WWL>Topics>>4-23 9:10am Tommy, affirmative action

4-23 9:10am Tommy, affirmative action

Apr 23, 2014|

Tommy talks to David Law, a Professor of Law & Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis, about a new ruling on affirmative action

Related Audio:

  1. 8-24 9am Tommy, no homework policy?

    Wed, 24 Aug 2016

    Tommy talks to Harris Cooper, a Professor in the Dept. of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University, about whether homework helps students achieve success.

  2. 8-24 8am Tommy, regulations for the Cajun Navy?


    Wed, 24 Aug 2016

    Tommy takes your calls and talks to listeners about a proposal to regulate the Cajun Navy.

  3. 8-24 7am Tommy, Cajun navy regulations?


    Wed, 24 Aug 2016

    Tommy takes your calls and talks to listeners about some proposed regulations for the Cajun Navy.

  4. 8-24 6am Tommy, Cajun Navy regulations?


    Wed, 24 Aug 2016

    Tommy talks to Jared Serigne, a volunteer with the Cajun Navy, about his experiences helping rescue people and about some proposed regulations of the Cajun Navy.


Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

Or against right now David -- who is coincidentally a professor of law and political science. At Washington university in Saint Louis a friend of -- been on the 4 morning professor. More. Thank you for taking time tell me if you will. Com about the Supreme Court ruling yesterday for those that know -- don't know about it. And what kind of ramifications Pakistan. Church services with his -- let you come out of Michigan. And it was a response to a couple of earlier decision by the court in which the court narrowly -- The use of -- decried affirmative action programs. In university that and but the quartet worked in the cases you can attack -- the back with Jack for the sake of benefiting minority students. You can't have. The -- of -- but of course running time which is for the benefit everyone majority and minority -- -- So. It's like this season and they -- the constitutional amendment prohibiting Michigan universities from using any kind of back. So the question for the Supreme Court that it actually. Is from that. -- The question that we need to roll toward the voters of Michigan and put them back. So it's one step removed from the question of whether that's constitutional but he did it probably -- the chance to look at the abuse it and at a summit that. So the tricky thing about -- is that within. A couple of -- it is that the people that the more equitable. One of the department of -- Washington yeah. And the earlier -- I believe that went to edit the but the one what little little support for the third. -- definitely. -- decide what school district. What happened was the the -- board had the lead as part of the settlement. To have to battle but it completely in the war. That will do what happened crept the couple -- the crap out of school district. Wouldn't allow blacks to think that what's happening you know kind of protection. And for the debacle that was agreed with. The patent lie about things that we'll have to. And then -- haven't been absent and the match. Prohibiting the Seattle school board have been beaten any kind of and the Supreme Court that it -- have a bit. The and -- -- -- putt on. I would banning. Unconstitutional. Because it imposed. On minorities which he's. That it didn't oppose the vote -- this week in which is a little difficult to understand -- became known as the political crap. The old west and -- was that is if those sort of similar to get back to happen and you -- a how important band discriminating against probably the way that we -- that you couldn't -- that would -- -- the department -- -- that the city bankrupt that yet. Of the -- then -- the path of beauty. The city council for beating discredited practice. Bat. The bat bat in the past the bidding for the but -- not so the -- To call -- the city council for banning racial discrimination. Was struck down by the Supreme Court on the ground to make a political handicap on my fourth. I know I don't need to it would take a break professor come -- I know you probably already answered this them little confused as to whether or not. It's a State's rights issue or. What why was it. You ruled that way yesterday when it relates to meeting -- and -- and other areas so will find out when we come back professor David law is our guest sees. Professor of law and political science at Washington university in Saint Louis and -- any questions. Or comments to six 187 Neitzel 3866889087. He's been a tough morning for the community and is again better any time real quick here. And updates. We are talking to food doctor David Long an associate professor of public policy. A professor of law and political science rather at Washington university in Saint Louis and I want to try to work in as many phone calls as we can. As we talk about affirmative action Supreme Court ruling. Yesterday Keith Marrero good morning on -- WL. Yet people on top. One thing -- ya need to separate is why people so when. Law say that it would discriminated against all of because of affirmative action. Back in 78 and Danny -- back Jerry -- who was in college to be shocked. All things all the -- because he was rejected. Off because there -- spoke it to be at. To me that that would all. But if you got some that ought to be coaching you know fell. The net debt