The Megyn Kelly Show - Supreme Court's Seismic Affirmative Action Ruling and More, with Jason Riley, Heather Mac Donald, Carrie Prejean, and Britt Mayer | Ep. 578

Episode Date: June 29, 2023

Megyn Kelly begins the show with the breaking news out of the Supreme Court, overturning affirmative action and race-based admissions for colleges. The Manhattan Institute's Jason Riley, author of "Maverick," and Heather Mac Donald, author of "When Race Trumps Merit," join to discuss why it was the right decision, the opinions from Justice Roberts and Thomas, the dissenting opinion from Justice Sotomayor, the hysterical reaction from progressives in the media and Michelle Obama, smears and lies about the topic, and more. Then Carrie Prejean Boller and Britt Mayor, founders and hosts of "The Battle Cry," join to discuss California's bill criminalizing parents who don’t affirm child transgender identity, a trans influencer who got banned after flashing at the White House's underwhelming apology, Budweiser's CEO refusing to apologize for Dylan Mulvaney partnership, Pride lowlights about "coming for your children" and the Girl Scouts, and more.Riley's book: https://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Biography-Thomas-Jason-Riley/dp/1541619684Mac Donald's book: https://www.amazon.com/When-Race-Trumps-Merit-Sacrifices/dp/1956007164 Carrie and Britt's "Battle Cry": https://www.instagram.com/thebattlecry_us/ Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. What a day. This is historic. Thank God the Supreme Court has finally seen the light and has ruled that racism in college admissions is no longer allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court announces another blockbuster. And as I said, historic ruling, it is a six to three decision. And the high court, after decades of arguing over this, has finally ruled that it is unconstitutional to consider race in university admissions under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, quote, eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.

And he goes on from there. Joining me now, someone who has written extensively on this topic, Jason Riley. Jason's been speaking and writing about the issue of affirmative action for decades. He's a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the recent book, Maverick, a biography of Thomas Sowell.

Jason, thank you so much for being here today. I thought of you. I haven't read the whole thing. It's like a tome, the decision with all the concurring opinions and dissenting. But when I flipped to Justice Thomas's concurrence, he had Thomas Sowell all over the place. And I thought, gosh, how timely your book and the piece done on your book are. You've been talking about this for a long time. The mainstream narrative already is how calamitous this is going to be from minority students. And I've heard you enough times to know your position is no, to the contrary. It's exactly the opposite.

Yes, I think it is exactly the opposite. You know, the question here was not only for me that the constitutionality, the dubious constitutionality of racial preferences, I also looked at the harm that these policies were doing to Black students. And so I think, you know, we saw what would happen when they went away because some states had eliminated race-based affirmative action in college admissions, like California back in the 1990s. And after California did it, black enrollment in the University of California system went up. Black graduation rates went up, and not by a little bit. And in the more difficult STEM fields, they went up.

So these were good outcomes. You know, these policies had been put in place to supposedly help increase the ranks of the black middle class. But in practice, they had been resulting in fewer black doctors and lawyers and scientists than we would have had in the absence of the policy. So I'm so happy I share your enthusiasm about the importance of today and getting rid of these policies. I think this is a decision that makes America more just for everyone, Megan. No one should be discriminated against, not blacks, not whites, not Asians, not Hispanics. And obviously the Asians were the plaintiffs in this case, but what kind of sense does it make to discriminate

against Asians because of what whites did to blacks? It makes no sense whatsoever. The best way of going forward is not to discriminate, period. Yes, exactly right. And the court said that. There was an original decision back in, I think it was 78, was Bakke. And then the court took another look at this in 2003 when Sandra Day O'Connor said, all right, you know, we're going to allow it. We're going to continue to allow race to be a factor, but it cannot be the factor, which was the first time the Supreme Court actually sort of fully embraced what had been a very divided decision back in 78 and said, yes, OK, we stand by that. And that is the law. However, we can only see this taking place for another 25 years or so. Any race based decisions would have to be evaluated under the strictest constitutional scrutiny. And we don't see this one withstanding scrutiny for more than the next two decades. And here we are. We're two decades later, not quite 25 years, but two decades after that decision. And the court finally saying it's time. This is ridiculous. We can't keep doing this. And

your justifications, Harvard and UNC, for continuing to use race as a factor are so vague and amorphous, no court could ever meaningfully assess them. You've been talking about that for a while, too, because they basically say, well, it's just good for the student body to have a diverse collection of students. But how's the court supposed to put its finger on whether or not that actually is producing real benefits? Right, right. No one can sort of quantify the benefits of diversity. Does it result in higher graduation rates? Does it result in higher earnings after graduating? No one can sort of determine exactly what these benefits are in a quantitative way. And the justices have called the schools out on that. They also called them

out for essentially lying about using quotas. I was very happy to look at Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion, where he actually includes a chart showing the numerical quotas that these schools had been using. He looks at a period between, I believe it's 2009 and 2019, and he shows how the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics admitted each freshman class at Harvard was right around 10 to 12 percent. And for Asians, it was right around 18 to 20 percent, year after year after year. And this was not a coincidence. He says, you guys are using, essentially using quotas and lying about it. And I was very happy for him to call them out on that. Because again, out in California, when they overturned, when the ballot initiative ended racial preferences in college admissions, the flagship schools, Berkeley and UCLA, have been saying, we don't use caps on

Asians either. Yet after those preferences went away, after they could no longer take race into account, Asian enrollment spiked in the University of California System flagship schools. And so these schools have been lying for decades about using these quotas. And I was very happy to see the Chief Justice call them out on it. Well, when you hear the Chief Justice describe the process at places like Harvard for admissions, it really does make clear that race is the final, it's both the initial and the final determining criteria. It walks you through.

Yeah, what we've learned is that if you allow it to be a factor, it will become the factor. That is what inevitably will happen. And they were so blatant about it. There's a study that was submitted in one of the briefs showing that an Asian, your typical Asian male student admitted to Harvard had about a 25% chance of admission. If you keep everything about him the same, all of his credentials, class rank, test scores, and so forth, and simply change his race to black, his chances of admission went up to 95%, Megan.

So race was not just a factor or a tipping issue that tipped the scales a little bit. It was the factor. And it was wrong. It was wrong. And when I talk about the harm that these policies were doing, What they're essentially doing are setting up smart kids to fail. These kids are being, minority kids are being funneled into these highly selective schools to make the college catalog look like America, to sort of color code the campus. They're window dressing. And when you're a bad fit for a school,

you're less likely to graduate and to go on and have a profession and what you prefer. There was a study that was also submitted by the plaintiffs by a Duke professor of economics who did a study of freshmen at Duke, another highly selective school. And he found that Black males that were freshmen at Duke, about 76% of them expressed an interest in majoring in economics or one of the STEM fields, which was far higher than among white males. But only about 35%, less than half, actually ended up obtaining a degree in those fields, while the fall-off rate among whites was only about five percentage points. And he said the entire difference here was the entrance scores of the Black students. Duke admitted some Black kids who met the credentials of the average kid at the school, and those kids did fine. But Duke also admitted Black kids who did not meet the average

credentials of everyone else at the school, And those kids struggled. They dropped out, they switched to easier majors. You've cited something similar happening at MIT, which really underscores this problem too. Can you tell that story? Sure. This was another study done a little further back of Black students at MIT who were, you know, they had scored in the 90th percentile of all kids in the country, white or black, on the math section of the SAT. So these are some very smart black kids. But among their peers at MIT, they were in the 10th percentile in terms of their test scores. So kids who would have been hitting it out of the park at a less selective university would have been on a dean's list at a less selective university were struggling at MIT.

What is the point, Megan, of flunking out of MIT instead of graduating from UC Santa Barbara? I mean, what are we trying to do here? And yet this is what these policies are doing. They were setting up kids to fail and good riddance to them, good riddance to them. The chief justice said many universities have concluded wrongly that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

He now he goes on to say at the end, something interesting and somewhat controversial. He says universities can still consider applicants discussion of their personal race based experiences as part of essays that we all have to submit when we apply to college. Here's what he wrote, quote, not just he, the majority. Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise. But despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. was part of the Me Too movement. And, you know, I came forward and I stood up for other women. Hint, hint, hint. That's what he's saying you're allowed to do. And the question is really, does this give the permission slip for the regime to just continue?

