#RolandMartinUnfiltered - SCOTUS & Affirmative Action, KY Cop Kills Desman LaDuke, Internet Deals Disparities, Covid Variants

Episode Date: November 1, 2022

10.31.2022 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: SCOTUS & Affirmative Action, KY Cop Kills Desman LaDuke, Internet Deals Disparities, Covid Variants The Supreme Court will kick off its November argument session with the highest-profile cases of that session: challenges to the consideration of race in the admissions process at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.  We'll break down today's arguments. A recent report uncovers that poor, less white areas get the worst internet deals. I'll talk to one of the investigative reporters who discovered how some companies discriminate in providing Internet access. Desman LaDuke, the young black man having a mental health crisis shot by a police officer through a window of his home, was laid to rest on Saturday.  Tonight, his aunt joins us to tell us about the investigation.  The white officer who placed his gun on Patrick Lyoya's head and pulled the trigger will have to stand trial for his death.  New York will pay millions to the men wrongfully convicted of killing Malcolm X.  DNA exonerates a black man after 38 years in a California prison.  And in our Fit, Live, Win segment, we're talking about bivalent Covid boosters and if it's a good idea to get them.   Support RolandMartinUnfiltered and #BlackStarNetwork via the Cash App ☛ https://cash.app/$rmunfiltered PayPal ☛ https://www.paypal.me/rmartinunfiltered Venmo ☛https://venmo.com/rmunfiltered Zelle ☛ [e-mail] Annual or monthly recurring #BringTheFunk Fan Club membership via paypal ☛ https://rolandsmartin.com/rmu-paypal/ Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox 👉🏾 http://www.blackstarnetwork.com #RolandMartinUnfiltered and the #BlackStarNetwork are news reporting platforms covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. We support this man, Black Media. He makes sure that our stories are told. Thank you for being the voice of Black America, Roller. Stay Black. I love y'all. All momentum we have now, we have to keep this going. The video looks phenomenal. See, there's a difference between Black Star Network and Black-owned media and something like CNN. You can't be Black-owned media and be scape. It's time to be smart.

Bring your eyeballs home. You dig? សូវបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបា� Today is Monday, October 31st, 2022, coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered, streaming live on the Black Star Network. The likely end of affirmative action in college admissions, potentially even corporate America America is near. Conservatives hold a six to three majority on the Supreme Court, and today they heard several cases

that dealt with the issue of affirmative action. And trust me, you know that Clarence Thomas is salivating at the chance to get rid of affirmative action. He even asked one of the dumbest damn questions you've ever heard, where he asked today during oral arguments, how do you define diversity? Because for the life of him, he just can't figure out what it means.

We got a full breakdown of today's hearing. Ellie Mistel will join us, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund leader, Janai Nelson will join us as well. And so, and we'll also play for you the NAACP Legal Defense Fund leader, Jhene Nelson, will join us as well. And so, and we'll also play for you some of the oral arguments that took place in today's court hearing.

So folks, full coverage of that. It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered on the Black Star Network, he's got the scoop, the fact, the fine. And when it breaks, he's right on time. And it's rolling, best belief he's knowing. Putting it down from sports to news to politics. With entertainment just for kicks. He's rolling, yeah, with Uncle Roro, yo.

Yeah, yeah, it's rolling, Martin, yeah. It's Uncle Roro, y'all. Yeah, yeah. It's Roland Martin. Yeah, yeah. Rolling with Roland now. Yeah, yeah. He's funky, he's fresh, he's real the best. You know he's Roland Martin now. La. Martel. Să ne urmăm. If you thought last time's last, the last session of the Supreme Court was historic in terms of overturning major precedent, get ready for more.

Beyond Roe v. Wade, you can expect this Supreme Court to overturn affirmative action today in oral arguments. They heard cases dealing with affirmative action in college admissions. It was, of course, focused on a case from the University of North Carolina. There are several they're actually looking at. And it was two hours and 40 minutes, nearly three hours of questions from Supreme Court justices. And as you can expect, you had justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Lelito, the right folks on the right really focused on trying to get rid of this idea of the importance of diversity, of the importance of ethnicity in college admissions.

You can hear it in their questioning. You can hear it in their statements. And Clarence Thomas, who normally doesn't ask any questions, oh, you know he was salivating today. He has long wanted to get rid of affirmative action. Why? Because the self-hating black man that he is

didn't know how to have any self-esteem in fighting back against white students who accused him of only getting into Yale because of affirmative action. Frankly, he should have learned how to tell them to go to hell. But ever since then, he has been whining and crying about, oh, how it just hurts the esteem of minority students. No, it actually hurts his lack of self-esteem,

but that's what you're actually dealing with. And so what I want to do, folks, is first off, I want to play you some of the sound from the questioning. We're going to go to our guest to get a full breakdown of today's session. And so, again, so let's start with, first off, Justice Katonji Brown-Jackson. She makes a critical point that I have said for years about this idea of legacy, which has benefited white folks, and the issue of race and admissions. So what I'm worried about is that the rule that you're advocating, that in the context

of a holistic review process, a university can take into account and value all of the other background and personal characteristics of other applicants, but they can't value race. What I'm worried about is that that seems to me to have the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it's actually solving. And the reason why I get to that possible conclusion is thinking about two applicants who would like to have their family backgrounds credited in this applications process, and I'm hoping to get your reaction to this hypothetical. The first applicant says, I'm from North Carolina.

My family has been in this area for generations since before the Civil War, and I would like you to know that I will be the fifth generation to graduate from the University of North Carolina. I now have that opportunity to do that, and given my family background, it's important to me that I get to attend this university. I want to honor my family's legacy by going to this school. The second applicant says, I'm from North Carolina. My family's been in this area for generations, since before the Civil War, but they were slaves and never had a chance to attend this venerable institution. As an African American, I now have that opportunity, and given my family background, it's important to me to attend this university. I want to honor my family legacy by going to this school. Now, as I understand your no-race conscious admissions rule,

these two applicants would have a dramatically different opportunity to tell their family stories and to have them count. The first applicant would be able to have his family background considered and valued by the institution as part of its consideration of whether or not to admit him, while the second one wouldn't be able to because his story is in many ways bound up with his race and with the race of his ancestors. So I want to know, based on how your rule would likely play out in scenarios like that, why excluding consideration of race in a situation

in which the person is not saying that his race is something that has impacted him in a negative way. He just wants to have it honored, just like the other person has their personal background family story honored. Why is telling him no not an equal protection violation? All right, folks. Now, if you want to hear something that's just dumb, listen to this black man, Clarence Thomas, go, what's diversity? I've heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don't have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone. And I'd like you first, you did give some examples in your opening remarks, but I'd

like you to give us a specific definition of diversity in the context of the University of North Carolina. And I'd also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly what the educational benefits of diversity at the University of North Carolina would be. Yes, Your Honor. So, first, we define diversity the way this court has in its court precedents, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race. And there's a factual finding in this record, PEDAP 113, that there are many different diversity factors that are considered as a greater factor in our admissions process than race. All right, folks, that was more to Thomas's answer there at the end there. He was kind of like, well, I still just don't quite understand, you know, how do you actually

define diversity? It was just it's really nonsensical. I don't know how you could go through this many years in the past 40 years of life and not be able to actually define diversity when it comes to college admissions. I'm gonna bring in folks right now who are joining us, our guests, to unpack what took place today. Elie Mistel, he is, of course, the justice correspondent with The Nation.

Glad to have Elie here. Trust me, I'm surprised Ellie actually has hair because I thought he was going to be pulling all of it out listening to those oral arguments today. I did as well. Trust me, it was crazy. Rakim Brooks is president of the Alliance for Justice. Glad to have him.

And also, Janai Nelson. She is the president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. I'm glad to have all three of you here. Ellie, I want to start with you. You'll be the pacesetter. I hope Rakeem and Janae can keep up with you being the pacesetter. Lord have mercy. Obviously, I saw your tweets and it was just nonsensical as you listen to the questions from folks on the right, especially Clarence Thomas.

Yeah. So I want to take the first whack here on Uncle Thomas. Right. Because he got an answer to his question. In fact, he got three answers to his question. First, the lawyer Ryan Park, which you surfaced, the Solicitor General of North Carolina, he said that the reason why we need diversity is because studies have shown, and this is a fact in the record, that people learn better, feel better, and actually perform better when they don't feel like tokens. When there is a critical mass of other minority students, they learn better and actually do better in school. So that's one answer. Thomas didn't like that because he said he didn't like to talk about feelings, which is interesting because his entire autobiography is basically how bad he felt at Yale Law School being the only black person there.

But all of a sudden now that he's on the Supreme Court, he doesn't care about feelings anymore. Okay. Second answer was from U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogger. She said that one of the big benefits of diversity is that it's a pipeline to all of the other institutions in our country. Prelogger was there specifically to talk about the military. And she said diversity in the service academies is a big way that they can have a diverse officer corps and that as leaders of men, that has more legitimacy when the officer corps is as diverse as the enlisted men. Thomas didn't have an answer for that, didn't like the answer for that. So he asked a third time, and he got a third answer from Harvey

Waxman, the lawyer for Harvard University. He said that there are studies, and again, this is just factually in the record, that shows that when you have like an investor group that is made up of diverse people, they literally make better decisions. And we know they make better decisions because they make more money. Like stock traders who trade stocks within a diverse environment make more money because diversity cuts against the groupthink that can happen in non-diverse places. So Clarence Thomas actually got three answers to his argument. He didn't accept any of them. And I think from that, we can infer and intuit that Clarence Thomas wasn't really asking a question. He was spouting a white-wing narrative that he's been told about and was simply parroting that white wing narrative through his questions at the bar today.

Jenea, anyone with any basic understanding realizes that, and you heard it in the arguments today, that you still have a lot of white folks being admitted. It has not been the cure for admissions. But the fact is they also made it clear. You get rid of race in admissions, college admissions will be even whiter

than it is right now. And then I heard all the different justices kept bringing up religion and they wanted to bring up, well, how do you designate somebody who's from, I think it was Kavanaugh, from Jordan or from some other country. And the one that got me was when the attorney said, oh, sure, you can give points if somebody is the child of an immigrant, but you can't give points if they are a descendant of slaves. Just your assessment of what you heard today in the Supreme Court. Listen, I heard a lot. It was a five-hour argument.

It was a very difficult argument to listen to because of all the reasons you suggest. There were lots of questions that weren't really questions, that were subversive messages to the justices and to the public kind of tipping the hand of the justices. You know, it conflated so many issues when there were questions about what does diversity mean and what benefits does it confer? And my response, which, you know, I think some of the oralists did point to, is that the court has already answered those questions, right? that it is incredibly important for the students in our schools of higher education to learn alongside students that reflect the diversity of this nation. When John Powell wrote that, he was speaking about the racial and ethnic diversity of this country. He wasn't talking about, you know, religion or athletics or playing squash or cricket or crew, like Justice Gorsuch

wanted to mention many times today. He was specifically talking about the racial and ethnic diversity that makes this country so rich and that has such a complex past because of the history of enslavement, because of the history of racial subjugation, Jim Crow laws, and what nobody seemed to acknowledge, perhaps just as Sotomayor, the ongoing present racial discrimination that still pervades our society. Everyone seemed to talk about it like this was something in the ancient past, and we were just still trying to take account of it today. No, the reality is Black, white, Latino, Asian, indigenous persons live lives in this country that are influenced by race today. And that acknowledgement was not recognized in that? Um, it was indeed, um, striking,

uh, to listen to the questions, uh, Rakim, and Jhené made mention of Gorsuch talking about squash players and... and whatever the hell that was. I literally have no idea where he was going with that. And then I love how he goes, well, let me ask the hypothetical. And then the lawyer goes, well, he wanted to hear it. Well, I know it's a hypothetical.

And I'm sitting there going, Gorsuch, we don't need hypotheticals. We've got actually real data. We've got real examples. And it was this sort of this esoteric pie in the sky, oh my goodness, even in Lito with

his questions as well. And so it was just crazy to me to listen to them because it is as if they are just utterly clueless with how white our main institutions are. They were going on and on about, why do you have to have a box,

even though the attorney said that's self-reporting. It's not like we are determining everything by the box. And I just get a kick out of how they just love to just skip over legacy when that is a racial benefit when somebody white has ancestors who went to a college when we couldn't go? Yeah, completely right. I mean, this was absurdity upon absurdity. To your point, Justice Alito went through

a very long litany of questions of saying, just bizarrely, okay, but what if one of your grandparents was Black or Native American? And then what if one of your great-grandparents? Because he was showing just how distant he was from the reality of the situation, which is we have deeply entrenched segregation still in higher education, in K-12 education, in almost every aspect of our society, in spite of the gains that we've made over time. And so you're exactly right that what we saw were people who seem to be entirely unmoored

from reality. It seems like the one place that diversity is not benefiting is the Supreme Court. They don't seem willing at all to listen to the experiences of their colleagues or even the questions of their colleagues, which you started off with with Justice Kataji Brown Jackson. Really should have twisted them into a pretzel if they were being intellectually honest by considering how is it that somebody who is a legacy admittee would be able to make that case for themselves and their admission, but a person who is a descendant of slaves from a town in North Carolina wouldn't be able to make that case. Or when Justice Sotomayor suggested, well, isn't it important to have diversity in our police forces, for instance? Or Justice Kagan said, hey, some of you like to hire diverse clerks. Isn't that something that you should be allowed to do? All of those things invited an opportunity for the conservatives on the court to consider the experience of their colleagues, the intelligence of their colleagues, the questions of their colleagues, and at every opportunity seemed to

avoid what were just obvious facts. And then when the counsels from each side pointed out that in the record, there was no support for each side pointed out that in the record, there was no support for any of the things that, in particular, Justice Alito was citing, that the district court had thought about it and considered it seriously and offered up its findings to the court, they just seemed to want to brush those aside. So the way that you started the conversation, this seemed to be a foregone conclusion. I'm not sure that we needed the argument. I'm optimistic like everybody else. But the truth is that these folks live in a different reality and want us to live in their reality. Ellie, again, you're looking at a six to three right wing majority on this court,

even if Roberts, let's say, chooses to go along with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Katonji Brown-Jackson, fine, it's still 5-4. And this is what we're facing. And we're talking about, and they were to discuss the University of North Carolina, but the thing here is these right-wing activists, they also want to go after diversity in corporate America in every facet. They do not want to see or accept the browning of America.

