Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
🚨 SUPREME COURT BANS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The Debate
Recorded: June 29, 2023 Duration: 3:03:14Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion primarily revolves around the Supreme Court's decision to bar race-based admissions in colleges, with various perspectives on affirmative action, systemic racism, and the implications for different racial groups. Participants debate the historical context of affirmative action, its impact on minority communities, and the potential consequences of the ruling on future admissions and diversity initiatives.
Full Transcription
So I'm on.
Thumbon. Thumb's up. That works.
T.J. How you doing, man?
Oh, I'm doing well, you know, just dealing with the Civil War in Kentucky politics
while also reading 237 pages of case law over the span of like two hours.
So, okay, 237 pages of what kind of case law?
Are we talking about all the opinions on the Supreme Court ruling today about
affirmative action and college admission?
Yes, that is exactly right.
I'm discussing the
students for fair admissions versus
the president and fellows of Harvard
College and Board of Regents of
University of North Carolina.
Just looking
at the Roberts majority,
the Gorsuch concurrence, the Thomas
concurred, the Cavanaugh concurrence, the
Jackson descent, and the Sotomayor
dissent. It is a lot.
But really, the
overall takeaway is funny.
The law, really, in my view, at least as a non-attorney, but the general test, it remains the same.
It's just a different conclusion.
Yeah, so we'll kick this off here in just a second, you know, a few minutes here.
We're trying to bring up everybody on the panel.
This is a space that we were originally planning on doing a Trump-Dissanta space today.
And then this news came out this morning.
You know, there's been a lot of, let's see, let's use a neutral term here,
a lot of complaining from the left on this.
I know Kintanji Brown Jackson,
released quite a fiery statement on this ruling.
Did you give a chance to read that, T.J.?
I did, actually, yes.
What do you think?
Give us a brief summary for the audience on what Kintanji Brown Jackson.
And just remind the audience, Kintagio Brown Jackson is Biden's Supreme Court appointment.
that came about last year, I believe.
And this is the same justice that could not define what a woman is because, quote, I'm not a biologist.
So, TJ, give us a summary.
I'd also say she's not necessarily qualified to define what race a human being is because she's not a biologist either.
But on the other side of things...
She, and the first page of her opinion, expressly says that she is declining to apply any precedent,
says that she's just relying on what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent regarding precedent or actual, well, legal analysis.
Essentially, her decision is just based on the fact that affirmative action is good for minorities in America.
It's good policy and therefore we should keep it, which if that's what she wanted to, like,
Run for Congress. You're more than welcome to advocate for changing the law in Congress. But as a judge, your job, as far as I am concerned, is to apply the law as it is written, not to give your own personal view of what the law should be.
So, I mean, her opinion just, in my view, it smacked.
separation of powers in the face.
It just, she went so far beyond the realm of what a judge should do.
It just, it, it floored me, honestly, because she really cited to a couple of cases for just
notable quotations, but it didn't actually benefit her argument.
The sole substance of her argument was based on academic journals just talking about how good
affirmative action is as a policy.
And I did want to say real quick to everybody listening in the audience, if you don't agree with what a privileged cis white man says about affirmative action, send me a message and I'll make sure to ask your questions for you.
Sis is a slur, by the way.
Oh, geez. Yes, it is. I totally agree.
Michael Frazier, welcome to the stage. I believe this is your first time.
I wanted to bring you in here because, you know, you've done a lot of fighting on behalf of, especially free speech and colleges and such.
And so this is really up your alley here. I'm curious as to what you believe.
And it does say LGBTQ in your bio. So I think it's probably worth mentioning that.
that I'm draped in the clocks of homosexuality, Nick?
Maybe.
Well, I mean, you know, because there are a lot of people that describe the LGBTQ community as, you know, maybe a marginalized a group and,
It definitely is a marginalized
group,
given some legislation
we're seeing.
But, yeah,
it's right off.
It's right off.
It's interesting
and I appreciate
the opportunity to speak
because it,
the opinion in which...
T.J. is referencing there is a point in which we see within in judicial review, we do see that point of activism of where you do have settled, what is seen as to be settled case law, right? And the reliance is the Senate case law. And we have the argument being made that, well, because something is settled,
we shouldn't overturn it.
Well, that is a piece of, to supplement what TJ is saying,
that is a piece of what the opinion was saying,
is that we're going against settled case law.