Well, he very explicitly says that it does not. And I think he's trying to preempt that, that he's concerned that schools might try and use proxies for race to get the result that they want and i don't i don't doubt that they will i mean um i don't i don't expect the other side to just back down and say oh we lost the court we tried uh we're just gonna move on i think i think they're gonna really challenge this ruling and it's gonna take repeated lawsuits just to test the resolve of the Supreme Court justices in this ruling. You know, Thomas talks about how, in his concurring opinion, about how it took more than a half century after the Plessy v. Ferguson decision to correct it. And Brown v. Board of Education, that took more than 50 years.

Said separate but equal is okay. Yeah, and so now we've taken 46 years to correct the Bakke decision that you mentioned, which was handed down in 1978. But I suspect that what you're going to see from the left is a lot like what you saw after the Brown v. Board of Education from Southern segregationists,

who said, frankly, we don't give a damn what the Supreme Court decided. We are not integrating. And you saw them go through all kinds of contortions to try and not do this. I mean, it took more lawsuits. It took the sending of federal troops down in some cases to have the Supreme Court decision enforced. And I don't expect the other side to give up. I think they're going to fight this just as hard. And I know they hate the analogy of being likened to those Southern segregationists, but that's exactly what they're, what the role they're applying here. And I expect them to play. Well, I want to talk to you more about California and what happened there,

because I know you've pointed out in the past, Americans approve of, they will approve of a decision like this because they disapprove of affirmative action across racial groups. And that's one of the reasons why when it's put to the voters, even in a state as liberal as California, they voted to strike down affirmative action in the college level long before today. They did that long before. So we do have some evidence of how this is likely to go. So let's just put a pin in that right now, because I do want to talk a little bit about Justice Jackson, Katonji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas's response. These are two African-American jurists having a battle over whether race is an appropriate consideration at the college level. And it's kind of interesting to watch them go back and forth. She, in her dissent, says the following. I write separately to expound upon the universal benefits of considering race in this context in response to a suggestion that it's unfair for a college's

admission process to consider race as one factor in a holistic review of its applicants. Again, back to sort of the lie that it's just one of many. It's just one of many. She writes, this contention blinks both history and reality in ways too numerous to count. But the response is simple. Our country has never been colorblind.

Given the lengthy history of state-sponsored race-based preferences in America, to say that anyone is now victimized in a college, if a college considers whether that legacy of discrimination has unequally advantaged applicants, fails to acknowledge the well-documented intergenerational transmission of inequality that still plagues our citizen rate. It is that inequality that admissions programs such as UNC's help to address to the benefit

of us all. She's back to the, it's the past history of discrimination that makes this discrimination necessary. We're only writing the ship. We're just getting, we're trying to get back to that true guarantee of equality. Well, that's why I think the California example is so important. Megan, where is her evidence? Again, after the University of California ended racially based college admissions policies, Black graduation rates went up, Black enrollment went up. So these policies are not having the effect that she is alleging that they are having. And then there's a larger point here

to be made, which is that people like Justice Jackson are suggesting that affirmative action somehow created the Black middle class, that Blacks can't go to college or become professionals without affirmative action policies. That too is belied by history. In fact, the Black middle class was growing at a much faster rate in the decades before affirmative action than it was in the decades after these policies began in earnest in the 1970s. The idea that, you know, the Blacks were already going to Harvard, were already teaching at Harvard before affirmative action, the era of affirmative action. So just the idea that Blacks, where does she think people like Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall came from? There was no affirmative action back then. So this idea that Blacks, where does she think people like Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall came from? There was no affirmative action back then. So this idea that Blacks cannot

enter the middle class, that this is going to decimate the ranks of Black professionals, the ranks of Black college students, is just, I think, belied by history. And I also mentioned the STEM fields earlier for Black students, you know, who does the best job of graduating Blacks in the STEM fields. They're the HBCUs, they're the historically Black colleges, which don't use affirmative action. Wow. All right. But listen to this, because this is how they do the sleight of hand. You know, given the stats you just gave us about California admissions and how black graduations went up at these universities. So today in response to this,

the Dean of Undergraduate Admissions at the University of California, Berkeley, said as follows. Actually, I don't know if this was today, but this person has said this, Femi Ogundeli, says as follows, quote, California is one of nine states that banned the use of affirmative affirmative action for public universities in the immediate aftermath. Selective schools in the state had a 50 percent decline in black and Latino students admitted those numbers have never rebounded. You tell me, Jason, my instinct in just having read your books is, sure, maybe the admissions declined at the top, top, like Berkeley in the UC system, but they did mostly rebound, even at the elite schools,

they mostly rebounded. I don't know if they reached the exact parity to what they were before, but they largely did rebound after initial dip. Again, a dip you would expect if you're going to start matching kids properly with the schools they're most likely to excel while attending. I mean, what is the goal here? To have the most diverse freshman class and then and then have a more racially monotonous graduating class? I mean, what is the goal here is to produce college graduates, not just going back to the reason a student body benefits from a diverse racial diversity is, among other things. It's hobnobbing with power. If you have more black students at Harvard, they have better connections. You know, the same reason why people who went to Harvard want little junior to go to Harvard is those connections last for life. It's a better springboard into a more fruitful and

productive and lucrative profession. And if you stop Blacks from going to the Harvards and so on, they're never going to make those connections. Well, again, we want them to graduate, though. I mean, at the end of the day, we want a college graduate to go out into the world who knows something and can apply what they've learned in college to their profession. That's what we want. And again, affirmative action is resulting in higher dropout rates or switching to easier majors where you can handle the work. And that's the problem. And even at the University of California, even though there was that drop-off at Berkeley and UCLA initially, overall, in the entire University of California system, Black enrollment went up and Black graduation rates went up. And so I think that is

the better outcome. And it's not a sort of Yale or jail world, Megan. You can graduate from a good state school and go on and have a very productive life. I agree that some of these elite schools are going to have networking opportunities. That's always been the case. But you need to graduate and you need to be confident in what you do. And affirmative action is setting up kids to fail. Yeah, I totally agree with you. We've talked about this before, and I've talked about it with Heather McDonald, who, by the way, is coming up next on how I was bright enough. But if somebody had put me into Harvard where I didn't belong and my grades would never have got me in, it would have been an utterly frustrating failure for me there. Whereas at Syracuse, where I matched, I did well enough to get myself into law school and through hard work and all the rest of it.

I got myself advanced beyond that. And that's true of everybody, which is why Jason, I've got to ask you about, yeah, go ahead. Cause I want to ask you about Michelle Obama. I was just going to say, and I'm glad you made the point that you did because this is not a racial issue per se. Anytime you admit a student to a school who doesn't meet the credentials of the average student at that school, whether they're, they're an athlete, whether they're an athlete, whether they're a child of alumni, they're going to struggle. They're going to congregate in the bottom of the class. That's just the nature of how that happens. If you admit a kid

to a school that can't handle the work, they're going to struggle. So we talk about affirmative action and its negativity in terms of race often, but it's not limited to, to, to the racial context. Not at all. Okay. So listen to what Michelle Obama said in response to this opinion today, she tweeted a lengthy statement that reads in part, um, of course, students on my campus, and I don't know what she means by my campus. Uh, I think she went to Princeton, right? So maybe she means Princeton and countless others across the country were and continue to be granted special consideration for admissions. Some of parents who graduated from the same school. Others have families who can afford coaches to help them run faster and hit a bit hit a ball harder. Others go to high schools with lavish resources for tutors and extensive standardized test prep that help them score higher on college entrance exams. We don't usually question if those students belong. So often we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level. So already, I'm going to get to her, but already, you know what,

Michelle? Same, same. And I'm white. I didn't have any of those advantages. I showed up the day of the SAT. I was like, it's the SAT today. Oh, shit. OK. My friend loaned me a pencil. I never took a review class. We didn't have the money for anything. It's not just a black thing. But she and other progressives, Jason, are going to completely tie the racial inequity and its ongoing nature to this decision. And the irony here, Megan, is that they oppose policies that in theory would obviate the need for affirmative action in college admissions. This is a K-12 education issue. You cannot sit down at age 17, given the inequality that exists in our K-12 education system, and expect every 17-year-old in this country to be on an equal playing field when it comes to taking that test. And this is regardless of the income. It's just we have very poor quality K-12 education. And at the K-12 level, I think is where our focus should be on things like school choice, on letting parents decide which schools are best for their kids. We know that there are models out there that can produce black kids and white kids, poor kids and rich kids who will do well on that SAT test. What we have a problem doing is scaling up those models to meet demand. are opposed to many of these school choice measures, vouchers, and so forth, that would

give parents the ability to send their kids to the schools where they would be able to excel and be ready when they sit down to take that test. The idea that you're going to have, you have Black kids graduating from high school reading at an eighth grade level. The idea that you're going to make that up with a few remedial classes freshman year at Duke is ridiculous. You're not. So we really need to be focused on the K through 12 education system. And so she's got only herself to blame for the problem in this education system where you've got, I know, charter schools right now with black kids, mostly black and Hispanic kids who are crushing their white counterparts coming out of public schools that are well-funded and so on. But people like Michelle Obama and her husband shut those down. They don't want more black kids to go to those institutions because the teachers unions don't like them.