They want to act as if, look, hey, everybody's being judged at all times based upon merit when we know that's a flat-out lie. Yeah, and to be clear, Roberts is not in play, y'all. The last time affirmative action was up in front of the Supreme Court, it was a four-to-three decision. Elena Kagan had to recuse herself from that case because she worked on it as solicitor general. And Antonin Scalia was dead, and they hadn't replaced him yet with who would become Neil Gorsuch. That was a four-to-three decision upheld mainly by Anthony Kennedy. And affirmative action was upheld mainly by Anthony Kennedy. In the interven was upheld mainly by Anthony Kennedy.

In the intervening years, in the six years since the last time affirmative action was up in front of the Supreme Court, Kennedy has been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett. And Antonin Scalia has been replaced by Neil Gorsuch. So that's how you get to 6-3. The three people who dissented last time, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, they're all still there. So this is going down. One thing I really want to bring up, though, is the thing that should have been at the heart of this case, discrimination against AAPI students, against Asian American students. The arguments from the white conservatives was that affirmative action somehow disadvantages Asian-American students. But at the Supreme Court, they actually didn't have an argument for that. When you looked in the North Carolina situation, they literally, North Carolina admits a higher percentage of applicants who are Asian-American than they do of African-American applicants, causing

Ryan Park, the Solicitor General, to say that would be a peculiar result if you thought North Carolina was discriminating against Asian-Americans. And in the Harvard context, there actually is some evidence that Asian-Americans are discriminated against in a particular score that Harvard uses to grade people. But they made no argument for how Harvard's use of that score, which, by the way, I think is trash. I think Harvard should not use this particular score that discriminates against Asian American students. But they made no argument for how that score is the fault of Harvard admitting Black students, because it's not.

So, like, the actual harm here, if there was a harm, wasn't even surfaced by the white conservatives in their, you used the word salivating, Roland, in their salivation, in their dripping salivation to overturn affirmative action. They actually ignored the Asian American students they were allegedly representing. As I've said on this particular issue of the AAPI students, you lie down with the dogs, you're going to wake up with fleas. Once you let white conservatives co-opt your argument, guess what? What happens today is what happens to you. You actually don't get your day in court, because the white conservatives are going

to take that day away from you and make their own arguments for their mediocre children getting into school. And, Jene, the point there in terms of them not addressing it, and I gotta remind people, the Mississippi court case that resulted in the Dobbs decision,

that case did not ask for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. They chose to go further. So this court is not bound by whatever case is in front of them. They could absolutely say,

all right, fine, we're just going to take this thing all the way and give it all of it. Listen, this court could do almost anything at this point. We've seen the lawless activism in the Dobbs case. We've seen it in the Bruin case, which was the gun control case. We've seen that this court really has no limits when it wants to decide an issue and uproot even decades of precedent. What was clear from today's argument is that they don't have a legal basis for doing so. I do want to mention something that Ellie said and to say that we should be really clear about the failed attempt to use Asian students as a wedge on this issue. We have the great privilege of representing 25 organizations that represent students at Harvard, student organizations,

alumni organizations, faculty, interviewers. We had a huge rally yesterday in celebration about diversity in which students from across the racial and ethnic spectrum spoke and celebrated their unity on affirmative action, many of them being Asian students. Many of our clients are Asian students, and they are very clear that there is an effort to use them and their experience to create a wedge between the Black and Asian community and to take down affirmative action, and they are having none of it, because they are very clear that there are large swaths of the Asian AAPI community that aren't served by the current admission system and would benefit from an increased and enhanced consideration of race, just like Black students and Latino and Indigenous

students would as well. So they're very clear about that. What we're seeing is an effort to really co-opt the interpretation of Brown versus Board of Education, a case that the Legal Defense Fund litigated and won, and that ended racial apartheid in this country. We're seeing an effort to really attempt to misguide the American public with an agenda by some persons on the court who wish to erase the consideration of race from every aspect of our society, even though so many aspects of our lives are governed by it. Rakim, the thing that jumps out at me, again, this goes beyond just colleges. So when you look at what corporate America

has been able to institute, when you start talking about contracts, when you start talking about hiring, I mean, how far-reaching could this decision be that could dramatically alter what we've seen take place over the last 50 years in this country? Well, this is the point that you were making. The court doesn't seem to respect its own precedent, doesn't seem to respect its own processes in terms of the cases presented to them. And so it goes that far. That's really what, as I said, Justice Kagan,

Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Katonji Brown Jackson were alluding to, that there are all of these ripple effects and sort of amplifications about what it would mean to get rid of affirmative action if the core holding is that the 14th Amendment does not provide for the consideration of race in higher education? Why would it provide for the consideration of race, as you say, in government contracting, in corporate board representation, in representation in the military or our police forces? Suddenly, we would be in this bizarre world where, though all of us, I mean, the folks on this call, I mean, in this show in particular, right, grew up with Black families, where suddenly you can't say Black.

I mean, this is the DeSantis court, right? You can't say gay. You can't say Black, apparently. You can't say Latino. You can't say Asian. And we live in this, I mean, it is utterly bizarre. One of the things that I was smirking about earlier because you just have to kind of smile

or laugh your way through this, is that the conservatives kept asking, like, when will this end? You know, like, 25 years, 40 years? Will you be back here in 45 years? When will this end? And I swear I just wanted somebody to jump up and say, it'll end when you all stop being racist, right? It's not us. I mean, people of color in this country, they want affirmative action to continue in perpetuity because we like it, it's a reflection of our lived experiences that, in fact, the institutions that are set up, as Justice Kagan said, to promote leadership in the society have historically excluded folks and, as Jaday was saying earlier, continue to exclude people of color. And so, yes,

this will have wide-ranging implications throughout the society, and we shouldn't think that this is just about a few black kids getting into Harvard. Absolutely. First of all, Rakim, I know you have to go. Rakim Brooks, I sure appreciate it. Thanks a lot. I'm going to go back to Janae and Ellie on this right here. And that thing for me right there, Janae, was just, you know,

I mean, you know, we had a 25-year limit. You're right. Like, when is this going to end? And you're sitting here going, do we actually live in the same world? Like, I know y'all got on black robes, but surely y'all are not Martians and you're not living elsewhere, another colony, and not actually

understanding what's happening in this country. Yeah. You know, Roland, what really struck me was Justice Alito at some point said in response to Elizabeth Perlogar, who did a phenomenal job advancing some very important arguments in support of affirmative action. She's the Solicitor General who argued. But he said to her when she was talking about the legacy of racism in this country, when she was talking about the importance of what this would mean if we were to dismantle this very modest intervention to diversify the class of students who enter college and higher education. And he said, well, what about the workplace? It sounds like you want to do this everywhere. And what was really clear was that this very, again, modest intervention in higher education

is the only place that we are meaningfully addressing the lack of diversity in a variety of places in our society. If we were doing it right K through 12, we wouldn't need affirmative action on this scale as we have it now. If we were doing it right in workplaces, we wouldn't need to make sure that we have the theater of affirmative action in higher education in order to produce the diverse leadership in this country in every single industry, right? We act as if we took the training wheels off, diversity would be this naturally occurring thing. And we know that that's not the case because racism exists, because the ongoing vestiges of historic racism persist, and they have caused intergenerational harms and intergenerational

inequities. That's what it is. And the fact that we are confronting the reality of that allows justices to make very outlandish comments and ask questions that have no basis in reality and no basis in fact. What we're doing now with race-conscious admissions in higher education is but a drop in the bucket to address the inequities in our society that cleave on racial lines. Ellie, you know, when you look at, and look, I get Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, Roberts.

But I have absolutely complete and utter disdain for Clarence Thomas. And I go back to when he was at Yale. Dude, your problem is you had no self-esteem. If a white student, and it happened to me, oh, you only had Texas A&M because you're from Vaxxion. Go to hell. I didn't give a damn what they thought. His real problem is that, oh, my God,

they made me feel so bad. And he's given numerous speeches how all minority students are just so burdened because somebody white thinks they got there unfairly. And it's like, dude, that was you. That was your lack of self-esteem.

I ain't had that problem. Look, this is a true thing I think for many black people in higher education. At least it was a true thing for me, where I went to Harvard for, where I went to Harvard for college, I went to Harvard for law school, and you would always meet the white person who denigrated your credentials, denigrated your abilities, because they said that you

were only there because of affirmative action. It's annoying. I didn't like it. That is not a reason to upend one of the most successful social policies in American history. My personal dislike of low-achieving white folks who I could standardize, test into the ground, thinking that they had won over of me on affirmative action, that was an annoying part of my education. That cannot be the basis on which to upend this entire policy because people need to remember, and I feel like even a lot of times black people don't understand how affirmative action actually works, right? We're not talking about, oh, if a black person scores 100 points less on a test or gets one point less on the GPA, they get in anyway because they're black.

That's not how it works. That's not how it works at any of the schools that we're talking about. How it works is that in... As the Supreme Court justices, the liberal ones, kept saying, in a whole understanding of a person's application, if race can be one factor among many... I think Katonji Brown-Jackson mentioned that at Harvard,

you're talking about 40 different factors that an admissions committee looks at while building their class, right? So the story that I like to tell is I went to this super crappy high school on Long Island, right? Three kids from my high school got in to Harvard. All three of us were in the top 10 of our class. So there's that, right? The qualification bar was met for all of us. I happen to be really good at standardized testing. A white girl in my class happened to be really good at field hockey. A boy in my class happened to be a world-class pianist. Those were the factors that they looked at.

How is for some other kid, let's say, that didn't standardized test as well as me, how is their kind of achievement, how is not looking at whether or not they achieved what they achieved while being Black, while overcoming systemic racism, while overcoming systemic housing discrimination, how is that achievement not at least equal to the achievement of a person being good at field hockey? It's ridiculous that we're literally at the cusp of the Supreme Court saying, because remember, nobody orders any university to use affirmative action. That's not an order. It couldn't be a constitutional order, right? So all we're saying is whether or not they're allowed to. And it's ridiculous to me that we

are at the cusp of the Supreme Court saying that of everything you can look at in terms of a college applicant, their background, who their parents are, how much money they make, whether or not they can play the flute. You can look at all that, but you can't know if the person is Black or Hispanic. That's what the Supreme Court's about to say,

and it is a dumb argument. Well, and this is, Jene, a final question for you, and they're very simple. This is all because what the right has done is they have consistently and loudly denigrated, demonized, and flat

out lied about affirmative action in college admissions in other ways. They have created this notion that, oh my God, we're just taking these people who are grossly unqualified when, fact of the matter is, we saw in the Abigail Fisher

case when she was complaining about oh, I lost a spot at the University of Texas because of those minorities, and then what happened? It actually came out, no boo, some other white people took your spot. And that's really the crux of this. You have white people in this country

who operate by this view that, oh, I would have had that job if it wasn't for that black person or for that Latino. I would have had that job. As if, for them, it is a birthright for that job to go to that particular school. And that's really what we're dealing with here.

It's this idea that how dare I now have to compete and I should be able to ignore the issue of race. Oh, except with legacy. If I can use that one and I can get in because of my grandmother, my grandfather, that's great. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Your grandfather, grandfather, grandmother couldn't go. That's really not my problem. Yeah. What you're describing is a racial entitlement. And that's a phrase that has been used against Black people. But what we're seeing now and what we've seen, frankly, throughout history is this idea that everything in this country was built for the benefit of white people and other ethnic and racial groups get in where they fit in or try to get whatever they possibly can at the margins, but that there is a default that all opportunities,

all privileges should be enjoyed and therefore the taking by white people in this country without recognizing that in order for us to survive as a multiracial, multiethnic democracy, we can't continue to think of things in this way. If I had a dollar for every time one of the justices or the petitioners in this case use the term zero sum, I'd be rich. They throw that idea around that this is a zero sum calculus. If you get, then I don't. If this seat goes to someone, then it's not for me. That suggests that, one, you are entitled to it, and two, that we don't all win as a society when we leverage our diversity, when we are educating people to be part of a future electorate and citizenry

that reflects the diversity of this country. When the leadership of this country benefits from our diversity in terms of its thinking, its innovation, its creativity, if you look at the array of amicus briefs in this case of various industry leaders and thinkers and researchers and scientists and historians talking about the benefits of diversity

in higher education, it's clear that we will be shorting ourselves if we get rid of this, you know, again, modest intervention to have more diversity in higher education, not even enough, not even really where we should be. So what you describe is what has been an animating factor when it comes to so many ways to end inequality in our society. And that is this feeling that somehow we're taking something away from someone as opposed to investing in the future of our country. Final comment. 100% I agree with Janae. I think the final thing I want to leave people with is the reality that even when the Supreme Court overrules affirmative action, tries to take away affirmative action, we're still going to have race consciousness in admissions at the top schools,

because schools like Harvard, schools like UNC, schools like Michigan, they're going to try to find a way. They'll do it through the essays. Well, you'll write down, oh, I had this really interesting experience being black at my high school, right? And the universities will try to look at that to try to have a diverse class because diversity is such an educational benefit that they need to. Harvard knows that it can't compete for the best white students if they present them with a class that's 85 percent white. They know that the best white students won't want to go to Harvard if that's what Harvard becomes. So the best schools will find a way. It's that next cut down. It's that next tier down. It's the football factories

and the SEs. It's those schools that are going to use this as an opportunity to ignore diversity, and we'll see their racial representation in their classes plummet. Again, that's not me extrapolating. That is facts that were in the record that these six conservative justices tried very hard for five hours to completely ignore. Janay Nelson, Ellie Bistel, we appreciate you joining us. Thanks a lot. Thanks.

