The Daily Signal - TOP NEWS | SCOTUS Rules Against Affirmative Action, Pence Visits Ukraine, Questions Surround FBI Promotions | June 29

Episode Date: June 29, 2023

On today’s Daily Signal Top News, we break down: The Supreme Court justices rule against affirmative action.  The justices rule in favor of Christian mail carrier.  Former Vice President and 2024 presidential candidate Mike Pence visits Ukraine.   There are questions over the promotion of several FBI officers, and Rep. Matt Gaetz is trying to get to the bottom of it.  Relevant Links Listen to other podcasts from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/podcasts/ Get daily conservative news you can trust from our Morning Bell newsletter: DailySignal.com/morningbellsubscription   Listen to more Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcasts Sign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agenda Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Feeling festive. Catch classic holiday favorites like Home Alone, the Santa Claus and Die Hard, along with holiday episodes from Family Guy, Abbott Elementary, and more with Hulu on Disney Plus. From festive Disney flicks to binge-worthy Hulu originals, Hulu on Disney Plus is your home for the holidays. Celebrate the season with Hulu, available on Disney Plus in Canada. I'm Virginia Allen, and this is the Daily Signal Top News for Thursday, June 29th. Here are today's headlines. For months now, we have been waiting on a Supreme Court decision that stands to affect college students across the country. Today, the justice has ruled against affirmative action. Colleges and universities can no longer consider race and ethnicity on students' applications.

President Joe Biden respond to the news in a speech earlier today via C-SPAN. Here's what he had to say. The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions, and I strongly, strongly disagree with the course decision. As the president finished his speech and began to walk out of the room, a reporter asked Biden his opinion on the court. Take a listen to the president's response via the RNC research Twitter page. The congressional black caucus of the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy. Is this a rogue of court? This is not a normal order.

Here with us to explain further what this decision means for colleges around the country is vice president of domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, Roger, thanks for being with us. Glad to be on. So there were two cases before the Supreme Court involving affirmative action. If you would, just give us a quick breakdown on these cases. Sure thing. There were the state one, which was UNC, which is the Equal Protection Clause. of the Constitution, which applies to state discrimination. And then there was a private university, which was Harvard University, which receives federal funds,

which under the Civil Rights Act, cannot go to institutions that discriminate on the basis of race. Those were the two big distinctions. And Justice Katanja Brown Jackson was recused from the Harvard one because she was on a board of overseers. So she was decided the dissent on one of them, but not the other. Okay. Okay. So the court has ruled that colleges cannot consider affirmative action, can't use affirmative action in their college admissions. And they say specifically that it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. How so? Well, we should clarify terms just a bit. Affirmative action means a lot of things to a lot of people. Sure. What was made clear in this decision is that racial preferences are prohibited both in public and private universities.

if they receive federal funds. The equal protection clause, of course, came out of the struggle against slavery and the Civil War, which guaranteed that all citizens have the equal protections of the law without regard to race, period. And what that meant was racial discrimination on either side of the ledger is prohibited. It can't be done against somebody. It can't be done, quote unquote, for somebody. And what's interesting about this case is that it was brought against Harvard by Asian American students. So what it was minorities who were actually being discriminated against explicitly because of their race.

They were capped at around 20% for years and years at Harvard. They knew very well what they were doing. And they used what's called the personality score to discriminate against Asians, saying things like they were less kind than other applicants, less well-reliven. than other applicants, even though their standardized test scores were through the roof, they're well but above the average, and had all, had done everything right. They did everything right, but have the quote unquote right skin color for the Harvard authorities. And this decision corrected that gross injustice and takes us back to our founding principles, that we are all created equal.

And the equal protection clause embodied that, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act embodied that. I had the privilege of enforcing it when I was in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. And Harvard forgot that. Forgot what our nation was about. And instead, what was pursuing this clouded vision that was not Martin Luther King's vision, that they said when skin color matters more than their character. And they inverted Martin Luther King's famous statement, that is not the color of our skin, but the content of our character.

So the checkbox is dead on student applications and may it never return. So that means that literally colleges and universities will no longer be able to ask students on their application. Do you identify as Caucasian, as Latino? That box is no longer going to be on college applications. Correct. The one thing that is crystal clear from this opinion is that you cannot just ask people's race and make decisions based on that racial factor alone. and it really undercuts a whole diversity rationale

that the left has been pushing for years, that somehow the color of people's faces around you is essential for an education, which means qualifications are secondary many ways, that skin color is primary. And even Harvard admitted that about 45% of African-American students were given dispositive, definitive preferences that allowed them to get in

at the expense of Asians and whites. based on a preconceived notion of this is what a campus should look like. Well, if they truly care about diversity, they would think you would think, if it's an academic environment, you would have diversity of thought. But only 8% of Harvard students are conservative. 8%.