There's another thing now, because there's been a push recently to get rid of the SAT, to get rid of GPAs, to sort of just any standardized criteria that would let these schools assess somebody's ability to perform at the school is getting erased because they believe it's going to lead to fewer minorities entering the school. I heard you not long ago talking with, I think it was somebody, I can't remember, maybe she's from the Wall Street Journal, but you were talking about a study that showed the number of words that a young child who is from an affluent family, doctors or lawyers here by a certain point versus right down the line and how your point was that student coming out at 17 or 18 to apply for college is not going to do well just because they get rid of GPAs and standardized testing. Could you make, could you tell us about that study? For sure. This is a study it's, it's,

it's been cited by a number of people. I think Robert Putnam is who I was referring to, the Harvard political scientist. But basically, it was a study of words that kids hear per hour at home based on their class background. So a child of parents of professionals, doctors, lawyers might hear something like 2,400 words per hour at home. An auto mechanics kid might hear about 1,200. And a child of someone on welfare might hear about 600 words per hour at home on average. And it might not seem like a huge difference. But what it means that over a period of time, a three-year-old child of professionals will

have heard more words than a 10-year-old child of professionals will have heard more words than a 10-year-old child of a family on welfare. And so you think about how early these learning discrepancies begin, and the idea that we are blaming a test that kids take at age 17 for being racist is ridiculous. This is something we need to, that test is happening way too far downstream. We need to go to the source of the problem and that's occurring in the K through 12 system. And so that's what the study was really getting at. So in other words, you're getting rid of the thing that exposes the problem, not the thing that's causing the problem.

And then you're letting kids into the system who will fail because the problem is still there, even if you choose to ignore the diagnostic. Right. All the test is doing is identifying the problem. And if you want to help someone, Megan, you need to know where they are, not where you hope they are or want to pretend they are, but where they actually are, because they can only get where they need to go from where they are. And that test is telling you where they are. Get rid of the test. You're not closing the achievement gap. You're just obscuring the achievement gap and you are not doing that kid any favor. And also, Megan, I make one last point here about this opposition to the meritocracy. If you are someone on the left, some progressive who believes that racism is in the air, we breathe in this country, why would you want to submit your child to some holistic committee at Harvard?

Wouldn't you rather want to go in there and say, my kid scored this on the test, he has this GPA, he has this class rank, he deserves to be in the school. I mean, this is what the Jews went through more than 100 years ago. It's why we have the SAT test, because Harvard and Princeton wanted to submit them to holistic review. They would say, oh, yes, you're smart and so forth, but you know, you're just not the Harvard type. And so we got these objective tests out of that experience so that these schools couldn't do that. And it's bizarre that they want to go backwards to that system that allowed people to discriminate as they as they have done in the past. So last question, your prediction now in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action saying it is not OK, it is no longer OK to consider race in the admissions process. What's going to happen next? Well, as I said earlier, I think there's going to be a lot of resistance on the left. I think

they're going to try and find end runs, proxies for race to continue getting the diversity that they want on campus. So I think more follow up lawsuits will need to be filed to keep the schools honest here. In terms of public opinion, though, and you cited some of this earlier, I think that this is probably going to be a pretty popular opinion with the general public, if not with the media elites. I mean, surveys have shown that a majority of whites, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics all oppose using race in college admissions. And we had that ballot initiative out in California in 2020, in which there was an attempt to reinsert race-based admissions in the University of California system. And it went down. It went down badly. And it was led by Asian

parents who said, we are not going back to that old system because it disproportionately harms our kids. So I think the general public is going to side with this opinion. But you'll have your media elites out there, including your Black elites like Michelle Obama, claiming to speak for the masses, but not really, really just speaking for themselves. Absolutely. Jason Reilly, love listening to you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Megan. When we come back, another favorite of my own and of our shows,

Heather MacDonald is here with thoughts. You could not ask for better guests. I mean, honestly, I love bringing you these brilliant minds on a big day like today. Thank you for listening. Joining me now, Heather MacDonald. Heather is a contributing editor at City Journal and author of the book, When Race Trumps Merit, How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives. I love this book. Heather, so happy to have you here. Thank you for joining us. Your reaction to the breaking news that the Supreme Court has finally struck down the use of race in the admissions process? Well, I was actually sort of disappointed in the Roberts decision because it did not throw out the entire incoherent, conceptually muddled, incredibly

frustrating equal protection jurisprudence until I read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, which was so over the top that it made me realize that Roberts actually was quite clever. When Sotomayor claims that the opinion entrenches racial inequality in education, which is a complete lie, I'm grateful for what Roberts did. The idea that this harms Black students is preposterous, Megan. We're going to have as many Black students go to college as before. The doors are wide open to Black students. It simply means that they will not be as easily catapulted into schools for which they are academically not competitively qualified as before this decision. So this is an improvement. It is not as resounding a refutation of the court's preposterous rulings as I would have liked. It does not overrule the previous precedent, which allowed racial preferences grudder, but it cleverly finesses it to make things harder for colleges

to exercise racial preferences. This is directly opposed to the messaging you're hearing right now on places like MSNBC, where a legal analyst named Catherine Christian had the following question it sought to. Now that schools no longer have to consider race, you know, I fear what will happen and what will there be many lawyers who look like Charles and I in the future or doctors or accountants? It is a problem and it's not preferential treatment. It's absurd. It's really stunning. It is simply absurd.

It's racist. Well, but as just a logical or functional matter, Black students are going to be admitted to hundreds of schools, but they'll be admitted on the same basis as every one of their peers. So if you're qualified to go to Amherst as a Black student, you'll go to Amherst, but you won't be catapulted into Harvard, but you will have Amherst available to you. If you're qualified to go to a state school that is perfectly valid as an educational opportunity, you will go to that state school. Every college in the country still is desperate

to get as many Black students as possible. There is no exclusion of Black students in any college today. What there has been is a set of incredibly massive racial preferences, which said that Black students with academic scores that would have been automatically disqualifying for a certain set of schools, if presented by whites and Asians, nevertheless get admitted to those schools. That's not fair. And it's also not good for those beneficiaries. Instead, those same black students will be admitted to the schools for which they're competitively qualified. The the left, the dissents in this case seem to think that race is the only thing stopping people of color from getting the same admission rates at a place

like Harvard. It is their race. Like if either it's run by a bunch of racists and because of this racist country, they've been kept down and so on. Justice Thomas responds to some of that, in particular, responding to Justice Jackson. And he says Justice Jackson would replace the founder's vision with an organizing principle based on race. In fact, in her view, almost all of life's outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race. This is this is so she writes because of statistical disparities among different racial groups. Even if some whites have a lower household net worth than some blacks, what matters to Justice Jackson is that the average white household has more wealth than the average black household. He goes on. This lore is not and has never been true.

Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then is now not all disparities are based on race. Not all people are racist and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. Going on. Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds and goes on to say the following i'm ending here um she claims okay he says uh he's talking about socioeconomic status other factors and so on he says justice jackson suggests the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited

wealth lingers large she's saying uh she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational. It is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood. He is a treasure, Heather. He is such a treasure. And yet and yet here's the reaction to Justice Thomas by the NCAA President Derek Johnson. The worst thing about affirmative action is that it created a parents Thomas who benefited for the probe from the program and now is in a position where he's going to deny many young African-American talented individuals an opportunity.