Good having me. All right, folks, got to go to break. When we come back, I'll chat with my panel about this issue right here on Rolling Mark Unfiltered on the Black Star Network. Don't forget, folks, if you're watching on YouTube, Facebook, Twitch, Instagram, hit the like button,

the share button. YouTube, we should easily be way past 1,000 likes by now. So I see y'all commenting like crazy. But go ahead and hit the like button as well. I see, what, 498 likes?

Nah, not good enough. We should be way over 1,000. So when I come out from the commercial break, we should actually be there. Download the Black Star Network app available on all platforms. Apple phone, Android phone, Apple TV, Android TV,

Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Xbox One, Samsung Smart TV. Also, please join our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar you give goes to support this show for what we are able to do and travel the country, covering the stories that matter to you. I don't have millionaires and billionaires funding us. It's not like we've got advertisers throwing crazy money at us.

And so your donations play a crucial role in us being able to fund our efforts. We need 2,000 of our fans contributing at least 50 bucks this month. It comes out to be $100,000. Folks, that's $4.19 a month, 13 cents a day. That's what it is. Not only for this show but also for Roger Muhammad's Daily Show.

Weekly shows from Deborah Owens, Greg Carr, Jackie Hood Martin, Stephanie Humphrey, Rolling with Roland as well. And so, folks, we've got some amazing stuff for you. And look, there's no one else doing what we're doing. Byron Allen not doing it. Essence is not doing it. Ebony, Black Enterprise, Blavity, Urban One, none of these folks are doing what we're doing.

And so, we're giving you the kind of news and information you're not getting anywhere else. And so, send your check and money orders to PO Box 57196, Washington, D.C., 20037-0196. Cash App is Dallas Sign, RM Unfiltered. PayPal is RMartin Unfiltered.

Venmo is RM Unfiltered. Zale is Roland at RolandSMartin.com. Roland at RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. And be sure to get

my book, White Fear. This whole discussion, Supreme Court, that's what I'm talking about with my book. White Fear, how the browning of America is Making White Folks Lose

Their Minds. Get it everywhere. Bookstores, of course, brick and mortar, online. Download it from Audible or order it from your favorite Black bookstore. We'll be right back. When we invest in ourselves, our glow, our vision, our vibe, we all shine.

Together, we are Black beyond measure. We've got to stand up. Republicans are banning abortion rights, tearing down democracy, blocking progress. But when Democrats stand together, we win. Because we voted, Democrats stood up for black lives, voting to ban police chokeholds, stood up for black women, putting one on the Supreme Court, stood up for our families, lowering cost of health care and prescriptions and capping insulin,

and stood up for millions by slashing student debt. This November, let's stand up together and keep making progress. This is our time, our moment to move forward beyond the gun violence, PROGRESS. $6 billion surplus in the fundamentals, education, health care, housing, and a good living. Putting more money in your pocket to build one Georgia where everyone has the freedom to thrive. When we invest in ourselves, we all shine. Together, we are Black Beyond Measure. You know what's on the ballot. It's not just legislation and policies we believe in. It's democracy.

Our democracy. There's a choice on the ballot between freedom and fear, between cruelty and compassion, between chaos and community, between voting or violence. And the end of rights generations have fought for. The extremists have a plan, a roadmap for a nation where your voice is silenced

and your vote is a memory, where they count their votes and cast ours aside. That's why this year, this fight, this vote is so important. Register, engage, volunteer, fight back against the disinformation and despair and most of all vote because your vote is all that stands between our future and theirs on a next a balanced life with me dr jackie being of service to others is one of the greatest callings in life but being there for someone else in their time of crisis is a whole new level and

you have to bring courage commitment and strength on our next show we meet two real-life angels who were thrust in the midst of caregiving and without warning. And he was looking strange and couldn't cut his meat. And it was very odd. And I said, well, what's wrong? And he says, I think I've had a stroke. And so, of course, it scared me. And we literally got in the car

and he walked into the hospital on a Thursday. And by Saturday of that same week, he lost all control of his left side. The blessings, the challenges, and the way they maintain their balance, all next on A Balanced Life on Black Star Network. Pull up a chair, take your seat. The Black Tape with me, Dr. Greg Carr, here on the Black Star Network.

Every week, we'll take a deeper dive into the world we're living in. Join the conversation only on the Black Star Network. We're all impacted by the culture, whether we know it or not. From politics to music and entertainment, it's a huge part of our lives. And we're going to talk about it every day right here on The Culture with me, Faraji Muhammad, only on the Black Star Network. Hi, I'm Vivian Green. Hi, I'm Wendell Pierce, actor and author of The Wind in the Reeds. Hey, yo, peace world.

What's going on? It's the love king of R&B, Raheem Devon, and you're watching Roland Martin, Unfiltered. Să ne urmăm în următoarea mea rețetă. I'm going to play a couple more sound bites from today's Supreme Court hearings. And then I'm going to go to my panel with, of course, Julianne Malveaux. She, of course, is Dean of College of Ethnic Studies at California State University, L.A. Dr. Jason Nichols, he's the Senior Lecturer, African American Studies, Department, University of Maryland, College Park.

Lauren Victoria Burke, she writes for the N-N-P-A and the GRIO. Let's play another bite from Judge Katonte Brown Jackson from in Maryland College Park, Lauren Victoria Burke. She writes for the NNPA and the Griot. Let's play another bite from Judge Katante Brown-Jackson from today's Supreme Court oral arguments. I think we have to understand whether race is being used in this context to give rise to an actual, concrete, particularized injury that would give the members of your organization standing to challenge the use of race in this context. And so I've been struggling to understand exactly, this is sort of where Justice Sotomayor was coming from, I've been struggling to understand how race is actually factoring into the admissions process here and whether there's any actual redressable

injury that arises. So can you help us with that, figuring out how exactly does UNC's system work in terms of the use of race and how your members are being harmed by that? So let me start with the legal question, which is concrete injury. Grads establishes that the denial of an opportunity to fairly compete for admission when one of the factors that's used is racial classifications is sufficient to create concrete injury. There's no dispute. Except Gratz was like a set-aside. It was a specific set of circumstances.

You could see there that the race factor was creating an unequal playing field because of the way in which the program was structured. Here, I don't really see that happening because no one is, first of all, the university is not requiring anybody to give their race at the beginning. When you give your race, you're not getting any special points. It's being treated just on par with other factors in the system. No one's automatically getting in because race is being used. There's no real work that it's doing separate and apart from the other factors in any different way like it was in GRATS. And when you look at that case, it says specifically when there's a set-aside kind of program,

then we have actual injury that gives rise to standing. But I'm not sure you have that here. So, will you help me? I'm sorry. Yes, please. Even Grutter establishes that a holistic admissions process doesn't make the injury go away. But you've said Grutter needs to be overruled. So, we can't, I don't think we can use that decision as the basis for standing. Well, no, one of the problems with Grutter that I think illustrates this specifically is Grutter's suggestion that race can only be used as a plus factor and never a minus factor. But as many of the dissenting opinions in that case observed, and opinions from this court have since observed,

that makes no sense in a zero-sum game. If we are going to consider race, and we argue that a racial classification, which is highly disfavored at law because of its necessarily invidious nature. How are they taking into account race independent of the rest of the information in a holistic review process? My other question was about this same thing, which is, how is race being used in this process? You keep saying we object to the use of race standing alone, but as I read

the record and understand their process, it's never standing alone. That it's in the context of all of the other factors. There are 40 factors about all sorts of things that the admissions office is looking at, and you haven't demonstrated or shown one situation in which all they look at is race and take from that stereotypes and other things. They're looking at the full person with all of these characteristics. Yes, but our point is that all those other characteristics are not barred by the Constitution, and the use of race as a classification is barred by the Constitution. But it has to be used, doesn't it? I mean, just because somebody checks a box,

what if they check the box and the university sees that, but doesn't look at it, doesn't take it into account in any way in the application? Do we have a constitutional violation just because the student voluntarily said, I'm an African-American, but that never comes into play? If the university admissions process instructs readers not to take that into account or to not award any benefit toward admission on that basis, then that is not necessarily a problem.

No, no, no, no instruction. It just never actually comes into play. Because if you say that, what I think you're saying is that people have to mask their identities when they come into contact with the admissions office just on the basis of their difference. If it never comes into play. I don't think this is a lot different than a couple of other criteria. For example, the UNC's official position at trial was that gender is not a basis for admission, that admissions officers are not supposed to take gender into account. That doesn't mean that they're not aware that there are women applying, but the instructions

are not to take gender into account, and to my knowledge, we don't see a large effect at all suggesting that gender is playing a role. But both experts in this case found that race was in fact mattering to a number of applications. You can debate between our expert and their expert whether it's only 500 or it's 1,700 or it's 2,000 applications a year. But it is having an effect. If it's not having an effect, they've spent an awful lot of time and money

opposing the relief we're seeking in this case. They're offering it because they're saying that race matters to me. I mean, this is not a situation in which the university is asking or telling every applicant, give us your race so that we can classify people, so that we can give certain people preferences. The only reason why the university knows the race of any of these applicants is because

they are voluntarily providing that. But it is making distinctions upon who it will admit, at least in part, on the race of the applicant. Some races get a benefit. Some races do not get a benefit. Council, what are the facts here about whether or not race is being used singularly to let people in? The expert that UNC presented argued that 1.2% of the decisions were influenced by race. We obviously had disagreements with its characterization

of that, but given the fact that they received 40,000 applications a year, that's hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants who are being affected by race every year. Our expert's testimony was that race made the difference in basically 700 applications each admission. Boy, you can tell right there, Julian, what happens when you've got a black Supreme Court justice who actually gives a damn about black people. You know, Roland, this entire these students for fair admissions are nothing more than Clarence Thomas toadies.

Their attorneys are former clerks of Clarence Thomas. We know whose agenda they're pushing out here, and it really is absurd. Katonji Brown Jackson is challenging this attorney who is attacking the University of North Carolina. She's challenging him appropriately, and he really can't answer the questions about the numbers because he doesn't know. The students for fair admissions on their website and everywhere else talk about race neutrality. They want admissions to be race neutral. Well, let me help them out. Enslavement was not race neutral. The Fair Housing Act, redlining, was not race neutral. And even today, police violence against people is not race neutral when you look at it. And so this race neutrality

is a pie-in-the-sky piece of nonsense that is impossible. And I think that Justice Katonji has basically challenged this guy appropriately. But when they say race neutral, they mean anti-Black. That's literally what they mean. These attacks on affirmative action are attacks on Blackness. You know, Brown folks, women also benefit. In fact, white women benefited more from affirmative action than anybody else did. But others do benefit from affirmative action. But affirmative action

past discrimination is really about black people, and we need to be clear about that. Just sit there, Jason. And look, we know what's up. I mean, Ed Blum and these folks, going back to War Connelly and so many others,

they've given us so much of this BS. We know what their game is. We know what their motivation is. They want to try to make it sound like, oh, this is just so unfair to these white students when we know white folks are getting into colleges because they're white. They have advantages that we do not. And it is stunning to me that these same folks, they never filed lawsuits against Legacy.

Exactly. I think there's a couple of things just about affirmative action broadly never filed lawsuits against Legacy. Exactly. I think there's a couple of things just about affirmative action broadly, because we talk about this in some of my classes. I think it's important for people to understand, number one, that affirmative action does not mean a quota. I have students every semester,

they say, well, I don't think this should happen based on some quota. And it's like, quotas have been illegal for almost as long as I've been alive. They say, well, I don't think this should happen based on some quota. And it's like quotas have been illegal for almost as long as I've been alive, since about 44 years, since 1978. Regents of the University of California versus Bakke, everybody knows that case. So this has nothing to do with that. So I just wanted to put that out there on the table. The other thing, just to kind of piggyback off of what Julianne was saying, is that when we look at things that are not race neutral, students getting into gifted and talented programs while they're young, students even being recommended for AP classes. We know that that's not race neutral. And we also know that discipline, she talked about police violence, let's talk about school discipline. We know that that's not race neutral as African American

students are more likely to be suspended from school. Now, should the, you know, there's certainly, you know, when we're talking about the personal injury, which is something that Supreme Court Justice Katonji Brown Jackson just pointed out, we have to remember that there really isn't one, as I think Ellie Mistel also pointed out, the fact that they, that at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina, that Asian students are overrepresented, whereas African-American graduates in the state of Mississippi are Black. But only 13% of undergraduates at the flagship university, Ole Miss, are Black. So there's gotta be some sort of disconnect there,

and there's gotta be some way to address it. If you have a better way of addressing it, then suggest that. But we've had affirmative action. and there's got to be some way to address it. If you have a better way of addressing it, then suggest that. But we've had affirmative action. It's made some changes, and it's certainly helped in the workforce. And I think Julianne was also correct to point out the fact that women, white women,

have been the primary beneficiaries. But of course, you know, what we've seen with Abby Fisher, you know, or Gratz and Grutter, they all wanted to close the door behind them. But at the same time, you know, white women have been the major beneficiaries. And I'll just say this one last point, and that is what you said, Roland, about Clarence Thomas is so important. Clarence Thomas has this thing on his, this chip on his shoulder about getting in on affirmative action.

