decision that could profoundly change called emissions, and more broadly reshape by four millions in this country. also, what we are learning about the arrest in the washington neighborhood where the obamas live. with a heavily armed man with materials to make a molotov cocktail, who was also wanted in connection and january 6th. plus, what we re learning but a new cooperating witness in the january six probe of the former president, and why he could be in a position to now say, a lot. first, the supreme court s history making decision today, dismantling a pillar of affirmative action. specifically, college admissions. in, and the court ruled by a 6 to 3 margin, that race conscious politics at harvard in the university of north carolina violate the third 14th amendment. in his majority opinion, the chief justice wright set the programs, unemployable employ race in a negative manner, and involve racial serotonin, lack meaningful and points. those admission programs cannot be r
even the kalon burst up you mentioned earlier, i gave you some good news from a perspective of the university. the bad news is a lot of people are saying you can pivot to socioeconomic status or by the chief justice also said you are not allowed to do through the backdoor what you can do through the front door. he made both of those statements. he created that loophole we were just discussing. but he also said if you were to adopt the first gen program or a top 10% texas like program, for the purposes of boosting racial diversity, that could be deemed a pretext on the part of the university. it could be challenged in court on that ground. there is already a case in the fourth circuit that is working on. this whether or not the court will pick that up next term, they may want to stay away from this for a. while these cases are watch this face. professor, thank you so much for being with us. laura and ben, thank you both as well. next, we do have breaking news. what we ve been lear
affirmative action and college admissions. earlier, we mentioned how carroll california ended the practice for its public schools more than 25 years ago. it was the first day to do so. has more on what that experience could mean for the rest of the nation. harvard, yale, columbia, just the rejection letters that ended his ivy league dream. i m a straight a student, four point oh gpa, four point 68 waited gpa. did you get into any ivy league schools? i did not. that was so when we met him two years ago. this is where we find him today. soon to be a junior at ucla. i think eliminating race in consideration would definitely be a lot different. and help you? probably, yes, in some sense it would help me. so says he was accepted to every university of california school, the state banned a parent of action in 1996. what has happened here in california could signal the future for u.s. colleges without affirmative action. ucla professor eddie cole says the impact was immedi
racial diversity and the council said that would be totally fine, that would go to the individual s character rather than supple membership in the group. chief justice roberts in his opinion gave that. that creates a big avenue. when you think about whatever university is not going to, do they are all going to ask a question about, have you had any kind of diversity in your like you would like to bring before the committee? that will be done with a wink and a nod and savvy applicants will, right i had this experience overcoming racial adversity. universities will be able to take that into account. is this the last time we are going to see the issue of affirmative action before the court? it is going to be endless, john. this is just the very beginning of it.
about a student. but if a student should choose to discuss their identity, their lived experience, their actual race and perhaps in admissions as a, and then they are able to consider that. and how does this quagmire work? wooden admissions officer have to say, hold on a second, they talked about race or their personal experience, am i now forbidden because of what the supreme court had to say? that s apparently why the administration has spoken out about having some type of standards to use as a guide for different educators and admissions officers. but it does really open a kind of pandora s box. particularly with a footnote about the military, when we know that there is a correlation between the officers ranks and that which who goes to a university or college setting. there are a whole lot of issues here that are going to be front and center, which will likely lead to further litigation. but mostly this notion of the dynamic, the hypocrisy to some, and the just overarching uncertai