NAACP should have said. Go ahead. Well, that's outrageous. It's a smear. And whether or not Thomas did benefit from affirmative action, that should not prevent him from looking at it rationally and seeing whether this is a way to help blacks. It is not. Black students pretty much know that they don't have to meet the same standards, that standards will be lowered for them throughout their careers. They should be told to meet the standards. At this point, there was no mention really in any of the opinions about the racial skills gap, the academic skills gaps, but that's what's preventing Harvard from

being able to create 10% Black student body without vast racial preferences. If Harvard admitted students based on academic skills alone, there would be less than 1% Black students at Harvard. That's because the skills gap is so great. Now, those students that wouldn't be admitted to Harvard with racial preferences will instead go to perfectly good schools like Amherst. Again, this whole structure is based on such extraordinary academic snobbery and elitism, I'm amazed that so-called second tier colleges put up with it. Because Harvard is basically saying, unless black students come here, their fate in life is sealed. They are doomed. You know, they have no possibility of succeeding. UC Berkeley said that when the voters in California voted to ban racial preferences, the chancellor said,

well, where will we get the leaders of tomorrow if they can't go to Berkeley? Well, they will go to the University of California at Riverside or Santa Cruz or Irvine, and they will get perfectly good educations. Again, Megan, I'm repeating myself. This does not prevent any Black student from getting a college education. Opportunities are open. What needs to happen if Harvard wants to get its 10% Black student bodies absent racial preferences, and I can guarantee you it is going to continue using racial preferences. Lawrence Bacow announced today that it is already looking for ways to take advantage of the Roberts huge loophole, which he gave, which said, well, of course, you can consider race as part of somebody's life story.

So we're back to holistic admission. So I don't think all that much is actually going to change as a result of this. But if Harvard really wanted to say we'll be colorblind, but we still want 10% Black student body, what it should have said is let's work on closing the academic skills gap. Let's change the academic culture within too many inner city black families that spurns academic achievement rather than studies relentlessly in order to academically succeed. They won't do that. And they don't care about diversity. I mean, Justice Thomas said when they heard this case, I don't know what diversity means. What what does

that mean? And talked about how, you know, look, is it is a college campus like Harvard truly diverse when they have what, four percent conservative professors, if that, never mind the student body where they're openly discriminated against when they join the College Republican Club at all these schools, which just has maybe a dozen members when secretly there's scores of others who are just closeted and had to lie through their high school years and on their college admissions essays just to get in. Is that diverse? And the other thing is that these universities, Heather, who want to tout themselves and cloak

themselves in glory about how open minded they are and how they really want to help these minorities have a better life. You know, the reality is that half of these admissions are made based on legacy status and whether you're going to help Harvard win the big football game or lacrosse game or what have you. These are not noble people making these decisions at all. They want blacks who are going to make them look good. They're not actually admitting them because they have some higher purpose. Well, there was a period very early on when Harvard admitted lower income blacks, and they did so poorly that it junked that. Right now, Harvard has huge preferences of higher income over lower income blacks. So it's not interested in,

you know, what might be an actual predictor of life experience, which is socioeconomic background. But yeah, I mean, the whole, I would go to pure academic skills admissions. I would throw out anything holistic. I would go purely on a numbers-based system precisely in order to put out of a job these outrageously narcissistic screening admissions officers that give themselves such airs. The University of North Carolina admissions officers, we got data on them talking about their little brown people and how, well, this little brown person can't qualify for this scholarship because her grades aren't good enough, but we'll get her in another way. And Harvard admissions officers asks 16-year-olds, you know, what have you done in life that shows courage? And what sort of character do you have? Oh, come on. What sort of character

do these admissions officers have? They fancy that they're creating this little utopian perfect community with this, that, and that. It's just preposterous. They have such power over these students' lives. Basically, many students today spend the first 18 years of their lives trying to craft some ridiculous resume that will make them stand out to the Ivy Leagues. Get over it. Let's just study, learn things, not engage in preposterous internship programs doing homes for habitat or homeless advocacy.

Learn, learn history, read literature, be the best possible student you can and go to schools for which you are academically qualified. That is the solution to America's failing education. I mean, we're going further and further behind. Our academic skills are pathetic compared with other countries. And we should not be lowering our skills further by the charade of diversity and penalizing academic success. Well, this is part of the problem.

So we don't have fourth graders or eighth graders who can read or do math. And yet we're trying to make social justice warriors out of them. So these kids get up, they do badly on the SAT, they get poor GPAs, and then they get admitted to Ivy League schools. It's unbelievable. That's what's happening. But then now at the university level, it looks bad for these Ivy League colleges to keep having all these black students or Hispanic students fail out. So unless they lower the standards of their institution,

they're going to be embarrassed. So they have to lower the standards of their institution. And then those people graduate and probably get the same preferences in their medical school application or their law school application. And then we have to compete. Those are the very people we need to compete on behalf of our country in science and technology and innovation. Whereas other countries, like you just mentioned, like South Korea, like the Japanese and so on, aren't worrying about any of this and are on a much different path. Well, racism is irrelevant to a medical lab trying to solve cancer or Alzheimer's disease as it is to getting into a college. And yes, Megan, you're absolutely right. The preferences never end. You know, we point to Sotomayor and say, well, you see,

preferences worked. Well, no, they didn't necessarily because who says she wasn't the beneficiary of preferences throughout her post-law school career? In fact, she probably was. So we are now engineering, deliberately engineering mediocrity, if not outright negligence and malfeasance. competitive edge at risk by racial preferences throughout our society, and especially in the STEM fields. And so really, I would have liked to have seen a more resounding refutation of the idea of using race at all in this majority opinion, but it's better than nothing. But it did not discuss, as I say, the vast academic skills gap, which is why we don't have, you know, why Harvard can't get all the black students that want. way to keep out the blacks that's not what they want at all but the demand outstrips the supply right now and the the question is how do we increase the supply of academically gifted talented prepared african-american applicants and hispanic applicants and they the democrats won't take an honest look at that heather no and and you know what needs to happen again above all it has to be an internal culture change. No, we all pretend

the discourse around racial preferences and admissions is extraordinary. They will never mention the academic skills gap. There's just some kind of mysterious fact that Harvard can't get all of its Black students that it wants. But we don't know why. It is discriminating. Of course, Harvard would rather claim that it is somehow discriminating than to look at that skills gap honestly. But all that's going to happen is the Harvard core of Black students shifts one baby step level down and vice versa all the way down the line. There's just this ratchet that's even going on. So let's hope that the next step, because it's going to get harder now to monitor preferences, but the next step the court will take would be to say completely no more race. It's irrelevant. Admit on the basis of neutral, objective facts, not on the basis of the

trivialities of race. We should have also had, I think, a more resounding refutation of the idea that to be Black represents some kind of specific life experience, you know, and you also get the inevitable contradiction, Megan, where the whole diversity rationale is, well, because you're black, you, by definition, have some different set of life experiences than some your fellow Brearley student, white Brearley student that, you know, that's ridiculous. Manhattan. So but then what happens is so then in constitutional history class, oh, excuse me, they don't teach that any longer. But in your in your race studies class, everybody looks to the Black students to tell us what it means to be Black or what's your experience of civil race. And then if anybody actually says, okay, well, give us the black perspective. Oh, that's a microaggression. Listen,

the whole diversity apparatus is based on racial preferences. The reason we have these DEI bureaucrats is because allegedly it's so awful to be black on a college campus today, because as you say, Megan, blacks experience extreme academic difficulty because they're in an academic environment for which they're not competitively qualified. Again, they should be at a different college. I'm not saying they don't go to college, they go to a college for which they're prepared. And so the DEI bureaucracy comes and says, the reason you're experiencing trouble in your first year chemistry class is because you're

in a racist environment. So we. It's ridiculous. Meanwhile, Heather, I know you pointed out in your books. Meanwhile, a lot of these students are two standard deviations below the average SAT score and other scores of their competitors. We're not setting these folks up for success under the current regime. Heather McDonald, thank you so much. Love hearing from you. When we come back, we turn the page with Carrie and Britt, who've got a lot of thoughts, including on that lunacy happening in California with that legislation, trying to criminalize parents who don't affirm. Don't go away. As we near the end of Pride Month, don't kid yourself, it's not over. It's now going to be the summer of Pride, perhaps the season of Pride, if you ask Justin Trudeau up north.

And we're just going to take a pause and take a look at some of the big stories that we have seen as this thing goes on and on and on. Including this now viral moment from a Friday drag march in New York, where the attendees openly chanted, we're coming for your children. Now they claim it was taken out of context. What context would make it okay? All this, as I mentioned, a Biden appointee, Rachel Levine, who is a man who now says he's a woman, declares it's a summer. It's a summer of pride. Disturbing displays taking place in front of children across this country and beyond here to discuss it all and more to former Miss California USAs and more importantly, now co-founders of the Battle Cry, Carrie Prejean Bowler and Britt Mayer. And we're excited to tell you that they have a new podcast of their own. It's called the Battle Cry. It's launched on Spotify and it's focused on conversations that matter.