Number one, you would think conservatives would love affirmative action. It gave him Clarence Thomas and it gave him Ben Carson. You know, both of them are beneficiaries of affirmative action. But somehow they still don't like it, despite the fact that their favorite Black folks are beneficiaries of it.

But Affirmative Action didn't write any law briefs for Clarence Thomas. He did that. That only opened the door. He had to walk through it. You know, I hate giving him any credit, but he's the one who matriculated through. So Affirmative Action,

I've never given a student extra points because they were Black or a woman or Native American or anything like that. They have to write the papers. They have to take the exams. They have to be the ones to do it. Affirmative action only opens a door that was closed in the past. Lauren, Victoria Burke, you know, of course,

there's always an opportunity to hear nonsense from Fox News, and so I want to play this before you actually give your comment. And I'm sure Harris Faulkner was an absolute beacon of knowledge on this topic as former Congressman Doug Collins spoke. So listen to this. Point out what we've been through in the last year. My wife taught for 30 years, and education is something that's been in our family. But diversity is good.

Anyone that says conservatives don't like diversity, frankly, doesn't understand what a conservative's heart is. Absolutely. And so when you understand this breakdown, my concern here is that you're taking and telling the whole world, and especially even from the liberal or conservative side, that nothing matters. Judge by the content of your character, not the color of your skin. We talk about this all the time. Oh, except here. And it goes back to me as maybe a better idea

is what are we doing? Because another angle here is also discussed is, well, they don't have the same advantages of others. And OK, then let's have a conversation about our public education system, our private education. Let's talk about the money that goes into poor districts and not going to poor districts. Let's talk about the school teachers unions who have been a part of this. Okay, if you want to have this conversation, then let's have this conversation. Don't just put it in. And the way COVID lockdowns disadvantaged marginalized communities. Well, you can always wait for them to genuflect back to teachers' unions. Fox News is just silliness. It's just craziness. While we're on the subject, by the way, of the public school system,

I mean, two of our best jurists on the Supreme Court, Katonji Brown-Jack Jackson and Thurgood Marshall, went through the public school system and became two of the most distinguished jurists in the, in American history. And funny thing, Thurgood Marshall went to the colored high and training school, which was later named Frederick Douglass High School. And he made his way all the way up, right, despite probably what was a substandard education, to become one of the most famous and most storied jurists in American history, because black people have to go through so many more hurdles than everybody else in the society.

We've known that for 350 years. It's so interesting to me that, you know, people want to obsess. And this guy that Katonji Brown Jackson, Judge Jackson was talking to, want to obsess about, you know, race neutral, this race. We've never been race neutral in this country. The history of this country has never been race neutral. Affirmative action was an acknowledgment of that. But to be quite frank with you, I don't think we need affirmative action. I think we will do fine without it. I'll be glad, part of me will be glad when it's gone, because quite frankly, people like Barack Obama, these people we see succeeding that make people like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity very uncomfortable because they're insecure and

remind them that they're in fact not supreme to anybody, will then be shown that in fact affirmative action, their little silly, insecure affirmative action argument, which they've been using for years, that somehow black people get things because we're black, is complete nonsense. It's always... Lauren, even if you... Here's the whole deal. Even if you get rid of it,

they're gonna still say it happens. I mean, that's the whole deal. So you don't even... I mean, so the rally is... is... It's gonna be another thing. And so at the end of the day, this is one of those things where you tell folks, book up or shut the hell up. That's right. I mean, you're right.

It will always be another thing, but you got to understand something. And it's so funny to me. Once you get into the school, okay, affirmative action does not take your test. It does not... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, that's the whole point. They don't want you in the school.

You don't have to do the work. No, they don't want you in the school. So, I mean, this idea that, oh, my God, you got an affirmative action, so affirmative action's taking your test. Affirmative action is doing nothing other than... But, but, but, Lauren, Lauren, it ain't about the test. They don't want you in the school.

How about that? This is... They don't want you in the test. They don't want you in the school. How about that? They don't want you in the school. They don't want you having the contracts. They don't want you having the jobs. This is about white power. This is about power. This is about money. This is about control.

That's what this is all about. So, I mean, I'm not... So, everything you're saying, we've all made the arguments. They don't care. They don't want to actually see us there. But actually, I think... You call it white fear.

Your book is called White Fear, and that's what this is. It is fear, not only white fear, it's fear of black excellence. It's utter fear and fright of black excellence. So you called it in your book. Lauren, real quick, close it up. Go to break. Go to my next guest.

And nothing is going to stop that. Nothing is going to stop black excellence. Because once again, we historically have... No, no, no. I disagree. Nobody else. Nope, nope. And that's not going to stop. One way or the other.

I got to go to my next guest, but here's why I'm going to disagree with you on that one. What can stop potential black excellence? I got to go to my next guest, but here's why I'm going to disagree with you on that one. What can stop potential black excellence? Not having a door opened. That's what can. Reverend Jackson has said this for years. He said, why have blacks been so successful in basketball? He said, because the court, no matter where you go in the country is 94 feet long

It's an equal distance from the free-throw line to the goal. The goal is 10 feet high It's an equal distance high school in college from three-point line It's further than the pros from three-point line to the goal you get five players I get five players you get X same timeouts. I get X same timeouts. Rules are published. Now let's play ball. The problem is outside of sports, on the field, on the court, it's all subjective. So this, so the impact absolutely will be what doors will be closed. What doors will be shut.

And I'm thinking beyond this college discussion. I'm also looking at what they want to do when it comes to corporate America. In terms of what they're looking at, that's what I'm also looking at as well. And so that's where I'll push back on that. It's a question

of can you close as many doors as possible to prevent folks from even having an attempt to show excellence? In Texas, they created a race-neutral rule, top 10%. The white folks lost

their damn minds. In Austin, Westlake, well, this is unfair. Our children have to take AP courses more rigorous. Why must that, why must they not be admitted automatically to the university, to any public university in Texas, but that student at

poor O.D. Wyatt in Fort Worth, which is a lower SAT score, why does he or she get to be admitted because they're in the top 10%? Their top 10% is not as rigorous as ours. And what ended up happening? The University of Texas went and got the rule changed

by saying, oh, we're losing too many of our top Texas students because of this top 10% rule. So even when you create a completely race-neutral rule, they still are going to bitch and moan. And that's what I'm saying. And that was all about shutting the door. And you know what happened, Lauren? Again, it was a top 10%.

They changed the rules for University of Texas in terms of they can limit the freshman class size that come from the top 10% and then allow them to bring in other students. That's shutting the door because the white parents were like oh why are these black and hispanic students from so-called lesser schools getting in and my child is at a more rigorous school and they're not in the top 10 percent because it's a more rigorous

school that's that that's what we're looking at right here all right folks hold tight one second i gotta go to break we come back, we're gonna talk about another one of these cases, folks. Again, we deal with these cases all the time where folks have been injured, have been shot, and it is always troubling for us having to do these stories, but the reality is the attention must stay on this

because if not, then they get ignored by mainstream media and then you're not fully aware of what's going on. Also, Pastor Jamal Bryant lights up Hershel Walker from the pulpit. Yeah, yeah. We're gonna break that down. And I got a couple of things to say about

ESPN game day coming to Jackson, Mississippi for the Jackson State game. And I want to talk about white validation and how we don't have the same fervor if it's a black-owned media product. I'll unpack it. I just want you to understand

where I'm going to break this thing down. Trust me, you don't want to miss this conversation. And you're watching Rolling Mike Unfiltered on the Black Star Network. We'll be right back. When we invest in ourselves, we all shine. Together, we are black beyond measure.

This is our time. Our moment to move forward beyond the gun violence, the hospital closures, the unaffordable housing. Brian Kemp's Georgia for the wealthiest few. Stacey Abrams is looking out for every Georgian. She'll invest our $6 billion surplus in the fundamentals, education, health care, housing, and a good living,

putting more money in your pocket to build one Georgia where everyone has the freedom to thrive. We've got to stand up. Republicans are banning abortion rights, tearing down democracy, blocking progress. But when Democrats stand together, we win. Because we voted, Democrats stood up for black lives, voting to ban police chokeholds,

stood up for black women, putting one on the Supreme Court, stood up for our families, lowering cost of healthcare and prescriptions and capping insulin, and stood up for millions by slashing student debt. This November, let's stand up together and keep making progress. -♪

-♪ When we invest in ourselves, glow our vision our vibe we all shine together we are black beyond measure it's about us let's go everybody out together we are in sunny south dallas the election is coming up it's super important that folks know who they are voting for, but more importantly, what they are voting for. Y'all, we got the free shirts and free lunch right over here. Freedom is our birthright. No matter what we're up against, we're sending a message in Dallas and Texas and in the country.

We won't black down. That's what this bus tour is all about. The housing cost is one of the most capitalized areas that we have found. People who are marginalized, that are brown and black, we are suffering the most. And I think that we have the biggest vote and the biggest impact in this election. I'm voting for affordable housing, for sure. We should not be paying the cost of a utility failure because our elected officials are too proud to say we need help.

I know that we can bring out our people to vote. It's a part of our birthright. It's a part of our heritage. And surely it's a part of our prison and part of our future. That's right. That's what's up. And we won't black down. Forward that message to Five Prince, because in that message, it's got links to how to get registered, how to check your registration status.

Like I said, 2.30 we'll start rendezvousing right here on this street. I am voting to let our voice be heard in the rural communities that, hey, we are people too. There are things that we need. Free shirts, free food, and lots of power. We are in Longview, Texas, where black voters matter, 365. Whatever type of oppression a white supremacist throws our way, we will not black down.

We are in relentless pursuit of liberation of our people. Freedom is liberation for Black bodies and Black communities to make economic change through political power. Freedom is choice. We won't Black down. We won't Black down. We won't Black down. We won't Black down. We won't black down. We won't black down.

We won't black down. We won't black down. We won't black down. Hi, I'm B.B. Winans. Hey, I'm Donnie Simpson. What's up? I'm Lance Gross, and you're watching Roland Martin Unfiltered. All right, folks, we talk about Internet speeds. I mean, we see where

we are right now in this country where the Internet is critically important. I don't care who you are. I don't care what it is you're trying to do. A study shows what is happening in low-income areas where you're seeing a throttling down of speeds compared to white areas. My next guest did an article in The Markup.

It shows how companies are providing slower services as a result of this. So Aaron Sanken is an investigative reporter for The Markup and one of the authors of this piece. He joins me now from New York. Aaron, this is the thing that I remember when we were talking about this internet speed. I remember having a meeting with Comcast, and I was talking about net neutrality. And these companies were talking about fast lanes and slow lanes. And one of the things that people like me were saying is that, well, if you do that, what's going to happen is you're basically allowing these larger, richer companies to be able to do whatever they want to do, screwing folks like me. The reality is if you have net

neutrality and you take what we're doing here with this digital show, with our network, then we're on par with a Peacock or with one of these companies. So we're not getting screwed with slower speeds. But what y'all are looking at, and they were trying to do that, and it was a fierce battle, but what you're looking at is in terms of what's happening in these neighborhoods, how the, and explain to people also who really don't get it, in terms of, I understand what you're talking about, the pipes that go in, in terms of, I understand we're talking about the pipes that go in in terms of, so what happens when you live in a neighborhood and these companies are purposely throttling the speed to be at a certain level based upon zip codes? Hi, Roland. Great to be here. I'm excited

to be on the show. So the story that we worked on was an investigation into four different internet service providers, AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, and Earthlink. And essentially what we did is we went to their websites using a programmatic tool, kind of scraping their websites. And you go to an ISP's website and you can enter in your address and you put in your address and they say, well, we can give you Internet for this speed for this cost. We entered in over 800,000 addresses into these four ISPs websites and city, we would be seeing an internet service provider offering vastly different speeds for the same price in the same city. address in New Orleans in an almost entirely black and Latino, very middle class area. And the speed it was offered was under one megabit per second download speed. Now, that is very, very slow. That is not fast enough to stream a Skype video call with multiple participants. And they were charging $55 a month on their website. But then if you were to enter in addresses on the other side of town in a significantly richer and significantly wider neighborhood, you would see, we took that data and we mapped that onto

kind of socioeconomic data. And what we found is broadly that in cities where these ISPs were charging the same price for different speeds, the areas that tended to get the worst deals were lower income areas. They were less white areas and they were historically redlined areas. And I think what it shows is that there is essentially a digital divide happening in geographically between areas where these ISPs have invested to create infrastructure that's capable of delivering high speeds and neighborhoods where they have not made the same investment and as we came so often with essential services and uh you know so many different things and so many different aspects of lives the areas that are mar that marginalized folks tend to live tend to get the worst services so and and and when you hear the reaction from these companies, how they try to explain the ways like, well, it's really, you know, based upon, you know, company upgrades and investment, things along those lines. Well, if you also understand how they're delivering this, they're actually delivering Internet speeds the same way you're getting cable in these areas. So it's not like your cable is slower.

Yeah, so we had gone out to all of these, all four of these internet service providers, and we presented them with our analysis, and you ask a bunch of questions and ask them to comment. And the thing, and they kind of made two different arguments here. And the first argument is that the reason that they charge the same price for these expensive, for these fast plans as they do for the slow ones, is because it's expensive to maintain this old infrastructure that delivers these crummy, slow speeds. That's because, you know, these networks are often falling apart. And when they try to replace them, their folks are not making the same, not making replacement parts. So they have to scrounge them from junkyards, and it's harder for them to get these replacement parts. So they have to scrounge them from junkyards and it's harder for them to get these replacement parts. And, you know, as valid, that may be valid or not, I think it really does

beg the question, like, why are they then only seeming to be primarily upgrading these in richer, whiter and non-redlined areas? And their other argument is essentially one around government subsidies. There's a program that was passed as part of the infrastructure bill. It's called the Affordable Connectivity Program administered by the FCC. And the way the Affordable Connectivity Program works is that if you are in a household and you qualify by having, you know, qualifying for any number of federal government anti-poverty programs, or at the same time being, I think, under 200 percent of the federal poverty line, you get a subsidy, and that's 30 bucks a month going towards your internet paid by the government.

