:55.200 appear as though the challengers had the upper hand, and 0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.559 you know, that's not surprising going in. But having said that, 0:01:58.680 --> 0:02:01.400 there's a lot that means to be seen about how 0:02:01.400 --> 0:02:03.960 the Court gets that result and how broadly it might 0:02:04.000 --> 0:02:07.040 go in these cases. During the arguments there seemed to 0:02:07.080 --> 0:02:11.440 be a great focus on whether educational diversity can be 0:02:11.520 --> 0:02:17.600 achieved without the consideration of race, specifically with race neutral approaches. 0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:21.359 Does that indicate the justices are onto the next step? 0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:24.680 I think that it means that they're focused very carefully 0:02:24.840 --> 0:02:29.560 on the application of strict scrutiny in this context. In particular, 0:02:29.720 --> 0:02:34.840 looking for narrow tailoring and the existence of race neutral alternatives. 0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:37.799 You know, for some conservative justices, it may also mean 0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:43.680 simply illustrating that universities can achieve educational diversity in other 0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:48.320 ways without explicitly considering race as part of the emissions process. 0:02:48.400 --> 0:02:50.799 So I think, you know, different justices we're looking at 0:02:50.800 --> 0:02:54.200 that issue through different lenses. It seemed like the justices 0:02:54.240 --> 0:02:59.400 were deeply divided down ideological lines. Well, generally speaking, there's 0:02:59.440 --> 0:03:01.400 a start to side in the court in terms of 0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:05.520 how the justices look at this question of diversity and 0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:10.320 the interests in achieving diversity on college campuses and otherwise. 0:03:10.360 --> 0:03:12.280 And I think you saw that by the questioning that 0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:16.800 the justices had for the advocates. The more liberal justices 0:03:17.000 --> 0:03:20.720 obviously came at this issue from the perspective of there 0:03:20.760 --> 0:03:25.240 being a compelling interest in achieving diversity on college campuses 0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:28.040 and elsewhere. And you know, whether or not they were 0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:31.400 able to persuade their more conservative colleagues, I'm not sure, 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:34.160 but certainly that was one of the more interesting interplace 0:03:34.440 --> 0:03:37.480 going on throughout the oral arguments and reflects this sort 0:03:37.520 --> 0:03:40.440 of stark divide that the justices have on this issue. 0:03:40.920 --> 0:03:43.920 You argue the Fisher case, of course, and the three 0:03:44.000 --> 0:03:49.040 justices who dissented, the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and 0:03:49.080 --> 0:03:52.200 Alito are still on the court where they as stark 0:03:52.360 --> 0:03:57.960 in their questions and comments about using race to achieve diversity. Yes, 0:03:58.640 --> 0:04:02.480 thinking from the standpoint of the more conservative justices, their 0:04:02.520 --> 0:04:06.040 position on this issue has been clear for some time, 0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:08.840 and I think that's true of Justice Thomas, although za 0:04:08.920 --> 0:04:11.520 recall he did not ask questions during the Fisher argument. 0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:14.440 But but certainly Justice Leo, and even the Chief Justice, 0:04:14.520 --> 0:04:17.560 who is more moderate in a number of areas, but 0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:20.919 in this area, has been very outspoken against the consideration 0:04:20.960 --> 0:04:26.160 of race and admissions. In this case, Justice Neil Gorsage 0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:29.479 seemed to have a concern that, you know, using race 0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:32.799 is sort of it's like a quota, a racial quota. 