The faculty is even more skewed to the left than that. And also you have about 82% of students come from wealth. So people with poor socioeconomic backgrounds that clearly could bring a different perspective, Harvard doesn't make space for them, but it does make space for alumni, kids of alums, and people that come from wealthy backgrounds,

and as they have made crystal clear, the right skin color. So this is correcting that gross deviation from justice. And one other important issue to consider is the mismatch. I was a beneficiary of affirmative action programs until I couldn't take it anymore because I saw the injustice where Asians who had grown up in the same circumstances, same city as I had,

were not given the same open doors as I was being given. And I realized that a lot of the beneficiaries of these racial preferences programs were made worse off because they were put in circumstances where they were set up for failure. And I saw it firsthand time and again. You were putting people in a place where they didn't have the preparation for it and said, here you go, you're on your own now, and end up failing and dropping out at higher rates.

Whereas if they'd been placed in the proper level, they would have flourished. They would have flourished. And then what happens? When you have two things going, if you do achieve at a high level and get that graduation, you have the stigma. Well, maybe it was because of that person's race.

And I wanted to avoid that, and that's why I did not check the box when I applied to Harvard. I stopped participating in those programs. I wanted to be able to say it was because my mom's prayers, my dad's hard work and my exertions, not simply my identity reduced to a box. Now, that is not to say that people's life experiences aren't important. They aren't.

But to say that a person who faces discrimination because they are white is somehow less valuable than a person who's discrimination because they're Asian or black is a very, very dangerous thing to say, where you say there are some races that are more worthy of consideration than others when the standard should be take people as individuals. What are their life stories?

What have they overcome? What if you're a person with a disability? What have you overcome to get to where you are? But that's very different than checking a box, checking a box which just divides us and continues to have a hyper-focus on race. And it's not, after all these years of trying, actually fix things.

And in many ways, race relations are worse because of this hyper-focus on race. Roger, as a Harvard alum yourself, I would be curious to get your thoughts on whether you think Harvard will fully honor the Supreme Court's decision and follow it, or if we might see an attempt to still in some capacity consider race and ethnicity on applications. The answer is they will resist this decision every way they can. they've already signaled. I received an alumni newsletter from the Harvard president, all the presidents of all the schools at Harvard. They send it to all the alumni right after the decision,

saying that they intend to continue to go full steam ahead to find race any way they can. And they're encouraging applicants very explicitly to find a way to mention your race. Just throw it in there somehow, right? They are being very crafty about it. They say that diversity is still a preeminent condition. of theirs, and by that, again, they mean racial diversity, skin tone diversity, and they're

going to try to do everything to get to that balancing by race. One of the signals that they're doing that is they're getting rid of the SAT, making it optional. They're probably going to do that with the LSAT as well. These standardized tests are the great levelers. They allowed somebody like me, who did come from a poor background, to play on the same field and get an equal shot. We all took the same test and we were measured by the same yardstick. That gave me an opportunity to excel there.

They're going to take away that opportunity from people who put the time and put the effort, particularly Asians, because that's who they're targeting, and depriving them of that opportunity in the name of some mushy standard of DEI equity diversion, diversity. They're going to do it. I have no doubt, and it will take further lawsuits against Harvard and discovery saying, okay, have you been looking at the percentage based on race of your admissions? If the answer is yes, then you're in violation of the law.

You can't just take race into account like that anymore. You have to treat individuals as individuals. That's really getting back to first principles. We'll see how Harvard does it. I am not at all confident they will comply. We're certainly going to be watching that closely. Roger, really appreciate your analysis. While we have you here, I do want to ask you about one other Supreme Court ruling that we learned today. This one has not gotten quite as much press, but it's

significant. And it specifically involves a male carrier from Pennsylvania who didn't want to be forced to work on Sunday. He's a Christian and said, because of his faith, he wanted to be able to ensure that he had Sundays off to follow the Christian principle of resting on Sundays. And And this case obviously rose all the way to the Supreme Court. The mail carrier is named Gerald Groff. How did the Supreme Court rule on this case today? They ruled in favor of the postman, and they kicked it back to the lower courts. The good news is the old standard, which was such a narrow, almost cruel standard set by a Supreme Court in the 70s that said all the business has to do.

it shows some minimal harm. If there's some minimal interruption to your work process, some minimal harm to how you run your business or the administrative burden, it's just minimal. You do not have to respect a person's religious beliefs. That has been disastrous for religious accommodation. And we saw this come through with the vaccine cases

and religious accommodations there. People being fired left and right because they did not want to take the jab based on religious conviction. Now the test is going to be much more substantial. And they use the word substantial. It has to be some real interference with the business's operations. You can't just say, this is just inconvenient for us,

so we're just not going to accommodate you. And this reminds me of the chariot's a fire movie, the old movie, where the Olympian could not run on the Sabbath and was disqualified for not running and chose his principles. But there's always a way to. do an accommodation, 99% of the time, if the business is willing to work with the claimant. But far too often we see businesses that say, you know what? We don't care.