And these companies were saying, well, you know, we participate in the affordable connectivity program, so you really, it's not an accurate description of our pricing. But at the same time, you know, there have been studies showing that in 30 major cities, only a third of eligible folks are registered for the affordable connectivity program. And you know, I spoke with people at organizations who try to get people signed up for the ACP. And they said, you know, if the only thing someone can get at their address is slow, crummy Internet, it's, you know, sure, it's effectively free or, you know, very cheap, but it's still not meeting their needs in a very fundamental way. And that's not just for them to watch Netflix or, you know, play games online or something like that. It's also, you know, folks who are trying to do telemedicine. It's, you know, when the pandemic lockdowns shuttered schools. You know, I had spoken to elected officials who, you know, there was one woman, a city councilwoman in Las Vegas, who was going door to door asking, you know, households where their kids had stopped showing up to virtual school,

like, hey, what is your roadblocks from attending this remote learning? And she frequently heard, like, parents say, well, we have two or three kids, and they were all supposed to be using the internet at the same time, and it couldn't handle it, and it kept crashing, so we just gave up. And I think those are things that you see when, especially in marginalized neighborhoods,

when you don't have an equality in how the infrastructure is deployed, and yet they are still, in many cases, asking folks to be paying the same price for bad services. Other folks who happen to live in other neighborhoods are paying for much better service. They absolutely need that better internet, especially those people who are in school. And we saw with COVID, what happens when you do not have access to internet, where you had some places

where they were taking school buses and making them mobile hotspots. You had parents who were taking their kids to Starbucks or McDonald's or other places and literally having to get onto the Internet. And it shows you what happens when we become a society that's totally virtual. And you forget and people just assume, oh, my goodness, you have everybody has great Internet. Nope, it's not the case.

And this and so with your story, any reaction from public officials, from others, did the companies also make any sort of response? Well, you know, I've heard from public officials across the country saying that, you know, they're outraged by this. But at the same time, like, I think it is essentially what we did is we collected this brand new data set. And set, and it allows folks who are advocating for better connectivity to have another piece of hard evidence for things that I'm sure every single one of them has heard over and over again anecdotally from their constituents that the Internet in our neighborhood is not very good. You know, people, you know, I had heard from folks who would try to call up their internet service provider and said, listen, I will pay you more for better service. I am willing to pay more. And the service provider says, no, we are only delivering what we can. And I think, you know, at the same time, it speaks to

this sort of very large kind of information asymmetry that happens between something, a big, powerful institution like an Internet service provider and your average everyday customer. Because if you are out there and you are moving into a house or you're looking at signing up for Internet, you're probably just going to go with the Internet service that was already there. Or, you know, you're going to put your address into an ISP's website and you're going to get your offer and you're going to say, this is what I'm getting. And assume that, I assume, folks would assume that they were getting similar speeds and paying similar prices that other folks around them in the same city would be paying. And we found, you know, there are instances where, you know, there would be paying. And we found there are instances where there would be fast speeds at one house and then a block away, very slow speeds from the same internet service provider. It varies from house to house. It varies from block to block. And I think that is something

that people don't intuitively know or intuitively understand, but it's something that internet service providers are, it's a reality they're creating based on their kind of investment decisions. But I think they're kind of relying on the idea that, you know, average everyday folks just have no idea that this is happening in the first place. Absolutely. Aaron, thank you. It was really appreciate the markup. Thanks a lot. Thank you. All right, folks. Let's go to a break. We'll come back and we'll talk about a couple of police cases. One of them, the case of Desmond LeDuc, this particular police shooting out of Kentucky.

And ESPN, again, they made a visit to SWAT country, Jackson State University, over the weekend. Folks were excited. Folks were amped. I got a couple of words I I just wanna say about that. Can't wait to see how y'all respond to it. Folks, don't forget, download the Black Star Network app, Apple phone, Android phone, Apple TV, Android TV, Roku, Amazon Fire TV,

Xbox One, Samsung Smart TV. You can also support our Bring the Funk fan club. Your dollars make it possible for us to do what we do. Send your check and money order to PO Box 57196, Washington, D.C., 20037-0196. Cash out, dollar sign RM Unfiltered. PayPal's R Martin Unfiltered. Venmo is RM Unfiltered. Zelle is Roland at RolandSMartin.com.

Roland at RolandMartinUnfiltered.com. And be sure to download my book, White Fear, How the Browning of America's Making White Folks Lose Their Minds. Available at all bookstores, brick and mortar, online. Download it from Audible. Order it from your favorite black bookstore. And we'll be right back. When we invest in ourselves, we all shine. Together, we are Black Beyond Measure. This is our time, our moment to move forward beyond the gun violence, the hospital closures, the unaffordable housing. Brian Kemp's Georgia for the wealthiest few. Stacey Abrams is looking out for every Georgian. She'll invest our $6 billion surplus in the fundamentals, education, healthcare health care housing and a good living

putting more money in your pocket to build one georgia where everyone has the freedom to thrive when we invest in ourselves we're investing in what's next for all of us growing creating making moves that move us all forward. Together, we are Black beyond measure. We've got to stand up. Republicans are banning abortion rights, tearing down democracy, blocking progress. But when Democrats stand together, we win.

Because we voted, Democrats stood up for Black lives, voting to ban police chokeholds, stood up for Black women, putting one on the Supreme Court, stood up for our families, lowering cost of health care and prescriptions and capping insulin, police chokeholds, stood up for black women putting one on the supreme court, stood up for our families lowering cost of health care and prescriptions and capping insulin, and stood up for millions by slashing student debt. This November let's stand up together and keep making progress. What's up y'all I'm Will Packard. Hello I'm Bishop T.D.J. What up,

Lana Well and you are watching Rolling Martin Unfiltered. Folks, on Friday we tell you about the story of a young black man shot by police in Kentucky. 22-year-old Desmond LaDuke's family says he was experiencing a mental health crisis and they thought the officer would help him not shoot him in the chest through a window. Joining us now is Desmond's aunt, Melissa Marks, and her attorney, Sam Aguiar. I'm glad to have both of you here. I am absolutely perplexed here with this story, Melissa, because police say they breached the house and shot him in the house, but the family says he was shot

through a window. So I'm not understanding why there are two different stories here. There are two different stories because they lied. And is there any body camera footage from these officers? Were they wearing body cameras? Anything along those lines to actually show what they were doing at the time? Not that they've given us. The only camera footage we have is our own.

Our presence there. Sam, what drives me crazy with these stories is that it's a mental health crisis. And we were told that there were mental health folks who were on the scene. Were the police listening to them? What was the involvement of family? I mean, if you have someone, and then also, the statement that we read last week from the family says he was in the house by himself. So who was he a threat

to? Yeah, so Roland, it's like a never-ending story with these things. And there's a lot of things. These police, you know how it works after these shootings. They get really vague, and they try to use these words to, you know, essentially get people to create a narrative that's pro-police. But really, you know, Melissa's here.

The whole family ended up being on scene for, you know, they say that they had, this is a small town that has a SWAT team for some reason. Why do you need a SWAT team when your whole town's 20,000 people? But what they did is they essentially treated this like it was a hostage negotiation. And so they say they have crisis, you know, people there, but they were treating it like he had a hostage inside. And you're right. There was nobody inside but him. He was not a threat to anybody but himself. This is a wellness check. It turned into, you know, treating him like he was a terrorist. They surrounded the place, formed a perimeter, nine different officers pointing rifles at the doors. And you got this kid. We got video that

shows that when they arrived, he was fine. He was compliant with police that were outside the door, these patrol officers. But by the time the police escalated it, just like we see on the TV right now, they turned it into a sniper session. They didn't make entry until after they killed him. Well, actually, he survived for four hours, but he was down on the ground. And not only that, when police were done investigating, they also left the door wide open for neighbors to walk by and see nothing but a big pile of blood in the place. But they didn't let the family go inside. Melissa had begged to go in and Desmond would listen to her and her only,

but they told her they would literally tackle her because she was a liability if she tried to make entry to talk to her own child. Okay. And that's where I'm confused, Melissa. How she was a liability if she tried to make entry to talk to her own child. Okay, and that's where I'm confused, Melissa. How are you a liability when you're the aunt? It's your nephew. And if you decided, if somebody said to you, well, you know, we don't want to be liable if he hurts you, I'm probably sure you would have said, fine, give me something to sign. I actually said that and I said, what are you going to do if I take off running? He said, I promise you, you're going to get hurt.

So did they make any effort to enlist you or other family members? Did they say, hey, we'll put you on the phone with him? Or were y'all completely removed from the situation? I was the only person that he would speak to, and he was getting irritated

because they kept trying to tell me what to say to him. And he told them he only wanted to talk to me. He didn't want to talk to anybody else but me. Did you ever talk to him? Yes, several times, and he was getting irritated. He hung up the phone several times because they kept trying to tell me what to say. He was getting irritated because he was like, why are they here with these guys? He was like, why are they putting these guys at me?

He was like, they're going to shoot me. I can't do it to myself, but I know they will. It's always difficult for us to have to interview family members like yourself after stories like this, and we certainly are paying

for your loss. Sam, okay, what's next for the police department? Again, who's investigating? Are they going to release body cam footage? What is the next step? Because that's a huge contradiction for the family to say,

first of all, for the cops to say, we breached the home and then we shot him. But the family said, no, you entered the house after you shot him. Yeah. So by the grace of God, we had that neighbor that came up with the footage. Who knows what would happen if we didn't have that. Because initially they

tried to basically make the public think, hey, we went inside this home and we got confronted with this guy with a firearm. And obviously that's not what happened. We can see the video right there. Another thing we can see in that video is that literally the individual that was with Melissa and the family the whole time saying, we got plenty of time, you know, we're here for days if we need to be. He was the negotiator. He's standing right by the sniper when the sniper shoots. So, you know, the only way, unfortunately, in these situations in Kentucky,

we're a little backwards down here, unfortunately, with these police shootings and investigations because the state police comes in and they basically hold this stuff to their chest instead of letting the public, you know, see things with transparency. So basically, you know, we set up an estate, and typically, unfortunately, these cases result in lawsuits very quickly just so we can get information. It's just, it's just still crazy to me that we would have this conversation. Another wellness check, you know, ends in a fatal tragedy. And, you know, people, again, they're just trying to reach out to authorities to try to, you know, get control of a loved one.

And unfortunately, Melissa and her family has to plan a funeral. And cops just continue. And it's sort of like, OK, well, these things happen. And it is so, so unfortunate. Melissa, again, our condolences to you and your family for the loss of Desmond. Sam, keep us abreast of what happens next.

Got it. Thank you, Roland. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Jason, this is what is continually frustrating. You know, right now, we're in the middle of an election. You got all these people, you got Republicans who are just slamming ads on the air, blasting Democrats about defund the police and they want to talk. But then when it comes to school shootings, they want to talk about, oh, mental health

services, but they also voted against mental health services. And so, and when people are talking about defund the police, they're talking about shifting resources away from law enforcement and being able to hire mental health professionals to deal with cases like this. And we've just had too many cases, just case after case after case, where somebody is shot and killed by cops.

That's how they respond to folks with mental illness. Exactly. And I think it was troubling in that case, the lack of transparency. You know, it takes us having phones to find out what actually happened. And there are there's legislation usually led by Republicans across the country, like in Arizona, where they are outlawing people from actually filming the police. So if you don't get this kind of footage, then it's your word against the police,

and the police will win. And I'm, you know, I'm really concerned about this particular case. You could see that woman and the pain in her face. You know, even I, you know, it hit me in the heart right there. You know, I have a son as well, so I couldn't imagine going through what she's going through.

But when you look at this, it was just... It's frustrating because you know this is going to land in Daniel Cameron's lap. And we know what kind of person and where Daniel Cameron's lap. And we know what kind of person and where Daniel Cameron lies, because he, if he had done his job, the Breonna Taylor case would have been resolved without having to involve the Justice Department. But he didn't do his due diligence. He just went along

with what he thought was popular amongst the people who vote for him and his good buddy Mitch McConnell. And so I think that this is something that's happening across the nation. Defund the police, I will say, I didn't think it was the best slogan. It was a great idea with a bad slogan. But I think it was, you know, it's something that's necessary. We don't need as many SWAT teams as we need people who deal with mental health crises. Someone who's in their home by themselves is gonna do harm to themselves.

