Tangle - Affirmative action at the Supreme Court.

Episode Date: November 3, 2022

Today, we're covering the debate over affirmative action, and going long on the arguments for and against it. Plus, a reader question about yesterday's coverage on Paul Pelosi, and a major Justice Department sting.You can read today's podcast here, today’s “Under the Radar” story here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (0:58), Today’s story (1:58), Right’s take (7:36), Left’s take (12:52), Isaac’s take (17:44), Listener question (24:26), Under the Radar (25:50), Numbers (26:36), Have a nice day (27:40)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police

procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. From executive producer Isaac Saul,

this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum. Some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about affirmative action, more specifically, race-conscious college admissions, which is currently being argued in front of the Supreme Court in two cases involving the University of North Carolina and Harvard. Before we jump in though, as always, we'll start off with some quick hits.

First up, the Federal Reserve approved its fourth consecutive 0.75% interest rate hike. It's the sixth overall hike this year. Number two, the Parkland, Florida shooter was sentenced to life in prison for the 2018 attack that killed 17 students. Number three, Russia says it will resume participation in an agreement that allows grain exports to leave Ukrainian ports after it received written guarantees that the Black Sea would not be used for military operations. Number four, President Biden delivered a primetime speech warning Americans that democracy was under threat and calling for voters to turn out to prevent a Republican majority in Congress. Number five, the Ethiopian government and Tigray's People's

Liberation Front agreed to a truce in a two-year civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced over 5 million residents. Low-education could be on the chopping block. The Supreme Court is ready to rule on two cases challenging affirmative action. In just a few hours, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether colleges and universities can continue to consider race as a factor in admissions. Despite 40 years of legal precedent supporting consideration of race in college admissions, a conservative advocacy group is suing UNC Chapel Hill and Harvard University. Really an opportunity for Black students to have a fair shot at attending those colleges. I think it's very important to look at people from how they perform. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the use of race-conscious admissions in colleges. During oral arguments, the conservative majority court appeared prime

to strike down the use of race as a consideration in college admissions. Both lawsuits now in front of the Supreme Court were filed in 2014 by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, or SFFA. The first, filed against Harvard, said the school was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars entities that receive federal funding from racial discrimination. The plaintiffs argue that Asian Americans are less likely to be admitted than similarly qualified white, black, or Hispanic applicants under current Harvard admissions policies. In the second case, the plaintiffs are arguing that the University of North Carolina violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities by considering race in its admissions process when such considerations are

not necessary to create a diverse student body. Both universities prevailed in federal courts, but both victories were appealed to the Supreme Court. In Brown v. Board v. Education in 1954, the Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in public schools, rejecting the idea that race could be used to influence educational opportunities. In 1978, in Regents of the University of California v. Backe, the court struck down a numerical racial quota system in higher education, but left the door open for race-conscious admissions. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan Law School could consider race in its admissions process as an attempt to create a diverse student body. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor famously suggested in her opinion that in 25 years,

the use of such preferences may not be necessary. In SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe broke down the oral arguments in which the conservative justices focused on criticisms of the precedent that has allowed race-conscious admissions and press lawyers defending affirmative action to explain the educational benefits of diversity. The justices also prodded at how the universities determine when they have diverse student bodies, whether the colleges will consider race indefinitely, which O'Connor never endorsed, and pointed to alternative ways to ensure a diverse student body, like more robust financial aid to low-income and first-generation immigrant students. The universities have responded by arguing that there is no race neutral way to ensure a diverse student body that is more effective than considering race as part of applications. Lawyers representing the school, as well as the

liberal justices, stressed that race is just one of many considerations when a student applies to college, and that lower courts had already determined neither school had been guilty of discrimination. Harvard was not discriminating against Asian students in its case, according to the courts, and race could not solely account for why someone was admitted into North Carolina either. Justice Kataji Brown Jackson, who recently sat on the board of Harvard admissions, recused herself from the Harvard case. However, in the UNC case, she suggested that forbidding race considerations could create constitutional violations of its own. Jackson suggested that a hypothetical where one student's

family had attended UNC for generations and another student, who was black, had no legacy at UNC because black students were once barred from attending at all. 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, she suggested, while the second one wouldn't. That, Jackson said, could be its own violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This case will be decided sometime next year. Questioning from the justices suggested that they are likely to overturn Grutter and Bakke, effectively ending the use of race-conscious admissions. However, lawyers representing the

