it stood up to say now that same principle applies when you are trying to push one race up and another down for so-called benign reasons. it is not a benign reason when you say you cannot enter here because of your race. some of the race is going to be allowed in and that s what was happening to asian american students at harvard. a hard cap at 20%. low and behold once this litigation came around it jumped because harvard knew what was coming. asians become more qualified or did harvard stop discriminating against them? bill: respond to this. the new york times tweeted about this decision. they are writing breaking news, talking about the ruling saying the major ruling quote curtails race conscious college admissions in the u.s. all but insuring elite institutions become whiter and more asian and less black and latino. your response to that.
who were challenging the student loan program is they would get hit with standing at not get to the merits of the case. that has been a big issue. we saw it with the immigration case last week. texas and louisiana tried to bring a case that didn t have standing. who does have standing? it looks like harvard and unc admission programs where they used race as a factor in the determination of letting people in, the first read on this says that let s see here. admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. got to read the whole opinion to see. that s the first impression that our producer is getting from this. so that would be enormous. we ve been watching this case to see would they swing for the fences or very narrow? the roberts court does as narrowly taylored as possible trying to make a decision about something and this issue. oh, look.
try first to use race neutral means. now, university of texas was doing that, they have a law called the top 10% law which basically requires the school to admit the top 10% of high school students across the state. from any high school. from any high school across the state. so, this means that diversity on campus has increased enormously and actually is higher at about 25% than it was under racial preferences, at about 21%. and so, they were, they ve put racial preferences on top of that. the question is whether this is necessary or appropriate. paul: since the gruter decision you had sandra day o connor replaced by samuel alito and there could be a switch in the decision? certainly, and a good thing they are revisiting it, paul, because there s a growing body of evidence that racial preferences, not only don t help the intended beneficiary, which is poorer blacks, usually middle class kids, and
means. now, university of texas was doing that, they have a law called the top 10% law which basically requires the school to admit the top 10% of high school students across the state. from any high school. from any high school across the state. so, this means that diversity on campus has increased enormously and actually is higher at about 25% than it was under racial preferences, at about 21%. and so, they were, they ve put racial preferences on top of that. the question is whether this is necessary or appropriate. paul: since the gruter decision you had sandra day o connor replaced by samuel alito and there could be a switch in the decision? certainly, and a good thing they are revisiting it, paul, because there s a growing body of evidence that racial preferences, not only don t help the intended beneficiary, which is poorer blacks, usually middle class kids, and might actually be hurting the