Speaker 1: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 1: Bunjelung Calcoltin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 1: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 1: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Speaker 1: Straight island and nations. We pay our respects to the
Speaker 1: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Speaker 2: Good morning and welcome to the Daily os. It is
Speaker 2: somehow Monday, the third of July.
Speaker 3: I'm zara, I'm sam.
Speaker 2: The US Supreme Court decision means that universities in the
Speaker 2: US will no longer be able to consider race when
Speaker 2: selecting prospective students.
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court has struck down race based admissions policies
Speaker 4: in colleges as unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: Land marquees, so, returning nearly fifty years of precedent, the
Speaker 2: latest example of the conservative majority redefining American law. This
Speaker 2: means many colleges will have to change their admissions process
Speaker 2: and move away from affirmative action. So how did this
Speaker 2: all happen and what will the consequences be for racial
Speaker 2: minorities in the US. We're going to let you know.
Speaker 2: In today's Deep Dive, but first sam what is making
Speaker 2: headlines this morning.
Speaker 3: Protests in France have continued over the weekend in response
Speaker 3: to the fatal police shooting of a teenager. France's Justice
Speaker 3: minister confirmed thousands of people have been arrested over the
Speaker 3: last five days, mostly in relation to the destruction of
Speaker 3: property and vehicles. Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron has canceled a
Speaker 3: state visit to Germany to oversee the crisis response.
Speaker 2: Virgin Galactic has safely landed its first commercial flight. Passengers
Speaker 2: experienced a few minutes of weightlessness as they were taken
Speaker 2: to the edge of space. The flight above the US
Speaker 2: lasted seventy two minutes. A commercial flight for the Virgin
Speaker 2: Galactic has been in the works since two thousand and four,
Speaker 2: and the company's next scheduled spaceflight is planned for August.
Speaker 3: The King of the Netherlands, King Willem Alexander, has delivered
Speaker 3: an official apology for his country's history of slavery, calling
Speaker 3: it a horror. About six hundred thousand people were believed
Speaker 3: to have been trafficked by Dutch slave traders, mostly in
Speaker 3: the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the speech, the King
Speaker 3: declared previous monarchs quotes took no steps against slavery and
Speaker 3: asked for forgiveness for the crystal clear lack of action.
Speaker 2: And the good news. New Zealand has banned thin plastic
Speaker 2: bags for fruit and veggies across the country. The band
Speaker 2: was formalized last year, but came into effect on Saturday.
Speaker 2: Plastic sticker labels for fruits and veggies will also be
Speaker 2: phased out. The U s. Supreme Court has ruled that
Speaker 2: universities can't directly consider race in their selection processes. The
Speaker 2: decision restricts the ability of universities to pursue what's called
Speaker 2: affirmative action to boost representation of racial minorities.
Speaker 3: I feel like affirmative action is one of those words
Speaker 3: that's thrown around the news, but we don't actually take
Speaker 3: the time to think about what it is. What is it?
Speaker 2: So affirmative action is basically a way of trying to
Speaker 2: correct historical prejudice. And the way that affirmative action goes
Speaker 2: about it is by actively taking diversity into account when
Speaker 2: looking at applications. So in this instance, for universities got it.
Speaker 2: So this started in the nineteen seventies when the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court ruled that colleges could use race as a factor
Speaker 2: when considering applications to universities. So this idea that in
Speaker 2: the past, certain minority groups hadn't been able to access
Speaker 2: universities to the same degree as perhaps their white counterparts had,
Speaker 2: and there was then a recognition that race should play
Speaker 2: a role in applications. So it's not necessarily that race
Speaker 2: would per se be the determining factor or the only
Speaker 2: factor that allowed someone entry into university, but it basically
Speaker 2: meant that those people assessing applications could consider race during.
Speaker 3: These process as one factor exactly.
Speaker 2: So this story specifically focuses on two universities who use
Speaker 2: affirmative action processes. That's Harvard, heard of that one and
Speaker 2: the University of North Carolina, all.
Speaker 3: Right, and what's happened with those two institutions.
Speaker 2: So the Supreme Court was considering two cases that challenged
Speaker 2: the legality of admissions processes at these two unis at
Speaker 2: Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and their affirmative
Speaker 2: action practices were challenged on the basis that students were
Speaker 2: arguing it was unconstitutional because it was basically, in their eyes,
Speaker 2: racial discrimination.
Speaker 3: So Zira, what were the grounds of the case.