universities urged the justices to send the cases back to the lower courts if they did not believe they were sufficiently reviewed, and Justice Gorsuch appeared open to the idea of ruling in the two cases without weighing in on any constitutional issues. Today, we're going to take a look at some arguments from the with what the right is saying. The right is opposed to race-conscious admissions and argues that it is time to strike down the use of affirmative action. Many criticize the practices of Harvard and UNC, arguing that they create discrimination against students of Asian descent. Some say affirmative action was once necessary, but there are better ways to create diverse campuses now.

In the New York Times, Renu Mukherjee, a first-generation immigrant, argued that there are better ways for universities to foster diversity. The story of how my family arrived and found its way in America is a unique one that exemplifies diversity, Mukherjee wrote. But based on revelations from Students for Fair Admissions Challenge to Harvard and the University of North Carolina's race-conscious admissions policies, cases that have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Monday, it seems neither of these schools would agree with me. They, along with many other elite universities in the U.S., seem to have

decided that because Asian American enrollment at their schools exceeds the Asian American share of agree with me. They, along with many other elite universities in the U.S., seem to have decided that because Asian American enrollment at their schools exceeds the Asian American share of the population, stories like mine don't count as diverse. Instead, the stories of underrepresented racial minorities tend to count more as the diversity in which universities have a compelling interest, the rationale for racial preferences today. Racial preferences in college admissions are wrong, and not just because they make it more difficult for certain racial groups over others to gain admission, Mukherjee said. Race-conscious admissions programs are wrong also because they promote the view

that certain types of diversity matter more than others, that certain stories are more worth telling than others. This is obviously misguided. On a university campus, true diversity should encompass all aspects of a student's personhood that could contribute to the educational environment, like whether the student is a spelling bee champion, grew up in a single-parent household, or worked in a New York pizza parlor. Indeed, this is what Justice Lewis Powell had in mind when he established the diversity rationale behind race-conscious admissions in 1978's

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In The Federalist, Margot Cleveland said there is no equal protection if universities can rate skin color in admissions. In making admissions decisions, both Harvard and the University of North Carolina consider the race of applicants, with schools advantaging American Indian, Hispanic, and Black applicants to the disadvantage of Asian American students, Cleveland wrote. The lawsuits proceeded to trial with the SFFA taking a two-prong approach, arguing that both Grutter was wrongly decided and should be overturned, and that the universities violated Grutter by giving race an undue influence on admissions decisions by making race a minus for Asian Americans and by adopting impermissible racial stereotypes about

Asian Americans, such as that they are timid, quiet, shy, passive, withdrawn, one-dimensional, hard workers, perpetual foreigners, and model minorities. The university's argument will likely fail for several reasons, Cleveland said. First, the laws provided for race-conscious assistants were few and far between, and as the SFFA stresses, colorblind statutes from the era are more prevalent. Second, the adoption of laws to benefit former slaves provides no guidance on whether the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause allows states to make race-conscious decisions for reasons other than to remedy past state-sponsored discrimination. And third, as SFFA writes, none of the postbellum statutes are controlling because for decades, this country largely disregarded the 14th Amendment's text. But that text,

not post-ratification laws that are inconsistent with it, controls. As Chief Justice John Roberts said so simply, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. In the dispatch, David French argued that racial discrimination is not the path to racial justice. As Richard Callenberg argued last week in The Atlantic, universities are keeping a dirty secret. Racial preferences provide cover to an admission system that mostly benefits the wealthy. In other words, the universities preserve a long-standing status quo that privileges those universities, legacy admittees and children of donors, for example,

who preserve the university's wealth and power while using race preferences as a blunt instrument to render universities diverse along racial lines only, French said. Here's how the system works. Elite universities attempt to accomplish multiple goals at the same time. They want to maintain the community and financial benefits of legacy admissions and donor favoritism. They also want to maintain the high class GPA and SAT scores that are foundations of college rankings, he said, and they want their incoming class to look like America. The result, especially in elite academic circles, is extraordinarily pernicious. Harvard's method was deeply disturbing. It

systematically downranked Asian American applicants' personal rating. At Harvard, the personal rating refers to highly subjective qualities like integrity, courage, kindness, and empathy. Here's where the story gets worse. Although these personal qualities have nothing to do with race, Asian Americans receive by far the worst scores, French said, nor are those scores an innocent coincidence. The district court found a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard's admissions officers. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left argues that the court should not overturn decades of precedent.