They need to talk to somebody. And if they haven't done it yet, they probably want to talk to somebody. So it-it's a really frustrating case. My heart goes out to that woman. Bottom line, Lauren, I don't care what slogan you use, the right was going to demonize it regardless. Yeah, the right is very good with regard to crime policy

and really getting the Democrats on defense and always being on offense and always having to articulate how tough they are on crime. And really all you have to do is say how tough you are on crime to get the Democrats on defense on crime policy, and then Democrats just sort of throw their hands up. That's what they did with defund police. They never really tried to, in a long-term manner, articulate what defund meant. I think most people say in politics that when you're explaining you're losing, but also that when you have to articulate defund you have to sort of say a bunch of stuff about what should be funded. And for political

messaging and for most of these consultants, they don't want to have to do all the work of that, quite frankly. And it is unsexy or it's easier to just say you're tough on crime than it is to be arguing about mental health services and mental health funding. You know, so nobody wants to sort of take the time to do that in political messaging land. It's going to be interesting to see a lot of these House races. We have several Democrats running who are running on this pro-police, anti-defund message, getting away from, in some districts, messaging to their base. Abigail Spanberger comes to mind here in Virginia. And it's going to be interesting in a particularly diverse district that she's in in

Virginia whether that message works, because when you're not messaging to the base, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, you typically have a tougher time. But in a situation like the one that we just heard, that was a classic situation of cops being asked to do things that they are not, frankly, not trained to do in most departments. We do have a rise of the warrior cop mentality in this country, a SWAT team mentality. And they are not there. The cops do not view themselves in most jurisdictions

as a group of people who are going to show up and talk touchy-feely stuff with regard to mental health. They're trained for marksmanship on their guns. They're trained for use of force. And that is not, unfortunately, prioritized. Mental health issues are not prioritized, as we see in so many of these cases. Julianne? This is a horrible case, but we've seen so many cases that are this horrible.

And it puts politicians, especially Democratic politicians, in a rough situation when police go shooting. BLM and the other folks say defund the police. I fully agree with Jason. We want to redirect funds. We don't want to defund the police. We want to redirect the funds that the police get so that they're more efficiently used. But in this case, with this young man, 22 years old, having a mental health crisis, they could have left him in the house and left him alone,

and they would have done less harm. Something has happened to policing, and I think there's a racial element to it. These people have gone essentially wild with their guns. When they don't have to use force, they do. Young Black men in particular, but women as well, Breonna Taylor, we could call the role. But young people, these young people are being shot because the police don't know what else to do. It's like they need other ways to resolve conflict. The sister who was there, her emotion was palpable. It was really, I mean, she, it's her nephew. She wanted to talk to him.

They wouldn't let them. I hope that these people, I'm glad their neighbor had the camera footage, but I hope that these people get a full investigation and that there is some remediation. Can't bring the brother back, but something must be done. Folks, let's talk about Grand Rapids, Michigan. Well, the white former police officer who shot a Congolese immigrant in the head during a traffic stop was going to have to face a jury. A judge ordered Christopher Schur to stand trial for second degree murder for the trial for the fatal April 4th shooting of

Patrick Laiola. Schur pulled Laiola over for a faulty license plate. The struggle took place. Laiola ended up on the ground. Schur placed his weapon on the back of Laiola's head and pulled the trigger. Schur is claiming self-defense. He was fired from the Grand Rapids Police Department in

June after waiving his right to a discharge hearing. In Ohio, a federal grand jury indicts two former Ohio Sheriff's deputies on civil rights crimes for using excessive force. Former Pike County, Ohio Sheriff's deputies Jeremy Mooney and William Stansbury Jr. violated a detainee's constitutional rights in June 2019 while the victim was in the Pike County Sheriff's Office. Mooney is accused of using pepper spray and striking a restrained detainee. Stansberry is charged with violating the victim's constitutional rights by failing to intervene.

If convicted, both men face a maximum of 10 years imprisonment on each count, a fine of up to $250,000 and a three-year term of supervised release. Let's go to Chicago where a Chicago supervisor has decided to retire amid an investigation into his racist social media post. Retired police supervisor Lieutenant John Cannon stepped down after the civilian officer of police accountability recommended he be fired. The year-long investigation into allegations of flagrant disregard for department policies

found Cannon posted numerous disparaging and racist posts about Muslims, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, the LGBT community, and women. Cannon falsely claimed his social media account was hacked. Folks, let's go to New York where the city of New York is going to be paying a settlement of $36 million to two men who were wrongfully convicted in the assassination of Malcolm X. Muhammad Aziz and Khalil Islam were convicted in 1965 of assassinating Malcolm X, both being maintained their innocence throughout the years and finally won a lawsuit against the city of New York.

A judge overturned their murder convictions last year after founding prosecutors, the FBI, and the New York Police Department withheld vital evidence that could have led to an acquittal. Aziz and Islam spent more than 20 years in prison. Kahil Islam died in 2019 at the age of 74. Islam's estate will receive his portion of the settlement. And in California, a wrongfully convicted man is set free after

spending 38 years in prison. Maurice Hastings was released from a California prison last week after his life sentence was overturned. Hastings was convicted of the 1983 murder of Roberta Weitermeier and two other attempted murders. Earlier this month, the 38-year-old untested DNA evidence was put in the state database when a match to another prisoner who died in prison in 2020 was identified. The DA's office said they are working with police to investigate the involvement of the dead person in the case. Folks, let's talk about Georgia. Elections taking place there.

And Pastor Jamal Bryan, new birth, missionary Baptist church, had some strong words to say in the pulpit with regards to the U.S. Senate race between the incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock and, of course, the lying, idiot, bumbling fool, Herschel Walker. Check this out. Ladies and gentlemen, when the Republican Party of Georgia moved Herschel Walker from Texas to Georgia so that he could run for Senate, it's because change was taking too fast in the post-antebellum South. The state had been flipped blue, and there are some principalities that were not prepared for a black man and a Jewish man to go to Senate at the exact same time.

So would in fact represent us better with a football than with a degree in philosophy. They thought we were so slow that we were so stupid that we would elect the lowest caricature of a stereotypical broken black man as opposed to somebody who is educated and erudite and focused. Y'all ain't ready for me today. Since Hershel Walker was 16 years old, white men been telling him what to do. Telling him what school to go to, where to live, where to eat, where to buy a house, where to run, where to sit down, where to sleep, where to pay for abortions,

where to buy a gun, and you think they not gonna tell him how to vote? In 2022, we don't need a Walker, we need a runner. We need somebody who gonna run and tell the truth about January 6th. We need somebody who gonna run and push for the cancellation of student loan debts. We need somebody who gonna run and make the former president respond to a subpoena. We don't need a walker. We need somebody who will be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding, knowing that your labor is not in vain. Georgia, I need you to know the slave Negroes y'all are used, don't live here no more. We can think for ourselves, function for ourselves, and vote for ourselves. Why? Because we don't need a walker.

Well, can't wait to hear the reaction from our panel. Julianne, you're up first. I just love that. You know, I was in Georgia this weekend at a conference, and the barrage of pro-Walker ads was amazing. Republicans are spending a lot of money to keep a Walker in there, as Brother Jamal says, we need a runner. It is disgusting, and I think President Obama said it best on Friday when he said you would not let someone who's excellent at football drive a plane.

So why would you let someone who excelled in football go to the United States Senate to make laws when he doesn't even know anything about the legislative process? Jamal Bryant nailed it. But, you know, the polls are they're very close. But the poll, Melody Campbell always says a poll is nothing but a snapshot in time. I believe that Reverend Warnock can pull it off if people get out to vote. That's always a variable, Roland, getting out to vote. Well, that's just what it boils down to. Lauren, it's turnout, turnout, turnout. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, this whole Herschel Walker thing is a very great example of what Republicans really think of black people. Obviously, they think we're completely stupid and that we'll vote for anybody as long as they're black.

I mean, that's just what they think. You can't put out Herschel Walker and not be thinking that. I mean, I guess they think we're going to mix up the two black guys at the poll. I mean, you've got to be kidding me. So we've seen this before a lot of times. The Herschel Walker example is an extreme example of somebody who's not qualified to be in the United States Senate and is just a real sort of a joke out there. It's insulting on so many levels. It's extremely insulting, not only to black voters, but really to everybody else. And it shows you really – it just shows you

that the Republican Party is just really not interested in recruiting and finding a candidate that is qualified to run. They would rather just sort of put up a caricature and fund that caricature to some extreme extent and get him into the United States Senate. I mean, really, I think in the Herschel Walker example, it's about who they can control once he gets there. They certainly weren't looking for a free thinker. But, I mean, if Herschel Walker gets elected to the United States Senate, I'm telling you, Roland, we got a real problem to figure out who's stupider, Tommy Tuberville or Herschel Walker. That is going to be extremely difficult to figure out. Right. That's like a tie. I mean, that's just dumb and dumber. Jason, New York Times,

Sienna dropped their poll in four states. This is what it shows right now. Arizona, Mark Kelly's up plus six against MAGA Blake Masters. John Fetterman's up five against Mehmet Oz there in Pennsylvania. Senator Raphael Warnock up three against Hershel Walker. And it's a tight race. Incumbent, Catherine Cortez, a master in Nevada, 47, and Adam Laxalt, 47. I mean, if you're Democrats, man, you desperately want to go four for four in those races. And then if you throw in, of course, Sherrod Beasley in North Carolina, if this poll

holds up over the next eight days, and then, of course, you've got Sherrod Beasley, North Carolina. I mean, Democrats will be elated to go 5-0 in these races. Yeah, I'll say I'm a little worried about Nevada with Laxalt. I think, you know, that's one that I'm not so sure. I mean, if Blake Masters wins in Arizona, I was just in Arizona, then, I mean, like, I will be just dumbfounded by the fact that Blake Masters was able to beat Mark Kelly. But I think a lot of those races are winnable. I think it's also criminal how little the Democratic Party, at least in terms of their coverage and the people that they pushed out there to the media,

how little they talked about Sherri Beasley when she's running a very winnable race. Oh, hell, they have a put... Chuck Schumer's pack has put zero dollars behind Tim Ryan, and he's, different polls, up one or two, and the Republicans have dropped like 40 million to the state. And so, trust me, I'm baffled by some of their decisions as well. Yeah, I mean, Peter Thiel is funding J.D. Vance. We know J.D. Vance. It's funny how J.D. Vance says, hey, I'm from the working class, when in fact, he wrote a whole book about

how lazy and terrible the working class is. If anybody actually read Hillbilly Elegy, you know, it's really about the laziness of the working class. And now he's all of a sudden trying to paint himself as some working class hero, when in fact, he's getting $15 million from Peter Thiel. Who do you think is going to control him? The billionaires or the working class? Probably I would put my money, the little bit that I have, on the billionaires. But they haven't put money in there. They keep putting money in Wisconsin, which I think, honestly, is a tough race to win. I wish Mandela Barnes all the best, but it looks like he's about three or four points behind Ron Johnson. I understand in the best, but it looks like he's about three or four points behind Ron Johnson.

I understand in the beginning, but now some of those funds in the late push maybe could go to Sherry Beasley. They put a whole bunch into defeating Marco Rubio with, I'm sorry. Val Demings. Yeah, Val Demings. I'm sorry about that. Val Demings. And that was going to be an uphill climb. So they've kind of calculated this in a way that I think was incorrect.

At least, you know, put it into somebody's slam-dump races or at least some really close races like Sherri Beasley. She could actually win that race. But Val Demings, as much as I love Val Demings and probably think she or Stacey Abrams should have been the running mate,

um, you know, in-in 2020, she's gonna have a tough time. That's a-that's an incumbent senator. Well, but-but here's the deal, though. First of all, look, okay, Democrats are gonna have a tough time regardless, all right? Uh, they're gonna have a tough time. But again, if you look at what's happening here,

at the end of the day, part of the problem is that Democrats, again, keep fixating on college-educated voters. No, you're going to have to compete for people who are not college-educated. You've got to have a message that speaks to them as well. That's been one of their failures. And that's why Tim Ryan went off with some consultant who told Politico, we should only be spending our money in places where we have college-educated voters. Well, guess what?

You better compete in the South. You better compete in some of these other places if you want to do so. Hold tight one second. I got to go to my next guest. We're going to go to a break. And then we're going to come talk about new COVID vaccine. Winter's coming up. And also, my final comment is going to talk about SWAC.

ESPN game day coming to Jackson, Mississippi for the Jackson State Southern game. I got a couple of words to say about it. Can't wait to y'all hear what I have to say. You're watching Roller Martin Unfiltered on the Black Star Network. When we invest in ourselves, our glow, our vision, our vibe, we all shine.

Together, we are Black beyond measure. We've got to stand up. Republicans are banning abortion rights, tearing down democracy, blocking progress. But when Democrats stand together, we win. Because we voted, Democrats stood up for black lives, voting to ban police chokeholds, stood up for black women, putting one on the Supreme Court,

stood up for our families, lowering cost of health care and prescriptions and capping insulin, and stood up for millions by slashing student debt. This November, let's stand up together and keep making progress. to music and entertainment is a huge part of our lives, and we're gonna talk about it every day, right here on The Culture, with me, Faraji Muhammad, only on the Black Star Network.

Hi, I'm Eric Nolan. I'm Shantae Moore. Hi, my name is LaToya Luckett, and you're watching Roland Martin Unfiltered. All right, folks, flu season is here, but we still have COVID. So the question is, what do you do? Do you get a flu shot?

Do you get the COVID shot? Do you get both? What actually should happen? Joining me right now is Dr. Jane Morgan, a cardiologist and the executive director of the Piedmont Healthcare Corporation COVID Task Force. She's COVID Task Force. She joins me from Atlanta. And so, Doc, glad to have you here. So, all right. What are y'all recommending?

We've heard folks talk about, look, COVID, you know, increase in heart issues. You got people out there who didn't want the first one. You saw the drop with the second, then the third, fourth. Now people say, oh, my goodness, we're going to have the COVID every year.

