january six on anyone s mind. same again with the ad spending. maga hates new campaigns are. where trump is not examining that as a potential issue. this really comes after the midterms. if you just run for president you have a criminal investigation on your. back joyce, i want to shift to something you re watching tomorrow in the supreme court justices will begin oral arguments in two cases, challenging raiche s conscious at harvard and university of north carolina, affirmative action could be struck down here? so, affirmative action and education was an issue that seemed to have been firmly resolved by the court and tell this term. the question is whether this new 63 conservative majority on the court, will change the long-standing practice in this area. the law permits universities, colleges to take some acknowledgment of race as a factor. one among many when they re doing admissions practices.
being have to meet much higher standards as the a result of school taking race into consideration in their admissions practices. ainsley: okay, carrie, what about the leaker? just breyer who left the court as you know in june said the identity of the leaker was still unknown as we know. neil gorsuch said it s terribly important to identify the leaker. elena kagan doesn t know if the probe will determine the source of the leak. will we ever know who this leaker was? for sure find out who it was. a pretty small universe of people they are looking at. i thought the chief justice had every incentive to want to find this person. it s horrible for the court to have that out there and that person just being able to go to scot-free it. sends a message that hey, you too could leak a brief if you are a law clerk this year or a member of the court s staff. now i am less sure and it sounds like from several justices that they still don t know who the leaker is. maybe we will get a committee
the relationship between coaches and admissions not about the scholarship athletes but the walk-ons and non-scholarship athletes and how much flexibility the coaches have. in this case, the coaches were clearly bribed. we could dismiss this as simply coaches prescribed and parents prepared to bribe them. i have a feeling it s more than that. trying to understand, i think every college in this country, particularly the division i schools are now reviewing their admissions practices and taking a look at how much flexibility coaches have to bring in non-scholarship students, and what those processes are and what those standards are. it just seems to me this says an awful lot about our society that we have gotten to this point, yeah, at the risk of stating the obvious, we re all, i think presidential the same age, older millennials at this
from standardized testing and alternative assessment is something colleges can really think about. to me, the inequities in the system really go to the core of it, and you know, i think the scandal is a very good opportunity for colleges to rethink fundamental admissions practices. and in an article for the new yorker, you made the case that this scandal exposes problems throughout our educational system, not just at the college admissions level. what do you mean? i mean the colleges are entirely oriented toward money. and admissions is a part of it. but even public universities basically make their decisions about what they develop, about what buildings they build, about what resources they attract, about what, you know, how their curricular will change and faculty they hire, they base all of those decisions how they can attract money. that is the opposite of thinking about education as a public resource, as a public good, and thinking about how it benefits