Well, let me also point out segregation was settled case law at one point.
Criminalizing LGBT was settled case law at one point.
That was settled case law back in B. Hardwick, 1985,
until it was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, thank God.
So, yeah, there's an opportunity, and I'm glad there is an intersection when it comes to LGBT, if you look at the Gorsuch opinion in the case, where he talks about affirmative action in its entirety when it comes to not just about race-based decision, but also sex, sex from the decision of Bostock, the
The Bosstock definition being sex of any interpretation of sex.
And in fact, Chief Justice Roberts makes reference of that about racial stereotypes.
Because it's essential within the Bosock opinion, going from an early, early Sixth Circuit opinion.
The Sixth Circuit being Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which is where I live and proudly live.
You know, we had settled transgender rights in case law since 2004 and 2015.
And one of the essential parts is talking about LGBT and sexual stereotypes.
This is how we protected LGBT, particularly transgender Kentuckians, transgender individuals to use the restroom to just go take a leak.
So we're having evolving definitions, which is really funny.
We have evolving circumstances coming forth.
And I think that that's an interesting proponent when it comes through, and something I do have to say that.
that I see on the horizon that I think the court is itching to address.
And that leads to some problematic circumstances,
but I think that this opinion does much more than just based upon race-based decision-making, too.
So I would strongly encourage to look out for that.
Yeah, so Tom Fitton, I don't know, are you up here?
You look a little glitched out.
You can hear me.
Perfect.
Tom, have you read the opinions from the Supreme Court today?
I want your overall opinion.
And also, have you read Clarence Thomas' opinion on this?
I did.
I read much of the opinion.
I can't say I read every word.
You know, what struck me, and I'm sure a lot of your guests already have covered
the holdings of the court, I think what's disturbing is certainly Justice Jackson's decision,
which Justice Thomas takes head on, that promotes this radical approach, you know, critical race theory
that indicts the American way and suggests the only way out is by blatant race discrimination
and reorganizing the entire country along those lines.
And this decision couldn't come in a better time because under the guise of critical race theory, the left is kind of just left behind any, you know, any pretense that it supports or opposes, that it opposes race discrimination.
They promote it. They promote race segregation. They promote racial separatism.
time and time again.
And we had a case in California where they had a quota system that they mandated for corporate boards,
requiring certain races beyond the boards.
And even in California, the court said that goes too far.
In Minnesota, there was a, they tried to kind of break through with this school contract,
a teacher's contract that, you know, typically in union contracts,
The most recent hire is the first to go if they're required budgetary layoffs, right?
Well, they changed the rule to be, you know, your first out, you know, first in, first out, unless, of course, you're part of a protected class of, in this case, minorities.
So you were more likely to be fired if you were white and if you were to be rehire.
And when it came to rehiring, you were more likely to be rehired if you were blacked as well.
So just blatant race discrimination that ought to, you know, so the court stepped into just the right time to remind people that we've, the Constitution requires an adamant commitment to non-discrimination and diversity ain't a good enough reason.
Good afternoon.
Yeah, so I want to bring in Jamal if I can't.
I'm sorry, J. Mal, I'm sorry, I want to make sure I pronounce your name right just out of respect.
But I would like to ask you this same question.
First of all, ask your overall opinion on the Supreme Court decision today to bar race-based admissions.
to colleges and, you know, is that, is that bad?
Is it, you know, is it, you know, is it,
racist? I mean, what are your overall thoughts? And then I'm going to have follow-ups for you.
And actually, before you do that, I want to tell the audience, put your questions down in the bottom right-hand corner.
Because there are a lot of questions surrounding this. You know, this is a very polarizing topic.
And I want your questions for the panel. We're going to go over those here in a few minutes.
But, Jamal, go ahead.
So, you know, here's kind of where I stand, you know, and as an independent who I understand things on both sides of the aisle and how people feel.
You know, my basis is always economics, right?
My basis is always wealth in America.
And we know that throughout history,
many different policy systems and things
have been put in place that has oppressed black wealth
in this country.
So when I look at a decision like this,
we got to look at all of the black people
all of the black people in America who have reached the highest peaks.
And they all have gotten there with affirmative action, including Clarence Thomas.
And so, you know, today to act like discrimination or racism is not real anymore.