Many say race-conscious admissions is still the best way to create diverse campuses. Others argue that the court is going to strike down affirmative action, regardless of how bad the arguments are. The Washington Post editorial board said the Supreme Court should follow precedent on race conscious admissions. Those challenging race conscious admissions in this case do not argue that colleges and universities receive no benefits from building diverse student bodies. Rather, they claim that universities such as Harvard award mammoth racial preferences to African Americans and Hispanics while discriminating against Asian Americans, resulting in anti-Asian stereotyping, race-obsessed campuses, declines in ideological diversity, and more. They also charged that universities could achieve sufficient diversity by giving more of an admissions tip to students of low socioeconomic status.

The universities and two lower courts disagreed with the challengers' assertions. Underlying the argument is a disagreement about the intent of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The challengers contend that the amendment requires the government and related entities to adhere to strict racial neutrality. But the universities have the better argument, pointing out that those who wrote the 14th Amendment rejected language that would support such an absolutist reading. Both state and federal authorities at the time enacted race-conscious measures to promote African Americans' equal participation in society, the board said. The amendment exists to enable Congress and other institutions to combat racial disparities, not as a directive to ignore them. The court has said that the circumstances under which race-conscious policies may proceed should

be extremely narrow, but that is the most important point. The court has said that the circumstances under which race-conscious policies may proceed should be extremely narrow, but that is the most important point. The court has already spoken. In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern said the court had no reason to end affirmative action, but they probably will anyway. The history of affirmative action at the Supreme Court is not particularly complicated. In 1978's Bakke decision, a majority found that universities could consider race to build a diverse student body, identifying educational benefits that flow from diversity. At the time, a majority prohibited quotas and other rigid metrics that reduced applicants to

their race, requiring universities to undertake a holistic review of each applicant. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger, and again in 2016's Fisher v. Texas. So, in theory, the justices should have been debating the meaning of the Constitution. Instead, the conservative justices continually reverted to free-floating policy discussions about how affirmative action makes them feel. Hint, they feel bad. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown

is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based

flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca. Justice Samuel Alito took a wholly gratuitous pot shot at Senator Elizabeth Warren, asking whether someone counts as a racial minority if their family lore claims American Indian heritage. Justice Clarence Thomas asserted that affirmative action is indistinguishable from Jim Crow and argued that diversity itself is an empty, meaningless concept. I don't have a clue what it means, Thomas said. When North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park

explained that students benefit from having classmates with different backgrounds and viewpoints, offering peer-reviewed research on the topic, the Justice retorted, I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too, as though Southern states had once defended Jim Crow as necessary to expose students to the lived experience of their classmates. In the Los Angeles Times, Sally Chan, a Harvard graduate, said affirmative action helped her, even as an Asian American. I'm the daughter of working-class Chinese immigrants who speak very

little English. I was born at Chinese Hospital and grew up in Lower Knob Hill in San Francisco. My parents worked at restaurants for low wages and our family of six barely scraped by, she said. We lived in a cramped one-bedroom apartment among urban professionals and underserved communities. Before I was even a teenager, I advocated and translated for my family. In my household, my siblings and I are the first generation to graduate from college. In my personal statement for my college application to Harvard, I wrote about how these experiences shaped my passion to do work that would help others with similar struggles. At a student activism meeting in 2017, a friend shared how to file requests under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act to see

my admissions file, Chen said. My admissions readers saw value and authenticity in my perspective. Categorized as low-income and with Taiwanese-speaking parents, she relates to the plight of the outsiders in Ralph Ellison and William Faulkner, they wrote. Though my test scores were far from perfect, they believed I had the potential to make a contribution to college life that would be truly unusual. I benefited from an admissions policy that took race and the effects of racism into consideration. My story can't be conveyed in a race-blind way, and during the Harvard trial, my admissions file was used as an exhibit to illustrate this. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take.