Speaker 2: Well, basically, the case depended on how to interpret the
Speaker 2: fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. So this specific amendment, the
Speaker 2: fourteenth one, was added after the abolition of slavery, and
Speaker 2: it gave US citizens the right to equal protection under
Speaker 2: the law. That's a direct quote. It was explicitly added
Speaker 2: to address racial discrimination against former slaves. So the question
Speaker 2: is then whether this racial discrimination point, the equal protection point,
Speaker 2: should apply equally to everyone or specifically be used to
Speaker 2: allow will say positive discrimination to counteract racial inequality. Since
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy eight, the Supreme Court has effectively held the
Speaker 2: latter view, which created a precedent and allowed affirmative action.
Speaker 3: And that's what's been to play in a number of
Speaker 3: US universities. But that's now changed. Did we hear anything
Speaker 3: from the Supreme Court justices about how they came to
Speaker 3: this new decision.
Speaker 2: So it was a six ' to three decision. Six
Speaker 2: judges voted in favor, three against, and that means that
Speaker 2: the court overturned the view and declared that university's affirmative
Speaker 2: action policies were unconstitutional. In terms of explaining their position,
Speaker 2: the majority of justices argued that while race could be
Speaker 2: considered if it was tied to a student's quality of character.
Speaker 2: Policies could not allow quote stereotyping and could never treat
Speaker 2: race as a quote negative factor. And so what these
Speaker 2: Supreme Court justices were arguing was that by positively viewing
Speaker 2: some races i e. It was helpful in a person's application,
Speaker 2: it ultimately meant that other races had the opposite effect,
Speaker 2: and that if it was seen as a positive contributing
Speaker 2: factor in some applications, inevitably it would mean the opposite
Speaker 2: in other applications. And so I'll read out a quote
Speaker 2: of what the Court's decision said. It said, many universities have,
Speaker 2: for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an
Speaker 2: individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned,
Speaker 2: but the color of their skin. This nation's constitutional history
Speaker 2: does not tolerate that choice.
Speaker 3: So it's important to note the current makeup of the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court. We have a majority conservative leaning Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: What did the three justices who opposed the decisions.
Speaker 2: Well, we had some very strong statements from them. We
Speaker 2: had Justice Sonya Sotomayor who said that it had undone
Speaker 2: decades of precedent and momentous progress. She argued the purpose
Speaker 2: of equal protection was to address racial inequality and that
Speaker 2: this inequality still exists, and pointed to racial disparities in
Speaker 2: poverty and educational outcomes to prove her point. She called
Speaker 2: the US quote a segregated society where race has always
Speaker 2: mattered and continues to matter. Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.
Speaker 2: Fairly strong statement there. There was also President Joe Biden
Speaker 2: who spoke out against the ruling. He is, of course
Speaker 2: a Democrat, and the majority of the Supreme Court justices
Speaker 2: have been appointed by Republicans. He strongly disagrees with the
Speaker 2: decision because the truth is.
Speaker 4: We all know it. Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination
Speaker 4: still exists to America. Today's decision does not change that.
Speaker 4: It's a simple fact I A student had has overcome
Speaker 4: had to overcome adversity under path education. Collet should recognize.
Speaker 3: And value there. We obviously spend a lot of time
Speaker 3: in the media talking about racial inequality in the US,
Speaker 3: but it's also an important discussion to have in an
Speaker 3: Australian context. How does affirmative action play out here at home?
Speaker 2: So Australian law allows affirmative action and other forms of
Speaker 2: what we'll call positive discrimination in some circumstances. According to
Speaker 2: the Australian Human Rights Commission, discrimination is permitted if its
Speaker 2: aim is to quote foster greater inequality by supporting groups
Speaker 2: of people who face or have faced entrench discrimination. So,
Speaker 2: according to them, this may include, but isn't limited to,
Speaker 2: things like race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. I
Speaker 2: think the last thing I'll say is that it we're
Speaker 2: certainly living through a period where we have seen many
Speaker 2: momentous Supreme Court decisions that are overturning precedents that have
Speaker 2: been in place for a number of decades. I mean,
Speaker 2: we just marked the one year anniversary of Roe v.
Speaker 2: Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court, and here we
Speaker 2: have another really monumental shift in policy in the US.
Speaker 2: It's a fascinating time to watch.
Speaker 3: Thank you for joining us on the Daily OS this morning.
Speaker 3: If you learned something from today's episode, don't forget to
Speaker 3: hit subscribe, so there's a TDA episode waiting for you
Speaker 3: every morning. We'll be back again tomorrow. Until then, have
Speaker 3: a great day.