What it is doing and what it can do, the effect that it can have is it can have universities or these white institutions.
Right.
They can now, they now have the ability and power to oppress the amount of black people that can come in and get the degrees that they need to reach the higher peaks, which in return,
decreases black wealth over time if we don't have enough black people in the in the medical field or in the legal field, right, and reach a Supreme Court justice or, you know, become president.
So all of these different things or different fields are important. And so to act like that discrimination will happen, it will.
you know and I think that is you know a real travesty and it can really hurt those folks who are really poorest who may have maybe the smartest you know people in America but
but cannot get the opportunities of that other people.
Yeah, but that's just completely false.
What's the basis for saying that there's going to be race discrimination in college admissions
if this race discrimination is turned up?
So you're suggesting in order to increase and maintain black wealth.
It requires discrimination in favor of blacks.
and against those who don't get those slots as a result of that discriminated.
Let's understand why I'm going to the question.
I mean, that's what you're going.
Why are you promoting, why are you going on spaces and promoting race discrimination?
First of all, no, it is promoting race discrimination.
This is what you need to understand.
First of all, we got to understand why I was in place in the first place.
And, you know,
In the first place, the discrimination was happening, right?
So let's not act like the discrimination wasn't happening.
Let's not act like we are not 100 years or it's been hundreds of years.
We're talking about 50 years ago.
We're talking about, you know, recent time.
We're talking about your generation or your parents' generation.
Okay.
So we're all racist.
And therefore we're not talking about, we're not talking about slavery times.
I'm talking about 1900s.
This discrimination was happening.
So let's not act like it won't happen again.
Well, to say that it was happening, you're right.
It was, it was happening yesterday.
It was.
It was happening yesterday.
Correct.
And I previously been endorsed by the Supreme Court and by your leftist allies in these colleges and universities that discriminated on the basis of race to achieve the results you like.
And the fact is...
These policies were not put in place to address discrimination.
They were put in place to increase diversity, which is a very different legal question.
And they think that you have to treat people according to race and bring them in and allocate slots based on race.
It's anathema to the Constitution.
It's anti-constitutional.
And if you wanted to do that, you have to overturn the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
I believe in civil rights.
You don't.
I don't.
actually, I believe in equal rights.
Let's make that clear.
No, you don't.
Not the wrong color.
Let me say this.
The reality is, is that the slots were put in place because they were not, it was not happening,
and discrimination was happening.
So what I'm saying to you today.
That's not true.
That is true.
So you're telling me that these white own institutions,
at the time, we're
bringing it, we're allowing
black people to take
a good percentage
or be enrolled in these colleges.
And that's not, that's not, that's incorrect.
There was a great time
when it was, Jamal, you misunderstand
the facts of this case
Because at the most fundamental level, race quotas were struck down in grutter grots 45 years ago.
This is an entirely different case about the consideration of race in applications.
You're saying that this legalizes discrimination.
It doesn't, from the plaintext's opinion.
At the same time, as all parties agree, 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.
Further, this decision goes directly to the heart of the 14th Amendment, which the purpose of it was to root out discrimination from the government.
In fact, they cite Justin Harlan's lone descent saying that the people from Plessy were completely wrong.
In the view of the Constitution, in the eyes of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens.
There is no caste here.
here. Our Constitution is colorblind
and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among its citizens.
Let's talk about the person who said colorblind.
Would we have a Clarence Thomas
if this was not in place?
Let's be clear.
Absolutely yes. And Clarence
Thomas has led the crusade.
Clarence Thomas led the crusade
against the fundamental...
And I would...
I wish we didn't have it at the time
because he should not be on the Supreme Court
that's different way.
But the point is...
So you don't appreciate
black voices when they disagree with you.
Plain and simple.
No, that's not.
That's not true.
It's not true.
It's not true.
It's not true.
It's disgusting.
The irony is that Justice Jackson is the only member of the Supreme Court put there explicitly and admittedly as a result of sex and race discrimination.
President Biden, for the first time in modern history, said, I'm not going to consider any other qualified individual because of their sex and race and excluded them from consideration.
And the only reason Jackson was ultimately...
picked was because other candidates based on race and sex were excluded.
That's never happened before.
What is sex?
What is a woman?
Yeah, well, she hasn't figured that out yet, but that's another one.