So obviously, this is not a simple issue. On the one hand, look, I mean, the need for affirmative action, it shouldn't really be that hard to comprehend. Like, I don't think that part of this is a difficult thing to wrap your head around. When you completely box out non-whites from educational opportunities for hundreds of years, which, to be clear, is what we did, you can't simply say, okay, you're allowed in now and call that fair. Lyndon Johnson has a very famous quote that encapsulates the absurdity of this mentality. He said, you do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race, and then say, you are free to compete with all the others, and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus, it is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through

those gates. The need for race-conscious admissions was obvious. To reverse centuries of injustice, it would be helpful if there were a tool that allowed colleges to at least consider race. This was doubly true when college administrators began to recognize the benefits of diverse campuses, not just for minorities, but for white students as well. On the other hand, in the last couple of decades, affirmative action has become extremely complicated and convoluted, and at times has been a form of negative prejudice in and of itself. The Harvard case is a tremendous example of how this manifests. Asian Americans on paper should be admitted at higher rates than whites. Average

measurable factors like GPA and test scores among Asians are stronger than white applicants. Yet Harvard's admissions process has been able to stymie that obvious outcome. In fact, they've been motivated to stymie it through the use of personal ratings that systematically devalue Asian applicants. The trap of race-conscious admissions was always obvious, too. As affirmative action policies achieved their goal and the country became more equal with wealth and educational disparities closing, black or other minority students would then have a leg up on white counterparts who were equally disadvantaged from birth. So, too, would the children of beneficiaries of those policies 60 years ago, more so than students currently at a lower economic station.

This is why O'Connor predicted, or I think more aptly hoped, that one day this wouldn't be necessary. In my own life, I've seen the multitudinous of applications of diversity and how they differ. For instance, my high school was very economically diverse, but not very racially diverse. My wife's high school was very racially diverse, but not very economically diverse. Her high school class is, on average, much wealthier and more liberal and a lot less white than mine. My high school, on average, is less wealthy, much more politically diverse, and much more white. In my view, there would be a huge benefit to having a campus with a mix of our childhood friends and a huge downside to having any campus that mirrored either of our high schools

entirely. The hardest thing about race-conscious admissions, though, is that it's trying to solve a problem it can't. Simply put, colleges, especially elite schools, are refusing to expand their student bodies while the pool of applicants keeps growing. As Noah Smith noted, Stanford accepted 16% of applicants when he was accepted. Now they take just 4%. Using race-conscious admissions policies is supposed to ensure that an ever-smaller, more elite group of students is ever more diverse and representative of the country. The inevitable result as colleges get more competitive is that more students are going to be boxed out because of their race rather than given a leg up. To put it differently, when Harvard's getting applicant pools like the one they just recently

bragged about on Twitter, where 2,000 available slots were at Harvard, 8,000 US applicants had perfect GPAs, and over 4,000 ranked first in their high schools, and close to 20,000 scored above 700 on their SATs in reading and writing or on their SATs in math, the likely outcome, if it wants to keep a racially representative student body, is that race will suddenly become a major part of determining whether a student gets in or not. The solution isn't just to get rid of race-conscious admissions, which I do think colleges should consider, but it's to dramatically expand the pool of students we're letting into colleges. In my perfect world, colleges would focus primarily on wealth and income status, with secondary considerations for things like

immigration status, language use, or, my own biases, even political diversity to fill out college campuses. Race would still play a small role, but would be superseded by many of these other considerations. Things like legacy would be thrown out the window entirely. Unfortunately, that perfect world is nowhere near. College is essentially a racket, and the most elite schools now need to admit legacy students, keep the donors coming, and churn out student bodies that are sufficiently diverse based on what race students check off in their applications, but also rich enough to cough up tuition fees. All the while, race is an increasingly arbitrary measurement as the definitions of Hispanic and Asian are drawn on fabricated lines and more and more mixed race students join the fray. Of course, this is a legal battle,

not a hypothetical one, of how I think colleges should be run. In that regard, it seems to me the universities should have the upper hand. They have decades of precedent on their side, and from an originalist perspective, the obvious historical context is that the 14th Amendment was explicitly race-conscious. It's quite jarring to see the originalist conservative justices ignore this fact. The very aim of the drafters was to address inequalities affecting black Americans, and I find it hard to believe opening more doors into college campuses wouldn't qualify in their eyes. The complicating factor, obviously, is that doesn't mean race can exclude certain people from college campuses. When it functions as a barrier and a determinative factor, it should be illegal, meaning policies like the one at Harvard may not pass muster.