0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:36.800 Was that also a point in the Fisher arguments. So 0:04:36.839 --> 0:04:39.800 that was settled by Baki that the schools could not 0:04:40.040 --> 0:04:44.400 set actual quotas for admission spots based on race. But 0:04:44.440 --> 0:04:47.599 I think some of the justices had concerns that even 0:04:47.920 --> 0:04:51.800 the more holistic consideration of race, as in the Harvard 0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:56.200 or UNC policies, could operate as a quota. And you know, 0:04:56.279 --> 0:04:59.000 to the extent that the justices had those concerns, that's 0:04:59.040 --> 0:05:03.520 that's a very problematic fact for the schools. There was 0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:07.799 a considerable amount of questioning about whether minority students could 0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:13.480 write in their essays about their experiences with race discrimination, 0:05:13.920 --> 0:05:16.800 and some of the conservative justices seemed to indicate that 0:05:16.880 --> 0:05:19.479 they could. Yeah, I think that was a very interesting 0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:23.520 and potentially quite important aspect of the oral argument. There 0:05:23.560 --> 0:05:27.680 seemed to be a majority of justices who were aligned 0:05:28.040 --> 0:05:30.799 against the use of race and a sort of checked 0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:34.320 the box form as part of the admissions process. But 0:05:34.320 --> 0:05:36.640 but even those justices, or at least several of them, 0:05:36.680 --> 0:05:41.159 seemed to indicate that an applicant could identify and speak 0:05:41.200 --> 0:05:43.839 about his or a race in the context an essay 0:05:43.920 --> 0:05:47.640 that explained how the person's race affected their own experiences, 0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:51.839 perhaps led to greater or greater perseverance that would be 0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:55.839 relevant to considering who that person was. And they seemed 0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:58.360 to indicate that that would be okay. If that were 0:05:58.400 --> 0:06:02.119 the ultimate upshot of the court's opinion in the case, 0:06:02.400 --> 0:06:06.480 then at least in that sense, schools could consider applicants 0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:10.000 race as they wrote about it in the context of 0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:15.000 a personal essay. The challengers here had argued that any 0:06:15.000 --> 0:06:20.520 consideration of race in college admissions is unlawful. During the 0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:24.720 oral arguments, their attorney at one point said that writing 0:06:24.720 --> 0:06:28.760 about in an essay would be okay because that's cultural 0:06:29.000 --> 0:06:33.600 rather than racial, and justice Elena Kagan said, that's slicing 0:06:33.600 --> 0:06:36.560 the bologna a little thin, something along those lines. So 0:06:36.839 --> 0:06:39.159 do you think that the challenges were giving in on 0:06:39.279 --> 0:06:41.960 that point. They seemed to go back and forth a 0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:44.800 bit on the question of whether or not race could 0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:47.880 be considered in the context of a personal essay. Towards 0:06:47.880 --> 0:06:50.880 the second argument, I think they seem to be willing 0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:54.560 to acknowledge that it might be appropriate in the context 0:06:54.760 --> 0:06:57.039 of an essay, at least depending on how it was 0:06:57.400 --> 0:07:00.120 used in describing the person's experiences and what he or 0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:02.400 she might bring to a college campus. But I do 0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:04.760 think that that was one of the more interesting and 0:07:04.800 --> 0:07:08.600 important exchanges throughout your argument. Certainly that's something that the 0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:11.920 Chief Justice seemed to be interested in, kneeling down that 0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:14.080 the school might be able to consider an applicant's race 0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:16.640 in the context of a personal essay. Might that be 0:07:16.760 --> 0:07:19.320 sort of a middle ground for a decision here? It 0:07:19.440 --> 0:07:22.240 certainly could be a middle ground, and it could leave 0:07:22.760 --> 0:07:27.440 schools with an important tool for attempting to achieve educational 0:07:27.480 --> 0:07:30.960 diversity in the makeup of their student bodies, even if 0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:33.800 the Core deems the consideration of a check the box 0:07:34.040 --> 0:07:39.200 use of race unconstitutional. Another area of questioning was when 0:07:39.240 --> 0:07:42.720 will affirmative action run its course? And some of the 0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:47.400 conservatives really pressed on that point. The Chief Justice asked 0:07:47.440 --> 0:07:49.880 the Solicitor of General Grutter, gave us a number, Do 0:07:49.920 --> 0:07:52.600 you want to give a number? No number was given, 0:07:52.960 --> 0:07:54.880 No number. I think that was one of the more 0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:58.240 