Are you saying that she's not a qualified Supreme Court judge?
Let's not do you, real.
I am saying that she would pick as a result of race and sex discrimination.
Do you believe she's qualified to sit in the seat?
I don't think she's a good justice for, she should have been picked for other reasons as well.
But certainly the process that resulted in her selection was corrupted by race and sex discrimination.
This is a thing, if I could jump in real quick.
Because the way that we decide to conflate the situation with just anything almost and then throw these token gratifications in front of our community, like we're supposed to just accept everything that's thrown out in front of us.
It's like this is where it gets disingenuous.
Right.
We got to get more serious, fellas.
And we're talking about politics here, where we know damn well.
Politics have definitely been some of the craziest things we've ever seen, not just for our community, but for all communities, right?
And as a military veteran who's actually defended this craziness, like, we have to go beyond the civil rights movement.
We all want to do this specific cutoff.
timeline where we're like, oh, okay, well, in the 60s, we know we overruled certain things
like this, or in the 50s, when we know the foundation of America was built off of people's
backs that for just for some reason, we don't want to address this.
This is the only way these institutions even exist.
So...
Why after we just watched the whole pride parade of freedom and liberty get exploited in front of little children, is this a problem to actually just give the people who help build this infrastructure and have to actually tolerate all of the extra necessities going on?
Like, why is it a problem just to give us access to colleges?
Are you really sitting here?
Exactly.
No one's saying it that's a problem.
You can't discriminate in order to achieve that goal.
You can't engage in a lawful discrimination.
Okay.
Well, you want to do that there's no other way to do it.
You have to discriminate and achieve that.
We don't make this.
Like, we fail to realize we have no pool in how the curriculums are made, how the systems are developed.
No control.
I mean, look, Americans are against your racialism.
We have no control.
Even though we built all of these institutions, you act like we have control.
Who's we?
Who's we?
Black people and you and?
Oh, so others have no role in that.
It's the same.
Sorry, guys. There's like four people talking at the same time.
This is just racial, you know, this is just racial antagonism.
Are you denying that chateau slavery actually existed in the United States?
I'm not answering that question. Of course it did. What kind of silly question is that?
Are you denying that racial discrimination against people that are a different color than you is wrong?
I mean, that's what we're saying.
You're the one promoting discrimination.
Why are you promoting discrimination?
First of all, Tom, to try to tell black people that we are promoting discrimination to get what you want.
You are.
That is white privilege more than anything I've ever heard in my life.
No, it's called the rule of law and the Constitution.
You don't like it.
You want to overthrow it in order to get people in a certain position based on race.
The Constitution was built.
I reject racism.
You don't.
You embrace racialism.
What are you talking about?
In the Constitution, we were one third of a Senate.
What are you talking about?
This Constitution wasn't written.
It wasn't written for us.
In 1868 in order to ensure that people were not discriminated against on the color of their skin.
That was the entire purpose of the 14th Amendment.
It redid the Constitution in the most...
fundamental way. As Palmore v. Sidoti said, the entire purpose, the core purpose of the
Equal Protection Clause is doing a way with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.
That's perfect.
That was the purpose, but let's be honest on how many people follow purposes that are
implemented by the Constitution.
I agree.
Okay, so what are you saying?
What I'm saying is that the plain text.
We wouldn't have any atrocity.
Guys, sorry, I'm enjoying this debate.
The only thing is, you know, when three people talk the same time,
it's very hard for the listeners.
Very, very hard.
So, Jamal, just go ahead first, finish your point,
and then I'll give it back to whoever wants to response.
Listen, here's the point.
The point is...
Sorry, Jamal, you got muted for some reason, but sorry, go ahead.
These words and the things that they're just like in this dissent, it says...
You can consider an application.
This is what's been done in every other system.
This is not colleges.
When we talk about black wealth in America,
look at the banks.
And then they created CRA and they had the loopholes and all that.
And then when you look at the lending in America,
they'll still redline in black communities still to this day.
In any department,
whether it's colleges, whether it's banks,
I don't care where you look in America.
If they have the control of the loopholes
to be able to discriminate against black people, they will.
And so to say, try to act like that's not happening still to this day
is crazy.
So, Michael, Michael, let me bring Michael Frazier in here real quick.