As Justice Jackson's hypothetical made clear, I also don't think we're far enough removed from systematic racial oppression to outlaw race-conscious admissions entirely. If something like legacy status still plays a role in admissions, then race is playing a de facto role in admissions, whether we like it or not. It's that simple. I wish schools would consider race less. I definitely wish schools would consider legacies a whole lot less, and I think there are more rewarding elements of diversity for college campuses to consider, but I also don't think they should be prohibited from considering race at all. Whatever the outcome, I feel confident saying this much. This case is not going to fix or destroy elite universities. Their exorbitant costs, unchecked nepotism, and absurdly small class sizes will do that

all on their own, regardless of whether admissions boards are considering race or not. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Kevin in Machipango, Virginia. I'm not sure if I'm saying that right. Machipango, Machipango. Anyway, Kevin said, in your entire analysis, there is not one mention of the horrific call to violence perpetrated by Senate Majority Leader Schumer. I mean, really, where is your research? He basically called for an all-out attack on the Supreme Court if they dared to touch Roe v. Wade. I'm a first-time subscriber to your newsletter and remain underwhelmed by your balanced reviews.

This was in reference to yesterday's piece on Paul Pelosi. So, look, yesterday's piece was about Paul Pelosi. Of course, it was about dangerous political rhetoric too, and I thought it was more pertinent to cite the rhetoric from and about Nancy Pelosi than involve Chuck Schumer. When we covered the threats to Kavanaugh's life, we included arguments about Schumer's rhetoric. For whatever it's worth, newsletters like yesterday's inevitably get dozens of replies that involve some version of, I can't believe you didn't cite this, or how could you not mention that? Obviously, space entangle is finite on the podcast or in the newsletter, which means there's always going to be valuable context and interesting opinions left out.

A better framework that I have to think about is what do you think I should have removed in order to make space for this argument or context you think wasn't properly included? Then you get to enter my world. All right, next up is our under the radar section. The Department of Justice says it has taken down a catalytic converter theft ring that generated hundreds of millions of dollars. If you're a car owner, you have probably heard warnings about your catalytic converter being stolen. Catalytic converters are a valuable part of a car's exhaust system, easy to steal and rife with valuable metals like palladium and rhodium. They have also been going missing in droves across the country. Now, 21 defendants are being charged in an operation that led to arrests in California,

Oklahoma, Wyoming, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia. The Los Angeles Times has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. The Los Angeles Times has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, and next up is our numbers section. The percentage of all Americans who say they would support the Supreme Court banning colleges and universities from considering race in college admissions is 63%. The percentage of all Americans who oppose it is 36%. The percentage of Black Americans who said they would support the Supreme Court banning colleges and universities from considering race in college admissions is 47%. The percentage of Black Americans who said they would oppose the Supreme Court banning colleges and universities from considering race is 53%. The number of days until the election is now five. The number of early votes cast as of midnight last night is already 30,555,755. The percentage of Americans who say the economy

is headed in the right direction, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll, is now 19%. The shift in percentage points of suburban white women from Democrats to Republicans since August is 26 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day story. William Goode, a 97-year-old World War II veteran, is getting treated to a tour of his favorite activities thanks to the YouTube creator Isaiah Garza. Last month, Garza went viral after he took Goode on a trip to Disneyland as a surprise. When the positive attention rolled in for the trip, Garza decided to run it back, this time taking Goode on a trip to see the Rams, the Los Angeles Rams, his favorite football team,

and get a visit from his favorite player, Cooper Cup. The relationship between Goode and Garza has been winning over the hearts of the internet. You can watch a video of the two at the Rams game that is in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. We are actually going to be back here tomorrow with a little bit of a special edition. Yeah, that's all I'm going to say. We'll be back here tomorrow, unusually, on Friday. So keep your eyes out for that. And then, you know, you'll see why. Have a good one.

Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Sean Brady, and Bailey Saul. Shout out to our interns, Audrey Moorhead and Watkins Kelly, and our social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, who designed our logo.

Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our website at www.readtangle.com. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, Thanks for watching. buried history and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season?

Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.