difficult parts of the argument for those defending the schools, 0:07:58.240 --> 0:08:02.360 including the government. And you know, the conservative justices seemed 0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:05.520 to expose a concern that if they were to adopt 0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:08.960 the positions of schools, they'd effectively be signing onto the 0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:12.520 indefinite use of race and even in a holistic fashion, 0:08:12.560 --> 0:08:15.520 and student admissions, which they seemed uncomfortable with. This is 0:08:15.560 --> 0:08:18.200 the first time in history that a black female justice 0:08:18.240 --> 0:08:22.520 heard arguments on affirmative action. What stood out to you, 0:08:23.080 --> 0:08:28.120 if anything, about Justice Jackson's questions. She's obviously been extremely 0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:32.360 active at oral arguments, and you know, she elfishly brings 0:08:32.600 --> 0:08:35.960 her own experience more generally to this issue as in 0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:39.199 other areas, and so I think her questions were very 0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:42.680 poignant and important exchanges during the course of this lengthy 0:08:42.760 --> 0:08:46.120 oral argument, and she brought up the point with regard 0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:50.640 to writing about race on your application form, that it 0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:54.360 would be odd if admissions officers could consider factors like 0:08:55.000 --> 0:08:59.160 whether applicants parents went to the school, whether their veterans 0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:03.400 or to save, but not that they're members of racial minorities. 0:09:03.400 --> 0:09:06.000 And she said that has the potential of causing more 0:09:06.040 --> 0:09:10.280 of an equal protection problem than it's actually solving. I think, 0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:13.720 as the Chief Justice pointed out later in the oral argument, 0:09:14.400 --> 0:09:17.199 the reason why the focuses on races because race has 0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:20.280 a special role in the history of the country and 0:09:20.440 --> 0:09:24.320 the Constitution itself. But certainly from the perspective of the 0:09:24.640 --> 0:09:27.280 more progressive justices, I think, you know, one of the 0:09:27.360 --> 0:09:30.640 points that they made throughout was that, you know, race 0:09:30.800 --> 0:09:34.560 was simply being considered as part of many, many other 0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:39.000 factors about an individual applicants profile, and so in that 0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:42.960 respect wasn't really doing any different work than other factors. 0:09:43.000 --> 0:09:47.200 But again I'm not sure that persuaded their more conservative colleagues. 0:09:47.760 --> 0:09:49.959 Do you have an idea for how you think this 0:09:50.080 --> 0:09:53.720 decision will work out. Do you think it will be 0:09:53.800 --> 0:09:56.640 one of those decisions where there are a lot of 0:09:56.720 --> 0:10:00.720 concurring opinions and you know, dissents. I think there's a 0:10:00.720 --> 0:10:02.760 lot of work left to be done on the court 0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:06.560 in terms of coming to a result in this case. 0:10:06.800 --> 0:10:09.400 And you know, do you have any thoughts about how 0:10:09.440 --> 0:10:13.120 this decision might turn out. I think there's a lot 0:10:13.120 --> 0:10:15.120 of work left to be done on the court in 0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:18.840 terms of coming to a result in this case. And 0:10:18.960 --> 0:10:20.880 you know, one of the more interesting aspects of the 0:10:20.960 --> 0:10:23.440 oral argument was there wasn't a lot of discussion of 0:10:23.840 --> 0:10:27.960 overruling prior precedent, which is something that is certainly a 0:10:28.000 --> 0:10:31.599 possibility on the table here. But even if the justices 0:10:31.840 --> 0:10:36.120 reached the conclusion that the particular plans here are unconstitutional, 0:10:36.640 --> 0:10:39.360 it remains to be seeing what they'll do with their 0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:42.280 prior cases and what they might say about the use 0:10:42.320 --> 0:10:45.520 of race in different ways in order to achieve diversity 0:10:45.559 --> 0:10:48.719 among student bodies, and justices were coming at that from 0:10:48.720 --> 0:10:52.080 different perspectives on the court. I mean, certainly Justice Kavano's 0:10:52.200 --> 0:10:56.400 questions about the possibility of race neutral alternatives were important, 0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:59.040 and so even if it looks like an uphill battle 0:10:59.160 --> 0:11:01.440 for the defender of the plans here. I think there's 0:11:01.440 --> 0:11:03.280 a lot that will have to wait for in terms 0:11:03.320 --> 0:11:06.080 of what this decision actually says. If the Court does 0:11:06.120 --> 0:11:10.400 away with affirmative action by the end of this current term, 0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:12.520 it would be the second time in the space of 0:11:12.559 --> 0:11:18.520 a year that the conservative super majority jettison decades of precedent. 