Michael, so because you have worked with colleges so close,
so you've been involved in so many lawsuits with various colleges,
this is kind of your forte here.
Do you believe without affirmative action policies that colleges are going to discriminate against schools?
you know, black people in particular when it comes to admissions, because it seems like a lot of them are opposed to the ruling that came out today.
No, I don't think that they're going to discriminate. They'll find new ways to do the same thing. College is...
And really, the secret ecologist is that they never really evolved.
They just only, not in substance, but they only involve in the way that they want to currently do things.
And I do want to make a comment.
You know, our Constitution was never meant for anybody that was not a 21 male white property-owning person.
That was the founding of the Constitution.
That is fact.
Right.
But what we had to do is reclaim the Constitution.
We evolved it.
We've had different foundings.
We've had four waves of foundings.
I mean, for goodness sake, the First Amendment really didn't apply to the individual until 1924 and get low v. New York.
We adopted it.
We applied it through the 14th Amendment, through what exactly T.J. was talking about.
And I will say that the First Amendment was completely redefined by the minority for the minority as our sword and shield as we marched towards equality and equal rights and justice.
We've had to have it, but that was, and just a little tidbit, first case that affirmed LGBT rights was one magazine versus Olson in 1957 in a one paragraph statement by the U.S. Supreme Court when the Postal Service was told that saying gay in a magazine was obscene.
I do want to talk about because there is an issue here where we're conflating terms.
We're conflating things that aren't, but trying to make it that is.
And I did hear the comment about LGBT, and that's something that we do need to cut out and talk about what is.
Because LGBT people, you know, we deserve equal rights just as much as everyone.
And we do have to account there is racism, there is discrimination, there is bigotry.
There is systemic. I mean, I live in Eastern Kentucky and Appalachia, for God's sakes.
If I haven't seen systematic and generational poverty, y'all need to come to the back of my woods.
It's simple. We do see that, and including based on race, we're still recovering.
So colleges, and this I think is the heart of the issue that makes it so contentious, right?
We do have racism. We do have bigotry. We do have people that try to exclude and conflate things and
to say awful things just for political points.
It erodes our constitutional beliefs and system,
but at the same time, we do have to find ways to account for it.
That's where the disagreement is.
Colleges have a hard issue.
That's true.
It's a hard issue. I don't think that they're going to start discriminating against African Americans, people of color, but it's the issue of affirmative action and being complained into something that, one, is against its purpose, but also, too, against the people that it's supposed to help.
Affirmative action has mostly helped surprise white women.
People and exactly what Neil Gorses is such in his opinion, it's been construed to not help those who experience systemic racism and discrimination in America.
It's been used to help others and against its purpose.
That's a huge issue I have with it.
So, no, I don't think colleges are going to discriminate.
I hope this opinion is used to fine-tune so that we can actually help those and start looking at how to address systemic racism and start helping those.
That's what's needed.
I don't know what this pentech racism is.
It's a meaningless term that's made by Marxists to diminish America.
And secondly, the 14th Amendment, as Justice Thomas highlights in his decision,
affirms that you can't have equality.
His dissent, you mean, right?
His decision.
No, it's concurring.
So you don't believe in systemic racism.
Yeah, that's really.
Okay, this is where we get.
I doubt.
I reject that.
Sorry, guys.
Too many people talking.
Let Tom finish and then I'll pass on to somebody else.
Go ahead, Tom.
Sorry, Tom, go ahead.
Yeah, it does.
Once you mute, the 14th Amendment reflects that equality and racial discrimination cannot coexist.
Under the amendment, the color of a person's skin is irrelevant to that individual's equal status as a citizen of this nation.
To treat him differently on the basis of such a legally irrelevant trait, and morally one I would add,
is therefore a deviation from the equality principle and a constitutional injury.
So you all have good reasons for discrimination, none of which are sufficient to get past the rule of law,
our constitutional system, and federal law that protects people from being discriminated against.
I don't want to deny anyone the full protection of the law based on race.
The Constitution.
It's funny because...
Right, let me just go to... One second. One second. Let me just go to Tira and then I'll go to Admiral. Go ahead, Tira.
For many years, the Supreme Court allowed the use of race as a factor to be considered in college admissions.
In Grutter, in Backey, and Fisher was always something that could be considered with various tests and various limitations, right?