But it's not like Doc's don't recommend a flu shot every year. And so what say you? So we see now, you know, where we are in this pandemic that we've got these emerging, evolving variants and even more on the way. We've got this BQ1, BQ.1.1, which already is at 27% of all cases here in the United States. So this pandemic is here to stay, driven mostly by our behavior. We have really been reluctant as a society to follow public health measures, to be masked, to social distance, to get vaccinated when vaccines were available. We have sort of stumbled forward. And around and around on this merry

go round, we've gone as more and more variants evolve, as we have had all types of fights and discussions on social media. And science has certainly been at odds or at war, really, with naysayers, with anti-vaxxers, and people with large social media platforms with absolutely no scientific background whatsoever. And so here we are in this pandemic with pandemics, with variants emerging, more on the way, unfortunately. And so, yeah, the government, you know, Biden said, okay, the pandemic is over, but they still are going to have to market this thing because at the end of the day, you don't want to see an increase in COVID cases.

Also, as a cardiologist, you know, speak from the perspective of trying to get people to understand, you know, like this COVID thing is real. Like, look, I hate the fact that I've actually had it twice. I don't like the fact that it's in my damn body. And I'm not trying to get it a damn third time. And people are just, you're right. I mean, I flew today, and the number of people who are just sitting on airplanes, no mask, no big deal,

roaming through airports, hey, just chilling. They're kind of like, yeah, whatever. It's like, hey, we're all good. Right. You know, rolling for public health to work, public health literally means that the collective in society, that means all of us, the collective, has to move forward together. And we have been the most divided and the most polarized and have been the opposite of really what public health means. And certainly, it really is a threat, really, to our society in any type of warfare that we've not been able to follow science. Certainly, as we see variants emerge, we know

that infections with COVID increase your risk of myocarditis, that inflammation of the heart. But the message has been absconded somewhat by people thinking that the vaccine causes myocarditis. And while that is true in rare cases, you are more likely to get myocarditis from being infected with COVID than you ever would be from getting the vaccine. But that's not the message that people are receiving because you know how social media works. You click on one thing, it feeds you that information, and then it continues to feed you the same information, even if the first information was incorrect, reinforcing your first incorrect premise and whoever you're following on social media who doesn't have a scientific degree or background. Yeah, I know. The TikTok, Twitter, YouTube doctors really piss me off.

Let's question... Well, I am an Instagram doctor, so there's still a lot... No, no, no, no, no. You're not an Instagram doctor. You're a doctor on Instagram. I am a doctor on Instagram. That's different. That's different. It's some Instagram doctors who can't even

spell medical school. So let's just... You're not an Instagram doctor. You're a doctor on Instagram. That's a huge difference. Let's go to questions from our panel. Lauren, I'll start with you. One second.

Lauren, get off the phone! What's your question? I really don't have any questions. Okay, all right, no question. All right, Jason. Jason, go. Jason, you're on mute. Man, turn the beep button off.

No, no. Can you hear me? Gotcha. Okay. First of all, thank you for coming on. I wanted to know about, are they trying to make a vaccine for children younger than five? And are those children specifically more resilient,

as we've been told for so long, to COVID, that we shouldn't have to worry about some of the variants? And so the answer to that is yes, definitely a vaccine is in development for children younger than the age of five. Vaccines are already available, and I think maybe what you mean are the booster shots. The other thing that we want to talk about, which I think that you asked about, is this resiliency of children that you hear about. And by and large, children have fared pretty well in this pandemic. But make no mistake, children have certainly died. And don't forget, children have underlying conditions as well. They can have heart disease. They can have lung disease. They can have asthma. They can have

cancer. They can have immune challenges, all types of things that would make them succumb to a COVID infection. And the last thing to remember is that all of the variants are not equal. Even though they're all in this same family of SARS-CoV-2, they have different levels of ability and success. It's sort of similar to the Jackson 5. They're not all equal. Some are more successful than others. And that's how we have to think about these variants as well. We are lucky with this particular Omicron family that this family of variants has been successful in that it's been able to spread and has been very

transmissible, but has not caused severe disease. But inherent in that lies its strength, in that it has been able to infect more people by not killing them. By killing the host, meaning human beings, it actually kills itself. The virus literally cannot live without the host human beings to invade. And so it has become very stealthy in becoming incredibly transmissible. So the more times it infects your body, the more opportunities it has to mutate, to learn, to change and to create these variants without actually killing the host. But at some point, we might actually get a variant that really will challenge human life. And that's the worst case scenario. Best case scenario is it will mutate itself and burn itself out.

That's also a possibility. But it's not telling us which way it's going to go. And here we have another outcropping of subvariants of BA.5, BQ.1.1, BQ.1. And we see that they are starting to rise as well. And they can evade our medical therapeutics, they can evade our vaccines, and they can even evade Evusheld and our monoclonal antibodies, all of this wonderful science that we have brought to you in record time, really. And yet our behavior is outstripping the ability of science to create these therapeutics. Julianne. Doc, thanks for being with us. I appreciate you, appreciate your knowledge. I've been doing some

reading about COVID. I guess you're not supposed to do that because then they'll send me bad information if I got it on the internet, but doing some reading about the long-term effects of COVID. Some people get COVID, they recover, but some doctors are saying there's something in you, something will stay in your body and you may have long-term effects. Can you expound on that a little bit? I've had COVID once, don't want to have it anymore, but what can I look forward to in two years, three years, five years that may be residuals from COVID? Such good questions. We're talking about long COVID, and we see already that we probably have about one million sufferers in the United States that may go on to develop and file for disability.

That is going to be an incredible burden and responsibility here to the United States and probably more on the way. What we know about long COVID, these manifestations of COVID after your infection, and think about this, this is independent of whether you had a severe infection and were actually hospitalized or whether you were completely asymptomatic and at home and sort of just counting day five,

five days and watching a miniseries. Either way, you actually have a risk of developing long COVID. The person who's hospitalized has a greater risk, but the person who is at home with no symptoms at all is not risk-free. And so what are these symptoms that really are leading to disability? This shortness of breath, this long-term infection of the heart, and then this brain fog, this confusion, the ability which makes it difficult for you to go back to work, to be able to think and maintain the task of maintaining your job for students and children specifically. It makes them, it makes it a challenge for them to be successful in school because it's difficult for them to retain things in their memory.

And so we are expecting a large number of people, unfortunately, to move on into disability. We see these symptoms arise three to six months following the infection, and they can go on for one to two years. And some of them have continued on for long periods of time. Oftentimes, it can mimic even something called chronic fatigue syndrome, if you've heard of that. And it's just that chronic feeling of, you know, heaviness and inability to move forward, inability to motivate yourself, lack of energy, lack of drive, all of that with this chronic fatigue syndrome, it is very much mixed in with long COVID. We have a lot to learn, but we certainly don't want to learn it on you. Make certain that

everybody protect yourselves. Variants are still around. If you haven't been immunized, at least make certain that you follow public health measures. Keep your mask with you. And when you're in indoor settings, certainly when it is crowded, wear your mask. That protects you. It also protects others, but it protects you. All right, then.

Doctor Morgan, we appreciate it. A real doctor. Thank you. Yes, a real doctor. Deg you. Yes, a real doctor. Degrees. Okay, a real doctor. On Instagram, but a real doctor. A real doctor on Instagram.

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Bye. Thanks, Roland. All right, folks, get to a quick break, and I'm going to come back, talk about ESPN Game Day, coming to Jackson State University. Is this an example of white validation?

I'll explain when we come back on Roller Mark Unfiltered on the Black Star Network. Folks, Black Star Network is here. Hold no punches! I'm real revolutionary right now. Black media. He makes sure that our stories are told. I think that's what we're here for.

I think that's what we're here for. I think that's what we're here for. I think that's what we're here for. I think that's what we're here for. I think that's what we're here for. I think that's what we're here for. is here. Oh, no punching! I'm real revolutionary right now. Back up! Support this man, Black Media. He makes sure that our stories are told. Thank you for being the voice of Black America, Roller. Be Black. I love y'all. All momentum we have now, we have to keep this going.

The video looks phenomenal. See, there's a difference between Black Star Network and Black-owned media and something like CNN. You can't be Black-owned media and be scared. It's time to be smart. Bring your eyeballs home. You dig? Hello, everyone. It's Kiara Sheard. Hey, I'm Taj. I'm going to be a little bit more serious. I'm going to be a little bit more serious. I'm going to be a little bit more serious. Hello, everyone.

It's Kiara Sheard. Hey, I'm Taj. I'm Coco. And I'm Lele. And we're SWB. What's up, y'all? It's Rhyan Destiny. And you're watching Roland Martin Unfiltered. Honey. I've been frozen out.

Facing an extinction level event. We don't fight this fight right now. You're not going to have Black Army. Folks, Jackson, Mississippi was on fire Saturday when ESPN Game Day brought their morning show to Jackson, Mississippi. This is some of what took place here. You hear Pat McAfee, one of the folks, he was fired up for ESPN to be there in Jackson.

Watch this. Heard that Stephen A. Smith was going to be the guest picker. Yeah, yeah. I pontificated profusely about what I was going to wear. I put a tie on on this Halloween weekend to show respect for Stephen A. and everything he does on the day-to-day in the suit on TV. Last night, I got to eat a little Johnny T's. I went to the boombox battle of the bands last night,

and it was the most electrifying thing I have ever been a part of. You walk around campus, and they say, fired up, J-State, fired up. You talk about Coach Prime. Coach Prime says, this is a moment. I need a moment. The moment ends with that song being chanted all evening. Give me Jackson State like they won the battle of the bands last night.

It's really very simple. It's really very simple. I didn't fly down here this morning to watch my brother prime time lose a game. Jackson State went eight consecutive years losing to Southern before they broke their streak last year and they beat them. They gonna do it again.

Jackson State big time today. They take them out. That's why I'm here. That's why I'm here. I'm here to watch Jackson State and my man Pryor's time mess up and lose this game. They're going to handle their business and make sure to remind

something. And Deion Sanders, head coach of Jackson State, talked about the fans coming out and the reaction to ESPN game day coming? We're truly victorious, but that was not the highlight of the day. I think the highlight of the day is how we all came together as a people

and supported college game day. White, black, Hispanic, Asian, all ethnicities, all social climates, social statuses, and we did that. I was praying and praying and praying that God would not allow it to rain and storm so that we could show America that we could show up and show out. And we did.

And I'm so darn proud of Jackson, Mississippi. You have no idea. It, uh, just driving through the crowd on the way to the stage had me turning in tears just thinking about where we started from. It was phenomenal. It really was. It took me back once I rolled through and got there in that seat to feel it. And to turn around and see Southern cheerleaders right there and to see Jackson State right there, that's what it's all about.

That's what I've been talking about, equality. So it would be a darn fool of us to just hoard all the attention, all the love, and not share it with our brothers and sisters. And we shared it. And then the city shared their love, and I love it. It was a beautiful thing. Beautiful thing. I'll never forget that moment.

Hey, Iowa! Hey, Iowa! Hey, Iowa! Hey, Iowa! Beautiful thing. I'll never forget that moment. That's one first place and second place. So give it up. Here you have it. Show that you got Delta strolling. You got Alpha stepping. All of this was happening out there. I mean, you saw full HBCU black culture on display on ESPN game day. We, of course, were there at the MeXWack challenge in Atlanta last year when we were live streaming.

And so they were all out there. And it was great. And it was, yeah, it was great to see folks show out. And these things happen when you're talking about a game day or Good Morning America or the Today Show. And folks are excited to be on these national platforms and being able to show folks. And obviously, if you're Coach Deion Sanders, you want that level of attention on your program. You want potential athletes to see it. You want your alumni to see it as well.

But there was something that was in that particular soundbite that Coach Sanders said when he said what was on display when game day came here was equality. I fully understand what Deion said and I absolutely support what Dion is doing. He and I text and talk regularly, and when he's talking about wanting our schools and what happens with us to be shown as well. I absolutely agree with that. I totally understand that. But here's the question that I have.

To the folks who showed up, who flocked there and packed out and showed out for ESPN and electric atmosphere and all of that. Who got paid? Who got paid? ESPN Game Day, College Game Day day is sponsored by Home Depot Home Depot pays ESPN millions of dollars to sponsor game day

ESPN ran commercials during day. ESPN ran commercials during game day. ESPN got paid. What did Jackson State and Southern get paid? What did the city of Jackson get paid? I need everybody listening to me, and I want the haters to say, I'm not even for a millisecond criticizing Coach Sanders or Jackson State. What I'm trying to get us to do is think even bigger. Please answer this for me. Why could we not recreate that same electric atmosphere if it was a black-owned media platform?

Let's just say Black Star Network. Let's just say HBCU League pass. Let's just say we wanted to put together a game day. And every Saturday hit HBCU games.

Literally creating the same atmosphere, bringing in acts, having your stands and all that sort of stuff along those lines. Here's the question. Would Home Depot

cut us the same check they cut ESPN? Could we go to Lowe's who has a black CEO? Y'all pull it up for me. Could we go to him and say how about y'all be the sponsor of this? But here's the other deal. Would thousands of African Americans show up if it

was a black-owned platform and not ESPN. Do we have the same fervor if it's ours? See, I'm putting something out there that at some point we have got to begin to ask ourselves, do we have the same vigor for a black-owned media platform and showing up and showing out? Because, see, I can tell y'all right now, if 8 to 10, see, I love this. I love it when somebody walks right

into the pocket of what I'm talking about. Somebody on Instagram, Terry Harris tweeted, do you have the same reach? Terry, you can't get the same reach if you don't have access to the money. You walked right into it, Terry. See, Terry, you don't sit in the meetings that I do.

You don't sit and have the circular conversations that I do. Terry, when you get access to the money, you can then hire the marketing folks and you can hire the marketing folks and you can hire the entertainment folks who can then come in

to attract the crowd and then you can market to the audience to watch your product to get the eyeballs to get the ratings to get the views to get the eyeballs, to get the ratings, to get the views, to get the reach.