0:11:18.960 --> 0:11:22.880 Will that be a consideration for the Conservatives and perhaps 0:11:22.880 --> 0:11:26.640 particularly for the Chief Well, certainly, any time the Court 0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:30.400 considers overruling precedent, it's a momentous decision for the Court, 0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:32.839 and the justices are well aware of that. I mean, 0:11:32.840 --> 0:11:35.320 this is an area where justice is even the Chief 0:11:35.400 --> 0:11:39.240 Justice have been openly critical that's prior precedent, So if 0:11:39.240 --> 0:11:41.920 it reached that conclusion, it wouldn't be out of the blue. 0:11:42.120 --> 0:11:43.960 But I think it's fair to say that, you know, 0:11:44.000 --> 0:11:47.640 all the justices are aware of the implications of over 0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:49.920 ruling precedent, and I do think that there are a 0:11:50.000 --> 0:11:52.600 number of options that may be available to the Court 0:11:52.679 --> 0:11:55.439 in the short of overruling all its precedents in this area. 0:11:55.720 --> 0:11:58.640 Well know. By June, thanks so much, Greg, that's former 0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:04.960 US Solicitor General Gregory gar. I've heard word diversity quite 0:12:05.000 --> 0:12:06.880 a few times, and I don't have a clue what 0:12:06.960 --> 0:12:10.960 it means. That was Justice Clarence Thomas, who's dissented in 0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:15.319 landmark affirmative action cases. In oral arguments this week over 0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:19.280 the affirmative action programs at Harvard College in the University 0:12:19.280 --> 0:12:22.640 of North Carolina. Thomas was just one of the justice 0:12:22.760 --> 0:12:26.120 is who questioned the role that diversity plays in a 0:12:26.200 --> 0:12:30.520 college education. My guest is paul at Grandberry Russell, president 0:12:30.559 --> 0:12:34.320 of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, 0:12:34.720 --> 0:12:40.880 explain why diversity is important in colleges and universities. Diversity 0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:46.400 has previously been defined by the Court as a compelling interest, 0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:49.840 meaning there are benefits that can be derived by having 0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:54.640 a diverse campus community. Those of us who are practitioners 0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:58.719 who lead and influenced the effort of colleges and universities 0:12:58.760 --> 0:13:03.679 and advancing to the understand the value of a heterogeneous 0:13:03.760 --> 0:13:09.120 campus community, meaning diversity of thought, diversity of perspectives that 0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:13.800 are offered in and outside the classroom. That diversity, particularly 0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:16.280 if you think about it in the context of race 0:13:16.320 --> 0:13:21.800 and ethnicity, can facilitate breaking down stereotypes. It can also 0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:26.920 provide individuals an opportunity to engage in what higher ed 0:13:27.040 --> 0:13:30.560 has advocated, the robust exchange of ideas, which is the 0:13:30.760 --> 0:13:34.880 basis upon which the higher education exists. Uh for, you know, 0:13:35.000 --> 0:13:38.400 holistic admissions and race as a factor. How do they 0:13:38.400 --> 0:13:42.920 in general use race as a factor. There's no checkbox, 0:13:43.280 --> 0:13:47.480 there's no quota. Clearly those have been banned by earlier 0:13:47.520 --> 0:13:52.040 presidents of the court. Race and this was enunciated by 0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:54.720 Justice pal in nineteen seventy eight in the Bockey case 0:13:54.800 --> 0:13:58.000 that in his view, race is only one and I'm 0:13:58.080 --> 0:14:03.200 quoting element and arrange factors a university properly may consider 0:14:03.280 --> 0:14:07.040 in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student body. So 0:14:07.120 --> 0:14:12.080 there's no hard and fast formula for using race as 0:14:12.200 --> 0:14:15.480 one of many factors that you would considered. But it's 0:14:15.600 --> 