So happy for you, ladies. Very glad you're doing this. Oh, thank you. We're excited. We're, yeah, we're excited about it. And congratulations to you coming back to America

and hitting the one million mark on your subscribers. We are so excited. Thank you. You gals helped me do it, so I appreciate it. So, OK, there's so much to get to. But and this is, you know, we've been talking about this on the show, but I've got it because you guys have been on to Scott Weiner long before the rest of

us. You're Californians. There's a lawmaker, a state senator out there named Scott Weiner, who you actually went and followed around, tried to stick the mic in his face like, what are you doing? What do you? Well, there was very good reason for this. This guy is behind this push in California. It's Assembly Bill 957, in which they are trying to criminalize parents who don't affirm their child's gender confusion. And it could mean as much as you won't allow your child to have his penis cut off before he's reached the age of majority. The whole thing is so vague and problematic. I don't know whether it would withstand legal scrutiny. It hasn't yet passed the Senate in California, of which he's a part, nor has Gavin Newsom signed it. But this is deeply problematic,

the fact that it passed the state assembly, ladies, and that now you've got Republican lawmakers, one in particular, saying outright the only choice at this point is to flee, flee California. It's no longer safe as a parent to stay there. You're both there. What do you make of it? Oh, it's getting bad. The crazy part about it is everybody says, oh, crazy California. But what people don't realize is that what happens here spreads across the nation. So we're here on the front lines in California, but people need to know across the country, like this is coming into a city near you. Like we are, you know, pushing this and pushing against this in California, but people need to wake up and realize that this is coming into your homes, into your children. This gender ideology cult, which is exactly what it is,

it's a cult that is systematically destroying America as we know it. And so we here at the Battle Cry, and thank you so much, Megan, for standing up against this. We are pushing back against this and saying, people better wake up and realize this is a kidnapping bill. This is a child trafficking bill. This is insane. It's insane. And that's why we- Yes, you could lose custody, right, Brick?

Because you could lose custody of your child if you don't affirm. Not only could you go to jail, that'd be the least of your problems. You could lose custody of your child unless you affirm, even though we all know that over 90% of children who have any gender confusion grow out of it if you just leave them alone.

Yes. And this is what we have seen repeatedly with Scott Wiener. And it's why we confronted him when we had the opportunity to when he was outside of his little culture bubble. And he came down here and realized not everyone likes his policies. And what we have seen repeatedly with this guy is he wants to create and drive a wedge between parents and children. And I don't even think he has any kids. The guy is a psychopath and he is one of the cult leaders of the gender ideology club. But it's really concerning that we're reaching a point out here in California. And like Kerry said, California sets the tone for the nation. And it's concerning to see that it's gone to the extreme where now this religion,

which that's what this gender ideology is, this religion is now being upheld by government and it's being forced into legislation that will say, hey, if you're a parent who, let's say you're a Christian or a Muslim that says we don't agree with with this too bad. We're going to come in and we're going to take your kids, or we're going to favor the parent that says we're going to affirm your gender confusion. So this is the government coming in and literally uprooting the nuclear family is what's happening in California. And don't think it stops here. It will absolutely go outside of California. And AB 957 is one of four horseman bills that we have in California. Actually, our first podcast that we had, we had Nicole Pearson with Facts Law Truth Justice,

who is amazing, break down these four bills. And they're all Trojan horses under this whole guise of LGBT that is aimed at destroying the nuclear family in California under the guise of LGBTQ, whatever it is. This is scary. Very concerning. This one's really scary. This is very scary. You know, because we're all trying to raise our children right and inoculate them against this gender madness.

But you just, you never know what's going to happen. There's so much school pressure. You know, the girls in their school are suddenly saying, oh, we're all non-binary. And you just, you never know. And now they're trying to change the law such that if your kid gets dragged into this nonsense, even temporarily, and you don't affirm, which is honestly the worst thing you can do. I think it's the worst thing you can possibly do.

You're a criminal and you lose custody, potentially, like even in California. I'd like to say no lawmaker would pass this, but it just happened in the assembly. Do you ladies think this is going to pass in the state Senate and that even leftist Gavin Newsom would sign such a thing? Well, he is the devil. So I'm nothing. I wouldn't pass anything. You know, I mean, he's literally the devil himself. And so he probably will pass this. We are praying against it. The church needs to stand up and start praying against this because this is evil this is diabolical it's evil and it is wreaking havoc on our nation and destroying america this is a war this is an absolute war on america and people

need to wake up and realize that that this is very serious and scary i think it's gonna pass and to your point it's not just California. Rachel Levine, I mentioned, who lived as a man until I think age 55 in medical school and so on, and now wants to tout himself as like the first female admiral to be in HHS.

You're not. No, you're not. OK, until you're actually a woman and an actual woman who lived 55 years as a woman gets that position. There's no first female. But in any

event, this person is a senior executive within Department of Health and Human Services and is talking about how this kind of care, this cross-gender care is necessary for suicide prevention. I'm trying to find the sound bite. Hopefully my team has got it at the ready. Here we go. S SOC 23 listen to this we often say that gender affirming care is health care gender affirming care is mental health care and gender affirming care is literally suicide prevention care look at this man like in his skirt and his pantyhose okay look at this we're supposed to listen to him it's saying that you know if you don't this is back, you know, if you don't.

This is back to the lie about if you don't get your child this affirming care, quote unquote, you're going to lead him into suicide. I want him to show us the freaking data. Show us the data. You know, it reminds me of covid when they kept harping on us about, you know, stay home, mask, save lives, all of their rhetoric. Show me the freaking data. That's what I want to know. Where, where are the follow-up studies on, where are the follow-up studies on these kids who have been mutilated and we're throwing thousands on the machine now? Where's, where's the data for those kids showing their long-term benefit risk rate, the analysis done as we continue to throw kids on this, this chopping block. I mean, give me a break. That's what I want to say. I want to say, you can get up there as a puppet and say whatever you want to say. Biden's doing the same

thing. Show me the data, show me the follow-up studies, show me the conclusive evidence from which you have formed that opinion. Otherwise, get off the stage. Take your freaking skirt off and put on a pair of pants and shut up. That's what I want to say. It's always somebody who's got an agenda of their own, Carrie, right? Like this is a man who's posing as a woman wanting us to call him female. And the first woman, this the first woman that he's trying to push his own sickness on on others. Right. It's like his mental challenges he wants normalized through your children and mine. And that other co-sponsor for the bill we were just discussing in California is a woman. She's assembled an assemblywoman who's she openly says, well, I have a child who's trans

or non-binary and I want all these parents to affirm them like I did. Like I, that's your choice, madam. That's your choice. So do you remember Megan? This, this is a big trigger for me because I was one of the first to speak out. I was at Miss USA and I gave my answer about gay marriage. Now, whether or not you agree with that stance or not, it really doesn't matter. But what happened after that is that they said, well, I'm not going to tell you what you can do in your bedroom. Well, now we're seeing the repercussions of that, the bad fruit from that of, hey, do what you want in your bedroom. No, it didn't stop there, Megan. Now, now the bedroom is now in the kids schools. It's now in the classrooms. It's now in the boardrooms. It's now everywhere.

And so they are coming after our children. It's now in the boardrooms. It's now everywhere. And so they're coming after our children. It's not a conspiracy. They're saying it themselves. We're here. We're queer. We're coming for your children. They're not hiding it anymore. They're saying it to your point. We'll put it on tape. This is the New York City drag marchers. Now they're trying to say, it's no big deal. Stop it. But here it is. I mean, listen for yourself. SOT 20. Good luck with that. Good luck. Yeah. I mean, and you know how they they twisted it. They they twisted it by saying we've been saying this for years. You're just now catching on. They even, I read an article. Like that makes it better. was quoted as saying that they've been saying far worse things. They've been saying kill,

kill. And there were a couple of other just horrific things that they said that they've been saying it for years. So somehow that abdicates them of criticism because now we've caught on and we're saying, oh, whoa, you have been saying that for years. Well, maybe we weren't paying attention. Maybe we were excusing it. Maybe this is a huge problem that we've let manifest that we need to start to focus on now. Yeah, because they can't get away with that. I mean, maybe if we had seen that a few years ago, we would have said, oh, whatever, it's a troll. Move on. But look at the way we spent the first 11 minutes together, the stories that we were discussing. It's real. No one's laughing anymore in response to this chant. It's not meaningless. It's actually deeply disturbing. And it's

happening. It's happening, Carrie. Yeah. And this, I just thought of this now. I don't know how long we've been on with you, Megan, but I think it's been at least six months. Think about our first episode together. I mean, we were talking about drag shows in schools. Think about how much worse it's gotten. I mean, so much of our content is being consumed by this garbage and it's a poison. And I want people to realize that and recognize that this is a poison and it's a poison. And I want people to realize that and recognize that this is a poison and it's a cancer and it is spreading. It is spreading like wildfire. And now we have Biden saying that it is sinful if you are not affirming your kids' gender confusion. I mean, this is a lot of work. It's not just, you know, the trans thing is bad enough, but there is sort of a sickness in the amount of sexuality they want to shove in front of our kids. And this is when that is exactly what we first when we first saw you. Of course, Carrie, I knew you back from the Fox years, but we saw Brit on camera. I remember we talked about this and she was going off on, you know, what's a family friendly drag show? And then you popped up like, is every one of my sisters out in California just as gorgeous,

you know, mama bear advocate? But anyway, that's what you were protesting over. And now, now you look at it. This is from I mentioned the Seattle Pride Parade. We get all these pride parades. What are they proud of? Not that they shouldn't be proud of this. Take a look at this nonsense with naked cyclists biking in front of children. It's VO1 here. Let's watch it.