So part of the reason here, Terry, why black-owned media does not have the reach, does not have the scale, is also partly because a lot of black folks are unwilling to ride with us. We'll flock to an ESPN real quick. We'll flock to a Good Morning America real quick. We'll flock to a Today Show real quick. Look, I ain't got a problem saying this.

When I had my TV One show, we broadcast my TV One show from the Alpha Convention in Baltimore. We were live at 7 a.m. I ain't got a problem saying it. I call up my own frat. I walk into the ballroom. It's 645.

645. How many people in the ballroom? Not 1,000. Not 500. Not 250. Not 100. Not 50. Less than 20.

The late brother Henry Stewart. I said, Henry. Henry walked, he was like, what? Henry's new exec. He was like, get your ass on the phone and wake cats up to bring their ass down here. And I said to Henry, how many other morning shows

doing they show from the Alpha Convention? How many other morning shows hosted by an Alpha? I said, I'm going to be mad as hell if folk not in this room. Flip that. If Good Morning America was at the Alpha Convention, bet you the room would have been packed.

It's right here. It's right here. It's right here. What we are going to have to learn as black people is that we are going to have to confront our need and desire for white validation. We gonna have to confront, ooh, it's ESPN, it's Good Morning America, it's ABC, ooh, it's We're going to have to, as long as we never show up for our stuff, then we are never in a position to go demand more. And when we can't demand more, then we'll never be able to build more. We'll never be able to go out and actually build capacity, build reach. Ain't going to happen. We can bring the exact same technical capability. We can have the zip line cameras. We can have the crane. We can have the zipline cameras.

We can have the crane. We can have the big LED screens. We can have all See, y'all don't even understand the whole infrastructure that goes behind putting on a game day. Y'all ain't got no clue how massive

it is. And when you see all of that, you know what I see? People. You know when you see all of that, you know what I see? People. You know what I see all of them people? I see money. Because guess what? ESPN ain't doing none of that for free. Now you showing up for free. Yeah, oh yeah, they showed up for free at Jackson, Mississippi. The fans showed up for free. So what I'm trying to get our folk to understand

is I appreciate ESPN game day. Not going to Penn, not going to the Penn State, Ohio State game, but bringing game day to Jackson. ESPN game day won't be coming to any other HBCU games this year. This is the only one. So why can't we create our own game day? And we create our own game day, will we show up the same way? Play the video. Will we show up the way they did?

Will we show up all these folks who were there? Would we show up? If it's a black-owned media product, would we show up early with our signs, cheering, dancing, showcasing? And not only would we show up on the ground, would we actually tune in? I think a lot of y'all already know what that answer is. I'm just going to close out with my panel right here, Julian, Jason, and Lauren.

And Jason, I'm going to start with you. No, no, Julian, I'm going to start with you. You, President, Mayor, Bennett College. I'm trying to get us to start changing this, Julianne. When we start valuing what's ours, appreciating what's ours,

giving our media, black-owned media properties, the same respect and energy that we give to white media companies, then we'll see, to Terry's question, the reach, the capacity, and then you'll actually have black-owned media companies

that can go out to a Home Depot and Lowe's and say, cut us the same $40, $50, $100 million check y'all cutting the ESPN. Go ahead. You know, you're absolutely right, but I want to spin this another way. Or the same way with another same Kool-Aid, different flavor.

How many of those Jackson State alums who turned out for game day have contributed to their alumni fund. Same thing. If we don't love ourselves, we're not going to get anything. HBCU alumni giving is

there's no HBCU that has more than 50% alumni giving. None. Claflin is over 50, right? Claflin is the only one. Claflin is over 50, right? Claflin is the only one. If they are the only one. Claflin is number one out of all.

So, you know, you can turn the people out for homecoming, for game day, but you can't get them to support themselves. So the two questions, Roland, are corollaries. If they can't support their alma mater, what makes you think they're going to support Black-owned media? We don't support ourselves, not ourselves collectively, but even ourselves individually.

In fact, Julianne, it's 2,100 people. First of all, we hit almost 3,000 earlier, but it's 2,100 people who are watching us on YouTube right now, but only 1,300 likes. Mm.

It's a click. It's a click. It's just a click. It's free. See? That's what I'm talking about. Same thing. And see, when you click that like,

it impacts the algorithm, which increases our revenue. But see, Jason, I'm just trying to get our folk, Jason. If we don't change this, Jason, we're going to keep sitting here going, why don't we have this and this? And why can't we cover this? And why don't we have our own? Why don't we have a, because we are so giving to others and we don't even give the same level of energy and support to our own. Jason, go ahead. You know, there's, there's such a rich and incredible conversation that needs to be had about white validation. I think that when you said those

words, I think that there's so much that we could get into that I think would have Black people, some angry, some excited, but there's so much to be said in how we've been socialized to think that when white people say we're smart, say we're beautiful, say they like our culture, we get excited, and then don't look to validate ourselves. And certainly, in many cases, don't back ourselves with, you know, our own people with our money.

Um, I remember that interview. I know you probably remember, uh, Charlemagne Tha God when he was interviewing, uh, uh, Dapper Dan. And, you know, me being originally a Harlem guy, you know, uh, Dapper Dan was-was a big deal, but he had this-he had this deal with Gucci. And one of the things Charlemagne asked him was,

so why didn't you-why'd you go to Gucci? Why didn't you just kind of start your own brand? You're Dapper Dan. And his thing was, so why didn't you... Why'd you go to Gucci? Why didn't you just kind of start your own brand? You're Dapper Dan. And his thing was, well, you know, black people won't buy Dapper Dan if it's just Dapper Dan. We need to have some big corporation backing us.

Which means validate. Right. Right. And I think we need to look at it and say, hey, this is a luxury Black brand, and I'm willing to pay luxury prices to have this luxury Black brand. Or I'm willing to pay, you know, for Black media. Or I'm willing to, you know, I don't need necessarily game day to come through if we can get a similar product from a Black-owned media source. And then, of course, the people who get rich in the Black community from Black dollars,

you have a responsibility to give some back to the Black community. Because I don't want to, you know, let's say we get three more Black billionaires. Yeah, you know, you could buy another pool and another, you know, another jet plane. That three more black billionaires, yeah, you know, you could buy another pool and another, you know, another jet plane. That's cool and on the backs of black people. But I think you also have a responsibility to give back. There's a circular process that needs to happen here. But we also need for black people to understand

your brothers and sisters make good products. Roland Martin, you know, I go on every show in news. I've been on just about all of them. And this is as good a product as you will find anywhere in terms of the quality. Why aren't there two million people watching Roland Martin? And people complain, well, CNN doesn't cover this, or MSNBC doesn't talk about our issues. Roland Martin is talking about your issues.

Why aren't you watching? Even if you disagree, why aren't you watching? And that's, you know, I think that's a problem. We do need to change our mentality when it comes to... Lauren, I was explaining to CBC members when I was talking to CBC members when I was talking about the lack of federal dollars going to Black-owned media,

and I was talking to Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, and she said, when we come out of these CBC meetings, there's no... there's no, uh... there's no Black press there. I said, Congressman, I'm gonna tell you right now, we simply cannot afford to pay a full-time salary for somebody to only cover Congress. I said, but, I said, the federal government spends a billion dollars a year on advertising. I said, if black

owned media got 5% of the annual $1 billion, that would mean 50 million. I said, let's just say I received 2.5% of the 5%. Let's just say Black Star Network got 2 million of the 50 million in advertising. I said I could hire three congressional correspondents in 90 days. Yeah, well, that's an answer. It's the money. I said, so if you then don't, and I did this here,

I'm going to say this here, Lauren, before I let you speak. This is the second thing. And I discussed political advertising. I've already run the numbers. Based upon our size, based upon the fact that we are the only daily black news show. Now, Byron Allen just launched two shows on the grill last Monday, but we've been here four years. We should have, if you look at just political advertising dollars, we should have received

about $2 million was our target for 2022 for the midterm elections. Let's just say the black tax is in effect and we only get 25% of what we should be getting. That's $500,000, right? Well, I ran the numbers. The total amount of political advertising we have received this election season is $157,000.

I'm just going to give you this one here, Lauren. For everybody watching, I just want you'all to understand. So the total political, the total political 157,000, which means all the other media companies, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Cumulus, iHeart, we can go down the line. I mean, they have already, the millions and billions they've earned,

they're already paying for their expenses in 2023. Their 2023 budget is being paid for the profit of what they made in 2022 because of political spending. So when we, black-owned media, are not able to lock in even those dollars, then we are left to fight and claw and scrounge and to be able to pay bills. Come next year, we are never in the position,

but imagine if we hit the two million. There are five to eight people I could hire if we hit the 2 million there are 5 to 8 people I could hire for 2023 and then you go into 2024 presidential election year and let's say you should

be doing 4 to 5 million in political advertising versus the 2 that's how to Terry's point how your bill reach bill capacity and, in a nutshell, y'all, explains why black-owned media is never in a position to do that. Because our black consumers, we have to value us, watch us, support us, show up, show out, like game day. And so then when we go to the Home Depot and Lowe's,

we go, look at the numbers, look who's showing up, cut the same check, you're cutting ESPN. Lauren, go ahead. Well, the money that you were talking about with regard to Joyce Beatty and the political advertising and the party, I don't understand. At some point, it does need to be sort of an ultimatum, it seems to me, of telling people, if we don't get the money, if we don't get this, we're not going to encourage people to vote

like we've been encouraging people to vote on the air. I mean, what part of the Democrats are in charge of everything right now, and this is still not happening, don't we understand? We've been talking about this for years. I can remember when, you know, Eleanor Holmes Norton had a press conference out at the Capitol years ago. Yeah, the studies she did with NNPA in 2018. Right. And so I think we need a new, tougher, tangible asking strategy, frankly, with that particular issue, because it seems like we are amplifying a lot of certainly there's a lot of amplification going on with the DNC and DCCC messaging.

And yet what is the return on investment? At some point, there should be a return on investment for that. Yeah. Particularly if what few media organizations we have are actually covering what the Democrats are doing. With regard to Jackson State, I actually think that when we say white validation, I'm not sure that we can't do two things at the

same time there. I mean, we can be on ESPN and support our own stuff. But we don't. No, in fact but we don't. We don't. I mean, Jackson State can use ESPN to amplify Jackson State. No, no, no.

And then continue on with what they're doing. No, no, absolutely. No, no, no. But I'm speaking to what's actually happening, which is what Julianne's point is, and that is her point. A lot of folk flocking out there. How many even send a nickel back to the school?

It's all the sort of same thing. And so what we're saying is we are very... And it's just, it is a psychological thing that we have to deal with, which is why I keep saying we need a massive reprogramming on black America. We are like, whoo, ESPN, game day. They came to Jackson.

They came to Jackson State. Great. What did Jackson State got? Yes, attention. Attention. But ESPN was paid to be there. Home Depot cut a big-ass check that's why this segment's called where's our money I'm just trying to get us to be thinking a lot different we show up and show out for others when again the majors show up I want us to learn to create a major

for ourself. That's why when I tweeted this out to some folks and I said, look, a lot of y'all leaving Twitter, I said, download Fanbase. Black-owned app. Isaac Hayes III. I said, black people, we made Twitter hot, Facebook hot, Clubhouse hot.

But when we have something that's black-owned, we like, I don't know. I heard somebody say, well, you know, fan base got some glitches. I remember when Facebook and Twitter had a lot of glitches. Instagram had a lot of glitches. But the millions and millions that were poured into them made them better. And that's what made them multi-billion dollar corporations.

Same thing. This, black America, this has to change. This. And when we stop being fixated on white validation, whether we want to admit to it or not, then our community changes. Then our organizations change. Then our colleges change. Our communities change. Our Black-owned companies change.

Y'all, why am I talking about money? Because if you ain't talking about money, you ain't talking about America. And I'm gonna close on that. Julianne, Jason, Lauren, I certainly appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Folks, please support us in what we do. Download our Black Star Network app.

Same thing. We got about 930,000 YouTube subscribers. We have 50,000 downloads of the app. Download the app, folks. When I go to corporations and I say we have 500,000 downloads, that's money.

Apple phone, Android phone, Apple TV, Android TV, Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Xbox One, Samsung Smart TV. You can also, of course, support our Bring the Funk fan club. Every dollar you give goes to support this show and what we do. Seeing checks and money orders. Y'all, your resources matter.

I told y'all. Let me tell you something. Again, where we're tracking right now, $157,000 in political ads that we got in all of 2022, we'll end up probably getting $700,000, $600,000, $700,000 in donor giving. Hopefully, but we're trying to max that out. That shows you right there, folks, the discrepancy.

And it's just real. And that's what all black-owned media is facing. Checks and money orders. Money orders. PO Box 57196. Washington, D.C. 20037-0196. Cash app.

Dollar sign. RM unfiltered. PayPal's RM unfiltered. Venmo's RM unfiltered. Zelle is rolling at rollingmarchunfiltered.com. Rolling at rollingmarchunfiltered.com. Get the copy of your book, White Fear. How the Browning of America is Making White Folks Lose Their Mind. They'll be at all bookstores and brick and mortar. Download from Audible as well.

And y'all see my Astros. Here's your deal. Raining in Philadelphia. So, no game three tonight. So, I sent Mark Lamont Hill and some other Philly folks my set up. So, you know I had to have all my Astros stuff. We're getting ready for game three.

So, game three, we're going to have a game three. We're going to have a game three. We're going to have a game three. know I had to have all my Astros stuff. We're getting ready for game three. So game three is going to be tomorrow. And so we look forward to that tomorrow. So y'all know how I do. And so this is, of course, one of the World Series in 2017.

So I'm looking forward to getting some new gear, seeing World Series champs in 2022. I'll see y'all tomorrow right here on rolling mark unfiltered on the black star network this is an iheart podcast