0:14:20.520 not ignoring the role that race has played in influencing 0:14:20.560 --> 0:14:24.840 potentially the experiences of individuals. So if a student who's 0:14:24.880 --> 0:14:30.360 interested in admission chooses to speak to any aspects of 0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:35.360 their life, including race, that has provided them with perspectives 0:14:35.520 --> 0:14:40.160 or impacted their experiences, that the admissions as a part 0:14:40.160 --> 0:14:44.560 of their process may take that into consideration. The justices 0:14:44.560 --> 0:14:48.720 were exploring the use of race neutral policies in admission, 0:14:49.120 --> 0:14:54.680 you know, considering socioeconomic status or admitting the top performers 0:14:54.680 --> 0:14:57.200 at high schools. Is that another way of doing this. 0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:01.160 I'll offer this perspective here as the president of the 0:15:01.280 --> 0:15:04.640 National Association a Diversity Officers and Higher Education, we do 0:15:04.680 --> 0:15:10.080 not believe that there's any real replacement for race conscious admissions, 0:15:10.120 --> 0:15:15.040 meaning what is often referred to as race neutral approaches. Now, 0:15:15.280 --> 0:15:19.440 the courts has previously addressed it and that the process 0:15:19.520 --> 0:15:23.240 that you used to consider race must stand under the 0:15:23.360 --> 0:15:27.320 closest scrutiny by the court. But you know, race neutral 0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:31.320 approaches as the evidence in these cases, both Harvard and 0:15:31.520 --> 0:15:36.520 Uncy have demonstrated that they are not successful and necessarily 0:15:36.560 --> 0:15:42.160 achieving the goals of racially ethnically diversed campus communities. They 0:15:42.160 --> 0:15:47.200 are helpful, absolutely, but the goal is to enhance the 0:15:47.280 --> 0:15:54.160 opportunities for students to engage across culture, across perspective, across 0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:58.600 background and experience, to learn from each other, to understand 0:15:59.000 --> 0:16:03.200 that no one perspective is the final perspective. It can 0:16:03.240 --> 0:16:08.920 be persuasive, and that includes perspective based on one's experiences. 0:16:08.960 --> 0:16:13.160 Because of the way that race influences experiences in this country. 0:16:13.320 --> 0:16:16.320 So to use race neutrals to say, you know, will 0:16:16.360 --> 0:16:20.520 consider socio economic class that, as argue and in evidence, 0:16:20.800 --> 0:16:24.920 is not successful in achieving the goals of institutions. It 0:16:25.040 --> 0:16:28.800 adds to it, but it doesn't necessarily provide the composition 0:16:28.840 --> 0:16:32.640 a racially ethnically composed class that would achieve the goals 0:16:32.680 --> 0:16:35.160 of those institutions. The Justice has asked a lot of 0:16:35.280 --> 0:16:39.720 questions about what the end date for affirmative action programs is. 0:16:40.240 --> 0:16:43.760 And we're fast approaching the date that in Grutter, Justice 0:16:43.800 --> 0:16:47.880 Santa Dale O'Connor said affirmative action would no longer be needed. 0:16:48.240 --> 0:16:50.960 So what's the end date? The Justice has asked a 0:16:51.000 --> 0:16:54.680 few of the lawyers that and there was no answer 0:16:54.840 --> 0:16:58.720 to that question. Well, I do think that the lawyer 0:16:59.040 --> 0:17:04.000 for the s s A did respond to that, and 0:17:04.880 --> 0:17:09.720 his point was that and and acknowledged himself that year, 0:17:10.080 --> 0:17:15.640 that twenty five year expectations identified in the earlier case 0:17:15.960 --> 0:17:18.600 that that number and I'm quoting from him because I 0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:22.280 listened to the your arguments that number is aspirational. Okay, 0:17:22.320 --> 0:17:26.000 So there's no hard and fast rule that one can 0:17:26.040 --> 0:17:30.640 point to in Brooder that clearly specified that in twenty 0:17:30.640 --> 0:17:34.520 five years, it must end. You know this, this notion 0:17:34.600 --> 0:17:38.119 that's using rates as one of many factors in a 0:17:38.440 --> 0:17:42.800 quite frankly in in a country where we have worked 0:17:42.800 --> 0:17:48.399 particularly hard to address becoming a more diverse country, recognizing 0:17:48.480 --> 0:17:52.919 and respecting the role that race has played in this country, 0:17:52.960 --> 0:17:57.840 acknowledging the disadvantages that still persists as a country that 0:17:58.080 --> 0:18:01.520 has as a part of its history bree enslavement of 0:18:01.960 --> 0:18:07.000 black people. That to the extent that we are thinking 0:18:07.320 --> 0:18:12.480 aspirationally to move beyond that history, perhaps in twenty five 0:18:12.560 --> 0:18:16.480 years we want to anticipate or expect in twenty five 0:18:16.560 --> 0:18:19.359 years we no longer have to do this. I think 