Oh my God. There's so many I can't count. They're butt naked, full frontal nudity, on their bikes, kids. I want to know, where were the arrests, Megan? Yeah. full frontal nudity on their bikes. Kids. Where, where were the arrests Megan?

Yeah. Why do they have public indecency? Why are they given privilege? That's what I want to know. Yeah. It's a good question. I mean, if you walk down the streets of Texas like that,

you'd be in a lot of trouble, legal and otherwise. But think about it. Is that where this is going? Like if you can just identify as whatever you want, like, why can't you say, well, this is my freedom of expression. Like I want to be naked. I want to walk down the street. I want to identify as a five-year-old. I want to identify as, you know, whatever the hell I want to, like, where do we draw the line? Where is objective truth in our nation?

And someone needs to stand up and say, absolutely not. Will you do this in front of children? It's not decent. It's indecent. We do have laws against public indecency, and yet they're not being enforced. They just don't care. I guess they don't view this as indecent. Why not?

Why not? Because they don't want to touch the LGBT mafia. That's why. That's exactly what Carrie just said. And it's what we saw at the YMCA, which really launched the battle cry, was we had the situation in San Diego at the YMCA where we had a naked man in the girls' locker room, and he exposed himself to a minor who was showering. And we learned really quick as we started asking questions that they are a protected class and that's not okay. And I think that we've reached

the tipping point now. You know, you see those parades, you see what happened at the YMCA. The Dodgers literally just honored that dude who was naked in the YMCA. Yeah, he was like, you raised this. There he is.

That's the man. He claims he's a woman on the right in the black outfit who exposed themselves to young girl to a 17 year old girl in the YMCA and she was she testified you know and saying what about my young sister what and he and he there he is next to the sisters for a perpetual indulgence the cath Catholic hating group, the Dodgers honored. That's the guy with the gynecologist, Megan. And we've reached out to the Dodgers. We reached out to the Dodgers for comment. They refused to respond, but it's like, it's worse than, you know, yes, they honored the sisters of perpetual indulgence,

which is a complete hate group, but they're also bringing up the dude that the pervert that was in the girls locker room at the YMCA out of all of the millions in California. That's who they're choosing to honor. So not only is it a protected class, but it's also a forced celebrated class. And we've allowed it. We've allowed it. We've been asleep at the wheel.

And that's why, you know, the chance they've been for a while. We're just now catching on. But when you look at where this ideology first started, you go back to Kinsey America in the 1940s. It was based on fraud, perversion and abuse. A bad seed, when it's grown to maturity, it gives bad fruit. You don't get good fruit from a bad seed. And that's the reality is that we've been sleeping so long. We've allowed this tree to grow and grow and grow. And now we're eating the fruit and we're realizing it's poison. What do we do? Do we start pruning the branches? No, like the thing is disease. We're going to have to go back and we're going to have to pull it out by its freaking roots. That's what we're going to have

to do. Why is there such a high percentage of inappropriate sexuality from these parades? In particular, we've seen these trans activists behave really inappropriately with the bondage wear and so on. It was on display when I was in France for two weeks. And that trans activist who was invited to the White House and actually flashed his fake breasts. This really got me like the level of disrespect and narcissism espoused here. It's it's not a one off. And this man's apology, quote unquote, because the White House had to come out and say that was inappropriate they had to they had no choice the american people are not having it even their fans didn't like this and i'm dying to get your reaction to this quote apology from this trans activist who goes by rose montoya here it is in sat 27 today i need apologize. I was invited by the White House to attend a pride celebration with both President Biden and Dr. Biden. In a quick moment of fleeting and overwhelming trans

joy, I decided to do something unbecoming of a guest of the president. I have learned how powerful and just how impactful my actions are. It was also never my intention to create a situation that would lead to harassment and harm of myself and others, nor for trans joy, like my little moment of trans joy, to be weaponized by vile people of the opposition. I am unavailable for additional comments, and I will not be conducting interviews at this time. Thank you so much for listening.

Is that a real apology? Is it a joke? Save your apology. Disgusting filth. And you know what? I've been to the White House several times, and you got to show a lot of documentation to get into that white house they got to do a deep research on who that person is did they not do their due diligence and find out that this person is a sick human being i mean listen to what he said he got trans joy out of doing that it's disgusting he talked about how he in the the longer clip saw he's a man posing as a woman and he saw women posing as men who had had their breasts chopped off, showing their naked chests with their, you know, their double mastectomies, their unnecessary double mastectomies. And that inspired him to share his trans joy of showing his. This is like one of the things that like, why is it so objectionable? Why? Yes, it's disrespectful

to the White House. But you know what? I'm sorry. Actual women wouldn't behave this way if asked to the White House. Yes, there's a few I'm sure you could find. But like you say, you've been to the White House many times. You're a you're a former beauty queen wouldn't even cross your mind to be so inappropriate. Like, so he wants to walk in our shoes, put on a dress and then represent us like that. F that guy. Yeah. It's mental illness on full display. And we need to start like going back to those words and saying, that's what this is. It's deranged mental illness. And it's part of a cult. I was thinking, too, you know, why, they chopped off their boobs in favor of a cult ideology, but they were bearing their breasts, but it was all the focus on the dude that had fake breasts. Like it was all of them. They were all, it's all this gross, deranged mental illness on full display at the white house. I mean, I'm glad that they're not

allowed back, but that's where this is headed. And I guarantee you mark my words now in five years, that will be completely normalized. It will be completely acceptable. We are on such a slippery slope that in five years from now, that will be the norm. That will not be the exception. The apology had all of the hallmarks of what this group does, right? Like play the victim, even when you're the offender, even when the White House that invited you has said you behaved inappropriately, you have to play the victim. You know, it's saying I certainly didn't intend to is to be an educator and to articulate to others the importance and power of trans joy. You're not our educator on anything, Rose, anything, nothing. I want to know where secret service was. I mean, they're everywhere. Why didn't they take this dude

out? I mean, what was going to come next? Like, was he going to show his penis to everybody? And is that okay? Like, right. How far was he going to take it? Yeah. This whole trans privilege thing like has to stop. Like they don't want equality. They want total domination.

Their rights are super rights and we have no rights at all. We have to take it. It is abuse and it is wrong. It is a war, not only on women, but it is a war on our children and it is a war on truth. And that's what we're saying here at the battle cry. We have to end this war and we're going to win it. Hopefully if people start, as for, um, as for Rose being our educator and our, you know, the person from whom we're going to learn these issues, here's what I have to say. It's a no.

It's a no. It's a hard no. Hard no. You guys, they made a button for me on my little serious radio panel where I can just play that whenever I want. They know how much I love that clip. You know what? We should invite Roseboy on our next episode with you, Megan, and we should debate him on this topic. I would love to hear what he has to say.

The debate. I would love and look, it's not my business to take random private citizens and excoriate them. OK, but Rose put himself out there. Rose is the one who showed up at the White House and made it about him and asked for attention by lifting up his shirt and showing off these fake breasts and then putting out videos online trying to play the victim. So YouTube, we are well within our rights to respond to Rose as the aggressor in this fight. And real women need to be offered the opportunity to respond to this bastardization of our sex and how we behave. It's a lie. It's an offensive lie. Nailed it. Let's talk about some other fallout that's happening, because while we're on the subject of trans activists who don't accurately represent our sex, Dylan Mulvaney, Bud Light, there's a new update. Bud Light's still suffering mightily from sending that Bud Light to Dylan Mulvaney and Dylan

Mulvaney basking in a bath with the Bud Light and so on. Worst quarter or week, worst week of sales since the whole controversy began. People are not over it. They're not over it. And the reason they're not over it is because there's been absolutely no responsibility taken. And that was underscored in droves this week when the Anheuser-Busch CEO, Brendan Whitworth, went on CBS this morning and spoke out for the first time publicly. Listen to this exchange. How and why did it go so off the rails? Because that certainly wasn't your intention when you did one can to one person. It's been a challenging few weeks. And I think the conversation surrounding Bud Light has moved away from beer. And the conversation has become divisive. And Bud Light really doesn't belong there. What was your intention? What were you all trying to do here? And you've done this before, these promotional campaigns. Yeah, it was, just to be clear, it was a gift. And it was one can.