This is not worth troubling us over. Your religious expression is not worthy of protection, and that is a shame, and that is going to change now. So it is quite a victory. I'm looking so much forward to seeing what woke corporations are going to do with this. because it's the woke corporations who have been giving short shrift to people who have religious accommodation needs. And now they're being put on notice

that you have to take them seriously, and you can't just wave them away as they had been doing for years. Roger, tomorrow, Friday, is the final day of the Supreme Court's term. What are the cases we're still waiting on? 303 creative is the big one. So that's a free speech case that is a follow-on to the masterpiece cake shop case.

masterpiece dealt with whether or not somebody could be forced to bake a custom cake in celebration of a same-sex wedding ceremony. That was in favor of the baker in that case on religious freedom grounds. This one is slightly different. It's whether a custom web designer would be required to create a celebratory website and it's a whole package that they did in celebration of a same-sex marriage as well. So that's a free speech case directly because it is requiring an artist to dedicate their art and create speech contrary to their deepest convictions on questions of human flourishing. Can the government force an entity to take over the role of artists and put words in their mouths that go contrary to their convictions? That remains to be decided. My guess is Justice Alito is going to be writing this one,

which means it's going to be yet another victory for freedom of speech. It's an ADF case, which is just on a roll. And I'm very much looking forward to seeing that because the cultural wars have been raging, and really it's been the court that has stepped in to defend people of faith and people of conviction to say, whatever your beliefs on these contested issues, there has to be space for dissent.

as we've seen with, again, woke corporations. They're doing everything they can to squelch that dissent. And activist groups are saying, you must bend the knee, you must bake the cake, you must make the website, even though there are tons of options where they could go, but every single one must comply. And to the left, that is untenable to have anyone as an exception.

The Supreme Court very likely is going to say, but we have the Constitution. And the Constitution says in the pluralistic society, there has to be space for dissent. And the government cannot come in and find people and shut down businesses if they don't parrot or amplify a message that's approved by the government, which is exactly what's going on here. Well, Friday stands to be a lively day, both with the ruling on 303 creative. And of course, we're also waiting on the ruling on the student loan case, Biden's student loan forgiveness program. So we will keep tracking these cases. But Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation, thank you for your time today.

Thank you. Well, in other news, former Vice President Mike Pence, who is currently running for president, visited Ukraine today. Here is what he told Meet the Press about the situation. My message to the American people is simply that it's vitally important that America continue to lead on the world stage. that we stand up to the kind of naked aggression that we've seen here. I truly do believe that by giving the Ukrainian military the resources that we have over the last year and a half to push back on this Russian invasion, that the West has really shown its strength, the American people have shown our commitment to freedom. Look, the war here in Ukraine is not our war, but freedom is our fight.

fight and by standing with the courageous people in Ukraine as they not only fight back but ultimately repel this Russian invasion. I think we're advancing not only the interest of freedom, but let me be clear. My other message is that we're advancing our national interest. The reality is that Russia, other than during the four years of our administration, Russia has attempted to redraw international lines by force. The antidote to that is American strength and American leadership on the world stage. Pence also affirmed that he doesn't want to send American troops to Ukraine.

I believe the Biden administration has been slow in providing the military support to the Ukrainian. And I frankly heard that today in meeting with officials, security officials. Look, the Biden administration promised 33 Abrams tanks in January. I learned today that they're being told that they may be here by September. We're still dragging our feet on approving F-16s being transferred from allies. Look, we're training pilots. We ought to approve NATO allies in Europe to be able to transfer F-16. What point would you send troops here?

We should never send American troops into Ukraine, and we don't need to. I heard it again from President Zelensky today. He said, we're not asking for American troops and we don't need them. He said, what we need is ammunition. What we need is support. Pence is, of course, the first GOP 2024 presidential candidate to visit Ukraine. Finally, today, there are questions over the promotion of several FBI officers. And Representative Matt Gates is trying to get to the bottom of it.

The Daily Signal first reported in April that at least two FBI officers, agents were promoted to hire jobs after kneeling at Black Lives Matter events in Washington, D.C. During the riots in the summer of 2020, several FBI agents were seen kneeling before Black Lives Matter protesters, presumably in solidarity with the protesters. Now, according to Representative Gates, some of those agents have been promoted and he wants to know why. Gates sent a letter to FBI director Christopher Ray, asking if the agents who kneeled received preferential treatment for promotions. Gates said that perhaps in an effort to placate the mob on July 4th, 2020, at least six alleged FBI agents were filmed kneeling in support. An FBI spokesperson told the daily signal, the FBI received

the letter. While we cannot comment on specific personnel matters, promotions in the FBI are competitive and based on merit. We will include a link to Fred Lucas's full reporting on this situation in today's show notes. And with that, that's going to do it for today's edition of the Daily Signal's top news. If you haven't had the chance to check out our morning show, be sure to do so. As we approach July 4th, we actually have a very special series that we are kicking off tomorrow morning talking about the founding. And so we are sitting down tomorrow morning with Professor and Dr. Bill McLeigh of Hillsdale College to discuss the lead-up to the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We're excited to bring you

some conversations about America's founding with July 4th just around the corner. Also, in the meantime, if you haven't done so already, take just a moment to subscribe to the Daily Sittle podcast wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We love hearing your feedback. All right, we hope that you all have a wonderful rest of your day. We'll see you right back here. tomorrow morning as we kick off our Independence Day interview series. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Luey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras.

Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.