becomes subjective because mail YouTube records speak you know what you've become -- not edit the company wins yet. You want moss threat will do that. But then it. But -- Adobe presuming you only -- head coaches right because that's within the Rooney rule and effects of that minority candidates get interviewed at least. -- the -- Syrian is at least stay at an opportunity to give India. But you talk about somebody want to be about all of law. -- that the little bit just for you got to get somebody that. Those -- big bill you know what I mean is that the war. Only so elusive to professors says about yankees and blue collar European -- him. -- -- -- -- for the question to. So weak argument -- about DP UC regents and executive it was a cut down balky it was a point medical school. And he was white and he didn't Gideon. That thing in hockey though is that actually no proof that the reason he didn't get it was because -- -- like. Yet he argued that it made it harder for indicated because he was white. And the Supreme Court ended up saying in fact Kate's. It's okay need for UC Davis medical school to take recent count as one factor which he would have been the quote the -- yet X number white students. X number of black students. And that's the first thought that was forbidden. And that part of the hockey remains a lot today it's still the case that you have affirmative action you can take race into account but you can't make it. The automatic deciding factor it can only be what people call out. Don't buy these case actually was -- the clear the -- it's because he. He couldn't show that you -- because rate -- you know it gets what it's medical school a lot of people don't get that with the black white purple brown white doesn't matter. It's medical school hard to get into. But if nobody knows. I was gonna ask if it's if it's applause. Because you are. Being favored by affirmative action in essence you are kinda. Put the other candidates. Aside right UGU right artificially raising scores just because somebody happens to be so how is that not pose a different against professors and demands -- Super important signals that as a -- entry. See this is sort of procedural question that before you couldn't even get into federal court like the Supreme Court you have to show that you suffered some kind of injury. Am the quartet okay we know you couldn't prove that you were rejected because you're racist but you did suffer injury in the form of being denied the same opportunity that came in the form of not. Not having the same number of spots to compete for. As a minority applicant. So the supreme quartet that -- An injury that injury about to get in the court now the question is what that the composing the injury argue -- justified and said he wants. So I guess does it come down to little finish if you will I guess a -- where you are before we had to take the breaker graphic about. Hum the -- go ahead picking up there if you. About whether it's a State's rights issue and fortunately at least in court cases become packaged as well that is going to be a case about affirmative action or something interesting and -- and high profile. But then they get too wrapped up -- first police procedural questions. And and at what happened here at the quick splinter so happily you can't really tell the court saying so did you have normally nine people scream court. And it five or more than -- something that the law right. So you had six people here agree. That the Michigan law banning affirmative action. Was constitutional. But there was no majority among them as to what he was unconstitutional they were three justices let one theory there were two more justices Scalia Thomas. Who basically said that normally affirmative action should be considered unconstitutional which should be considered a denial of equal protection. Rather than an indication of protection and interest union because just the promises and so African American member of the court. So those -- want to say affirmative action has basically unconstitutional most of the time. And the -- collapsed just the Justice Breyer and completely different theory. So it's really hard to say what the decision means. The only thing we really know for sure is that voters that they want you can prohibit the university. Perhaps affirmative action policies that's about it. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- The realizes a 121000 level course I think you might be looking at basket making. But how do you go from the constitution in the founding fathers to affirmative action. -- out where where does it become a constitutional issue because I don't think they constitutions is an intimate that at all doesn't. Well it's a very good question. Really and I think the classroom. -- apartment add to that question pockets -- very hard question and like I mean I would say. But yeah I would think -- and every country on the world. Some kind of affirmative action or response -- remedy or. Minority status clock to remedy has been. Has been an issue. In this country it's an issue because like obviously every word African Americans who tried the reader right after finger cutoff event. Plus for 200 years and the question is to -- should -- get a leg up should the popular in the -- the political support for -- But in another country in which are two issues so for example India their cap system and so affirmative