Would you send this can to this one person again? There's a big social conversation taking place right now. And big brands are right in the middle of it. And so for us, what we need to understand is deeply understand and appreciate is the consumer and what they want, what they care about and what they expect from big brands. I asked you, would you do it again? And people on the trans right side of things supporting that community want you to say, yes, of course, we want that fortitude. And people on the right would criticize you for saying yes. So where are you on the yes, of course, we want that fortitude. And people on the right would criticize you for saying yes. So where are you on the issue? I mean, was this a mistake?

You know, Bud Light has supported LGBTQ since 1998. So that's 25 years. And as we've said from the beginning, we'll continue to support the communities and organizations that we've supported for decades. And over the last month, we've talked to over 100,000 consumers and their feedback is very clear. What is it? The feedback is to reinforce what Bud Light has always meant to them, which is good times, goodwill and easy enjoyment. Oh, what a joke. What a joke. I love it that he's getting it from both sides. I hope they tank. I am so disgusted with them that he didn't have the balls to come out there and say, you know what? Our customers, we're so sorry. We made a mistake. We honored a man wearing woman face and we will never do it again. I mean, how stupid could he be? Yeah. How cowardly,

right? How cowardly I've got is I hand it to the CBS This Morning co-host, Tony, who said, where are you on the issue? He kept pressing him. Where are you? Was it a mistake? And in just an act of cowardice, the CEO dodged. He can't. I mean, with the sales where they are, they're what, 28 percent down, Britt? Why wouldn't he just look into the camera and say, we screwed up and we're sorry? That's how strong the hold of these activists on corporate America is. Yeah, I'll tell you what it is. We, we have, we're just coming into the point of realizing that there is a strong divide in America on this issue. And that middle

ground that was once here, right, where a brand like Budweiser or Target could kind of play both sides, even Dodgers. Dodgers tried to do it where they said, you know, they had thousands protesting outside when they honored the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. And then they were like, hey, we're going to do a Christian family night next week. So these companies thought that they could absolve themselves from criticism by playing middle ground. Well, guess what? There is such a divide now in America. It has become so clear that there is no longer middle ground on this issue. And he's caught in that place, the tension of you can't play both sides. So what are you going to do? Are you going to play to the trans cult? Or are you going to play to their traditional Christian values

and what Bud Light always was, an icon of America? And he's realizing right now, and he's probably on the forefront of it, that there's no longer middle ground. It's been swept away. I saw that Bud Light is trying to get people to buy their beer now to the point of offering a rebate. And that rebate literally makes the Bud Light free.

And I asked my followers on social media, what would it take for you to go get a pack of Bud Light? And the comments coming back, I mean, it's just no one's interested. They're like, they've become the queen of beer, never going to drink it again. But then the one comment that kept on coming up was if they came out and made a genuine public apology and said, we screwed up. Only men are men. Only women are women.

And they honored that. And it was legitimate and it was genuine. I mean, I would go like I wouldn't even take the rebate. I would actually go pick up a pack of Bud Light and I would drink it on air right now with you, Megan. Like that. Come on. I would pop it at whatever time we are in California. But Carrie, no. Is the reality is there's no longer middle ground. Carrie and I will be drinking the Corona or whatever, something else. I know I'm still so mad at them. And this guy, look, this is a former Navy SEAL. You know, where is it? Where's that courage now when he needs it most, when we're at the heart of an issue that is dividing America, the chance to stand up for half the population, Americans,

American women, and he won't do it. I think he should be fired. Really, this guy should be fired. We now know that they did fire Alyssa, the one who was behind the campaign and her boss in marketing. That's official. They're no longer there. It's no longer just a leave of options. This guy should be fired because he doesn't get it, Carrie. Yeah. What's so funny is that now the LGBT mafia is like against him. So he's he has them against him and then he has the conservatives against him. Like, how is he going to get out of this hole he has to he should listen to us yeah because we're much bigger women are much bigger conservatives are much bigger and and honestly our complaint is not ill-founded it's not bully everybody it's what you said and when you said it was an endorsement of so many

problematic things that affect us that affect our children that affect our children, that affect our rights. In the midst of the battle, you chose a side and you chose the wrong one. But now he's trying to dig his heels into middle ground. There isn't middle ground. He will make his brand completely irrelevant because both sides are going to hate him. He has to choose a side. And they, I mean, they were just at a big old pride parade where the guys were naked in front of kids. So it looks like he's choosing his side without saying it out loud. But that's that's where big companies are in America are going to have to realize like there's no longer middle ground. We've called that out. We've pulled that rug out. You're going to have to choose a side now. You don't get to play to

both sides. I hadn't considered that. You're right. He's choosing a side without saying it out loud. I keep feeling like he's on our side, but he can't say it. And I think what we're starting to see is he's not on our side. He's on their side. I can't say it. That's what's actually happening. What he said in the interview was he goes on to say this is how he alleges that people see Bud Light, an American institution. It's really, to me, one degree of separation from the American flag. How dare he say that? Yes. What? Really? What? Well, and especially when the host asked him, like, would you send this can to Dylan Mulvaney

again? Why, as a businessman, would you not think? Absolutely not. That's just a business decision that we're not willing to take. They're taking a stand and they're standing with them. And it's very obvious at this point. It's true. And I have to say, like a normal, responsible follow up to his dodging would have been you clearly aren't answering the question. Why did you get rid of those two top marketing executives? If you if you stand the decision if you would do it again why'd you fire them why are they on permanent leaves of absence what happened there sir are you are you not sorry you know do you understand how outrage people there's a way of doing the interview uh where you don't look like

you're just rolling over but instead cbs you know this morning just kept saying one can one time one can one time you know obviously trying to downplay it. It's because they're protecting him. They don't want to push him to have to say that possibly he does align with the conservatives who are pissed off about what he did. So they NBC, the anchors protecting him CBS to not forcing his hand. Yeah, I guess I challenge him to come on this show. I would pay top dollar to see him come on with Megyn Kelly. Let's go, Brendan. Come on. Come on, Brendan. Let's go, Brendan. That is the road to redemption, sir. Let's have it out. You're a Navy SEAL. I'm sure you're tougher than I am. Oh, I would love it. I would love that. Maybe not. We'll find out. All right. More with Carrie

and Britt after the break as we talk about the Girl Scouts and what they're now doing for Pride Month. Oh, standby. President Biden reacting just a short time ago to the Supreme Court ruling, finding that it is unconstitutional to consider race now in university admissions. The president outright questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, because when things don't go your way, you see you have to delegitimize the entire institution, saying, quote, this is not a normal court. What's normal, sir? Someone who does exactly what you want. That's what normal. This is disgusting. That's disgusting. Coming from the president of the United States. He's out of line

saying we cannot let this decision be the last word. Well, you can, because under Marbury versus Madison, the Supreme Court gets the final say on what the law is. Take a listen. We cannot let this decision be the last word. I want to emphasize we cannot let this decision be the last word. While the court can render a decision, it cannot change what America stands for. Truth is, we all know it, discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America. Today's decision does not change that. The congressional black caucus at the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy. Is this a rogue court?

This is not a normal court. Should there be time limits for the justices, sir? How dare he? How dare he? So unifying. Member President Unity. He may be getting more disappointment tomorrow, by the way. The high court's expected to release his decision on the president's student loan forgiveness

program, which is really just a wealth transfer. People like me who went to college and went to law school and student loans. Well, the truckers are going to have to pay off those bills now. I paid for my own. But that's what's going to happen. You were you were smart. You were sound. You chose to watch your finances, not take out these loans. You're going to suffer. You're the sucker.