0:18:19.480 --> 0:18:24.840 it is expected that the consideration of race and admissions 0:18:25.040 --> 0:18:28.520 is time limited. The question is I'll be there yet, 0:18:28.720 --> 0:18:33.600 And based on the evidence presented by U n C 0:18:33.960 --> 0:18:37.679 and Harvard, we are not there yet. Will you explain 0:18:38.400 --> 0:18:43.119 why you know? So many companies submitted briefs warning that 0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:48.280 without affirmative action they'll lose access to this pipeline of 0:18:48.720 --> 0:18:54.000 future workers. I think in the in the absence of 0:18:54.760 --> 0:19:00.359 UM diversity and the consideration of race carefully construct rupted 0:19:00.640 --> 0:19:06.399 consideration of rape UM we I think the concern of 0:19:06.440 --> 0:19:12.000 corporations is that their efforts to UM speak to the 0:19:12.040 --> 0:19:16.960 innovations that are well documented that results from having a 0:19:17.080 --> 0:19:23.240 diverse UH employee base, which includes racially diverse which could 0:19:23.320 --> 0:19:30.000 include of course gender UM and disabilities, UM, sexual orientation, 0:19:30.200 --> 0:19:35.440 gender identity, a whole range of ways that those experiences 0:19:35.520 --> 0:19:41.040 can influence. It doesn't mean that UM this notion of 0:19:42.040 --> 0:19:46.560 race in and of itself represents a particular point of view, 0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:51.159 but it represents a varied amount of perspectives, and those 0:19:51.200 --> 0:19:56.480 perspectives influence how people engage with each other. It forces 0:19:56.600 --> 0:19:59.720 people from time to time in those spaces where you're 0:20:00.040 --> 0:20:05.520 fading how you're going to approach UH circumstances, whether that 0:20:05.840 --> 0:20:13.119 is promoting sales, whether that is UH influencing UM media, 0:20:13.720 --> 0:20:19.720 whether that is UM enhancing opportunities in a broader community. 0:20:20.480 --> 0:20:27.040 That those perspectives, particularly in this context of racial perspectives 0:20:27.160 --> 0:20:31.000 or not racial perspectives, but perspectives that can be influenced 0:20:31.000 --> 0:20:35.359 by one's races and experiences needs a place at the 0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:39.320 table as well. If we take a look at the 0:20:39.440 --> 0:20:45.680 impact of a pandemic and acknowledging that UH, there were 0:20:45.720 --> 0:20:51.280 certain communities, black and brown communities particularly who were disproportionately 0:20:51.760 --> 0:20:58.520 impacted by race and health outcomes associated with their race. 0:20:59.520 --> 0:21:05.840 That signals that race still matters in this country. Now. 0:21:05.880 --> 0:21:10.199 It's not saying that only black and brown cops have 0:21:10.520 --> 0:21:17.760 influenced the science around medicine, but those perspectives have a 0:21:17.800 --> 0:21:24.080 place at the table. You know, it extends thinking about 0:21:24.240 --> 0:21:29.879 communities that may not otherwise be present in those conversations. UM. 0:21:29.920 --> 0:21:35.000 It breaks down stereal type UM and and so what 0:21:35.160 --> 0:21:39.520 corporations and the military, particularly if you if you look 0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:44.680 at the military brief, the goal was, you know, what's 0:21:44.680 --> 0:21:51.119 the composition of the military at some rank. Black and 0:21:51.160 --> 0:21:55.560 brown cops are very well represented in those ranks, but 0:21:55.640 --> 0:21:59.800 they're not necessarily represented in officer ranks. And sometimes the 0:22:00.160 --> 0:22:03.720 l you're to have a more racially diverse leadership, Jim 0:22:03.960 --> 0:22:09.280 be to the detriment of perspectives that might otherwise be 0:22:09.840 --> 0:22:15.439 brought to bear in the experiences of those at the 0:22:15.520 --> 0:22:20.959 other ranks. So it's it's the goal of enhancing both 0:22:21.520 --> 0:22:27.720 opportunities but also experiences and the way that those experiences 0:22:27.800 --> 0:22:31.200 can influence decision making. Thanks for being on the show. 0:22:31.760 --> 0:22:35.320 That's Paul at Grandberry Russell, President of the National Association 0:22:35.320 --> 0:22:38.639 of diversity officers in higher education. And that's it for 0:22:38.640 --> 0:22:41.280 this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can 0:22:41.280 --> 0:22:44.520 always get the latest legal news honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. 0:22:44.840 --> 0:22:47.840 You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at 0:22:48.000 --> 0:22:53.040 www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and 0:22:53.080 --> 0:22:55.840 remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week 0:22:55.960 --> 0:22:59.080 night at ten d m. Wall Street Time. I'm June 0:22:59.080 --> 0:23:05.040 Grossow and your listening to Bloomberg mhm