action at -- rate -- is written into the constitution. In Canada there's a problem where French speaking Canadian the other disadvantage for a two things -- immediate it's hard to -- the country is in -- -- -- issue like that. So every where around the world it's pretty much all we've been. A political issue you know what happens you'll political issue and -- high profile. It's become the legal issue in eventually become the constitutional issue because people find a way to express in the constitutional. You wanna know -- today affirmative action remains viable as. It -- -- constitutional it's -- Supreme Court decided brown vs board of education. And it's look the government is responsible has been or stop or keep in black and white children separate right that's right we can all agree on that. The problem now is. What you do about it. And the Supreme Court to answer that it's given. But in the past it's so kaine not take read to count because we -- -- -- -- in about. So -- gonna fix the problem we created we have to take recent count in the good. And the supreme ports are built from that set and they are also -- some other circumstances under which it would be okayed to combat this lingering legacy of discrimination against my equities. So that's what at what point does sociology meet laws and the that the court rules that whenever affirmative. Action genie was let out of the bodily decide to close the bottle up that -- is equal now and and that it would be reversed discrimination against seeped into night programming Heidi -- -- right. Right and I think that's an excellent question it goes to a larger larger issue which has weathered brown vs board or some later case. The court on the one hand is sometimes suspicious about the -- despite. Sometimes -- things what we think the -- were we discriminatory. And then concrete in the thinks affirmative action unnecessary. On the other hand. The Supreme Court is probably the worst institutions of government in the entire country when it comes to figuring out the so -- lots of facts of what's really going on you've got these. Nine guys while another some woman on the court they're cloistered in some office building Washington DC they don't have a research team like congress. They have recent law school graduates. People street level law school each of them at forty square popping them figure -- will work. We'll get spot -- -- really don't know how the world works because of the world works but they have these instincts impulse was her feelings. About what's good what's bad but -- have the facts to back them up. I think that's one of the reasons the Supreme Court has become so unpredictable the reef area. And what would that -- instead it's kind of look at the ideology in the background in the party to adjust and predict from that you're exactly right they're terrible -- sociology. Lead oxide -- the Board of Education Supreme Court said well segregation unconstitutional because of psychologically harmful to minorities. They would agree that. Racial resegregation school -- bad but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court was right when it came to be sociological studies of -- segregation affected children that. We didn't have a good idea relied on -- social science studies that since that have been questioned the Supreme Court is terrible. Fighting back about the real world it relied on what's presented to it by the parties in their briefs but frankly that's a good way of finding out of the old works. So the Korean problem. In terms of that of of getting the Supreme Court more in touch with reality would it be a good thing if ever known and heard a divorce case. It might be deciding who gets that it might be who gets the drapes. Who takes the silverware home with a -- on I mean that kind of thing in my. Well -- It would be -- thing I think people don't justice Sotomayor has become known as the -- justice because she doesn't -- leaders offer -- she does things like. Participate in the ball drop in Times Square and whatever reasons were doing as the chief says look we just are not in touch with the people. Right on the one -- And judges Qaeda wanna preserve -- authority by wearing the black world looking very serious and -- apple because they knew the. But since then on the other hand it back and and also we can't participate in a lot of events because they create the appearance of public interest margin has to be mutual. So they actually and so but the rightfully and so we -- mutual of orchid but let -- know about what's going on. Armed with. The problem with getting your family -- cases is the court these days. They only hear about one per screen court over here about 1%. The petitions of the skills that are brought to it has the discretion to reject almost every case that spot before and you know what if you get in the application they're -- -- bit. Boring state law we don't want it. They wanted to be -- cherry pick the case I think the most interest in most controversial. Most important but again that does not help get in touch what's really going on America. Doctor I appreciate your time -- know we talk to you again just once I would like to see Chief Justice John Roberts. Tell bickering couple stop the both of you just shut -- Have a good day to think about it.

Should civilian rescue efforts after natural disasters be regulated by the government?
View Results