You're going to have to pay for the loans of the people who did who don't really want to pay it back. That's what he addressed unconstitutionally. Charles C.W. Cook has been calling for impeachment proceedings against him because of this. And that is the big last decision we're waiting for from SCOTUS. We expect it tomorrow morning. We'll have it fully covered for you. Back with me now, activists, moms and founders of the battle cry. Find it on social media and now Spotify as a podcast. Carrie Prejean Bowler and Britt Mayer. Can you believe the nerve of this guy? It's an it's not a normal Supreme Court. It's not normal because they're not doing what he wants them to do on just these radical issues from gender to race. Carrie, I mean, it's what's not normal is to have a president United States dismiss an entire body of the Constitution as abnormal since they're not doing what he wants.

There's nothing normal about Joe Biden at all and any of his policies. So let's not talk about normal Joe Biden. Nothing you do is normal. You are not normal. So let's not go there with the Supreme Court justices. It's offensive. This is the same guy who said Russia is going to lose the war in Iraq the other day. I'm like, he does. He he wants to second guess some of the brightest minds that we have in America today. We're sitting in particular in that six person majority in the Supreme Court. OK. All right. Let's see how that goes. The whole thing is just maddening. I want to make a girl scouts in one second. Yeah, go ahead. the decision and the policies, they actually personally affected my family and my very, very close family members. I'm going to keep them anonymous. But out here in California, there is a point system that you have to achieve in order to be accepted into nursing school.

And one of my very close family members was in, you know, had kind of gone through a rough passion life and single parent and was getting life back on track and always had a lifelong dream to be a nurse and went through with a daughter, went through the whole process of college to get all of those pre-certifications in order to go into nursing school just was soaring in GPA. And at the point of admissions into nursing school was carrying close to a 4.0. And I have the chancellor's office committee policy right here in my hands. Because when this news broke, I went back and printed it out. Because I remember being so outraged when this person was given

this point system. The deck was completely stacked against ability to be a nurse unless you qualified based on a point system that wasn't based on merit. It was based on life experience and disability, low income, low family income, first generation of family to attend college, disadvantages that are social or educational and environment, difficult personal and family situations, a refugee, not proficient in English. It goes on and on. And these 20 points, even with a 4.0 GPA and with everything else checked, soaring, being able to proficiently provide as a nurse, this person would never have been able to be admitted into a nursing school in California and actually had to move to Tennessee where it was merit based

on GPA and an essay and community service. And now people like you won't get the care of this person if you exactly don't have to go to the hospital for any reason. That's that's exactly right. And what we've seen is a flood of people leaving California because of these policies that are systemically embedded to prevent people who, based on their character and merit, should be able to get into these positions that can't. So I'm so thankful for this ruling today. I don't think it went far enough, but I think that it's a start. And of course, the cartel, the university cartel is going to continue to fight against it.

And Biden is going to say his things to fight against it. But I am so thankful that we are trying to correct course and to be a nation that once again focuses on the content of of your character and the quality of a person versus their skin color. Yeah. Amen to that. I want to I want to round back because we talked a minute ago about how these trans activists try to shut down debate.

You know, they don't want cases going up to the Supreme Court. They don't want us having this discussion. They will try to censor it all social media and elsewhere. And now it's turned into an official push. GLAAD has joined with all of these big celebrities. You got Alyssa Milano. I don't know if she's a big celebrity, but there are some like Ariana Grande, Shawn Mendes, Marc Jacobs, Demi Lovato, Hailey Baldwin, Bieber, Jamie Lee Curtis and others joining with GLAAD. Now, publishing a letter this week signed by over 250 celebs and community leaders urging big tech to, quote, address hate directed at LGBTQgbtq people they they want to shut down conversations like this one that's what they want look to instagram facebook

youtube tiktok and twitter and they're saying we don't we want you to tackle accounts and postings that perpetuate anti-lgbtq extremist hate what is that anything that dehumanizes or has a quote hateful attack on prominent transgender public figures and influencers and anti-transgender hate speech, including targeted misgendering, dead naming and hate driven tropes. They don't look the intentional nastiness. OK, you can be a platform that says I'm not going to allow that. Right. Just like intentional nastiness. But in the context of the debate we're trying to have here where we're standing up for our girls in the locker rooms and our girls in our bathrooms, there's just a case out of the UK where it came out that a school had to call in police over allegations that female pupils were sexually assaulted in its gender neutral bathrooms. Teenage boy arrested over four allegations of serious sexual assault. We're trying to stand up for those girls.

These social media companies better listen to us. Honestly, ladies, if they try to shut you down on Spotify or shut me down on YouTube or what have you, it's truly war. It's on. It can't be allowed that just because you have GLAAD with you or Demi Lovato or Hailey Bieber, you win, right? Because it's like the women who don't have well-known names who are in the trenches

fighting for their daughters who YouTube or TikTok or whoever is likely to ignore. Yeah, this is what they want, Megan. I mean, truth is now considered hateful. Why is that? What is the objective? You know, what is hateful? Telling the truth. I mean, that's where our society is going, is that if you say there is male and there is female and that's it, you cannot transition from a boy to a girl or a girl to a boy. They will shut you down and they will say that's hateful. That's where we're at as a society.

People better wake up. I haven't been able to figure out what to call exactly like a trans woman, but I've kind of been settling on a man masquerading as a woman. That's what's actually happening. Yes, that is so accurate. The question I keep asking Bruce Jenner and I have been back and forth in conversation over this and he's refused to give me an answer. But my question to him repeatedly has been at what point does a man become a woman and is no longer simply a man in disguise? What is the objective standard? There's no transition. That's without that. It's it's foolish fairy tales. I mean, and then we're all being forced to make believe reality like it's a fairy

tale. I will call Bruce Caitlin. People change their names. I'll be respectful of their name change, whatever. But I am not going to say he's a she. It's just that's I've gotten to that point. Thanks in part to you, ladies. We've talked about this, but, you know, that not calling a he a she cannot be considered hateful in the context of this debate. And that's one of the things that they're, you know, targeted misgendering right now. Like exactly what you just did. This is what they want banned from the discussion entirely. And it's just not fair to shut down one side of the debate altogether. All right.

Let me get to Girl Scouts because they're a hot mess. They've decided to create a a badge, a badge, a patch, it's called, for girls who attend pride parades or complete LGBTQ themed activities, including protests. Some of these pride parades are protests by the trans community. You can teach you do Girl Scouts? You had to like sew. Went back in my day to get a patch. Or like create fire in the woods.

What the hell? Now you can get it for going to see the naked cyclist in Seattle. What do you make of it? Yeah, exactly. Does the patch have a naked cyclist on it? I don't know what it has, other than maybe the word woman with the x through it you know is that how you get it yeah look it's a rainbow it's a rainbow patch you cannot make it up

i'm surprised that there's still a lot of calm girl scouts that's a good point what's a girl that's a good point yeah just change it to greenouts. If you're forcing little girls to go to these, we're not forcing, I guess I shouldn't say forcing, but if you're encouraging little girls to go to these parades to see naked men on display, then just call it what it is. Just say we're the groomer scouts. Now we've changed. You can still keep the GS. It's just groomer scouts.

Be honest. You know, Ali London, he's been following these issues so well on Twitter, and he had a tweet pointing out that something called the LGBT Foundation, which is one of these advocacy groups, is now advising that the appropriate language to use if you support trans people or non-binary people when talking about a vagina is, quote, bonus hole. Bonus hole. It's important to check which words someone would prefer that you use. This is so disgusting. These are the people petitioning YouTube and TikTok and Mark Zuckerberg over at Facebook. These people want to reduce us to something called a bonus hole. And then they want to silence us when we get a little mad about it, Carrie. Yeah, this is where, I mean, my mind just is blown at this. It's crazy how they are literally wanting to eliminate women completely. Think about it. They don't want to call us mothers. They want to call us birthing people.

You know, they don't want to call women. You know, it's just absolutely menstruators, uterus havers, like it literally hurts. But we have to like this is a psychological warfare that's going on because it hurts my brain. I can't even speak right now because I'm so angry at this. Okay. This is what I think. Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals said, he who controls the language controls the masses. And we have to refuse to live by lies and refuse to use their language of lies. Nope. It's not a bonus hole. It's a vagina. A bonus hole is what I got when I got my second hole up here. That's my only bonus hole right here is that little earring right there. Okay, guys? And we're going to refuse it. We're going to say, nope, men can't be women. We're not going to use trans. There's no such thing. You cannot transition genders. We're not going to use the term transgender because it's a fairy tale.

But he who controls the language controls the masses. And so we're going to have to reject all of the language if we want to regain a sense of normalcy in America. And they want to beat you down to the point where you just obey and go along with it. Thanks for coming on. Until the next time. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.