Now the court has said no.
to suggest that somehow this court is right and other courts were wrong.
To me, this is part of the point.
We have an evolving court.
Whether they're correct or not, this is now the law of the land.
I don't think this decision is, how I say it's, I don't know that this is a moral decision.
I think the, I frankly found the fact that they said, oh, Grutter said it's 25 years.
I don't know if you guys remember that, but basically they keep saying, oh, it should have been fixed by 25 years.
Grutter, that was just a throwaway line.
We hope.
that things are different in 25 years.
This court is taking it as an opinion.
So it's clearly made up its mind because it now has a bunch of conservatives on the court,
which is absolutely fine, right, that no longer can race be considered.
But if you go back seven years ago, race could still be considered.
That's right.
I mean, what?
Tom, Tom, what I'm saying, though, is to sit here and act as if, oh, this court's right and all the other courts were wrong.
I don't know about that.
What I would say is all courts have a certain amount of activism, and this court has basically made a decision that it's time to end this practice.
Now, as a practical matter, it will not probably end this practice because what is going to happen, and I've said this before, is there, the court actually laid out a little bit of a roadmap now for how to deal with,
if you're a minority applicant, this is certainly what I would do, they said, well, if you write an essay speaking about how you yourself have overcome challenges or how you yourself have shown leadership based, even though you've had challenges in your life, etc., they've more or less said, hey, that can be considered.
So what is going to happen as a result of this? And it won't be a context is or a,
what is going to probably happen is people are going to write these essays about how they had to overcome,
which they're already doing, frankly, but about how they're overcoming adversity.
Courts, colleges will consider that, et cetera, right?
And we will not have any quotas, but I'm not sure we ever really did.
I do think they basically made up some of the facts of the Harvard case, certainly,
and really the UNC case was different than they said.
But I guess what I'm trying to say here is,
If you think that diversity is a bad thing, then you're going to applaud this decision.
If you think that different points of view and diversity is a good thing, then let's see what colleges do with this.
I think they will be careful.
I think the Common App has now said that if colleges wish to hide any diversity or demographic information...
they can do so. So if I'm a college, I'm basically going to hide that information, look at essays,
and more or less maybe limit the use of standardized testing because I will go towards an even
more holistic review. Thanks.
So, hold on. Wait. I'll patiently wait.
Let me go ahead and slide in there. Yeah, I think I was next in the queue. So this is the thing that
was next. Yeah.
No, I mean, yeah, you said admiral.
So, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, Admiral First, yep.
I appreciate it, Nick, man.
Long time, no speak either.
But this is what blows my mind, right?
Because as a veteran, I put my life on the line for everybody in this space.
to defend the Constitution.
And I know that with reading, it says, we, the people, we, like we, meaning all of us,
everybody's speaking.
So the fact that when you talk about this affirmative action overturning and you don't consider
we, because it keeps saying the Constitution, this is what blows me as the contradiction
right there with your constitutional evidence, but you don't want to see the we factor
being eliminated out of this.
And then the next thing is when somebody talks about, do you like diversity?
Are you kidding me?
You all have used diversity to keep the infrastructure of America going for hundreds of years.
What do you mean, do you like diversity?
You love diversity.
Without diversity, there wouldn't be in America as dope as you publicize it and throw it in front of all these other countries
and sell them the melted pot dream to get them here and in the same amount of debt.
What are we talking about?
And then the fact that we keep having this conversation, like we're just not.
here. It's like you talk about us, but you can't talk to us. It's like, can we please get a little
more genuine with this conversation, like understanding, like, as much as y'all are saying,
none of this stuff ever existed, then, well, why are police still shooting innocent, unarmed
black citizens when it's we the people? Like, if this stuff is really working, y'all, then how are we
waking up reading front page news and CNN with all of these issues talking about we the people,
like Tom?
when does we the people actually apply to you?
I'm trying to see what side of it.
Well, you know, I would suggest to the problem.
I'm going to land my plane with this.
I'm going to lay on.
Tom, Tom, I got a private jet.
You land the private jet.
Like,
Like I said, I'm coming in hot on the tarmac, and I'm letting you know, man, like the LGBTQ community has gotten rights faster than the black community has fought as long as it has to get equality.
And we still fail to realize.
The very agency is like the FAA.
Like the FBI target our community in 2023, and nobody wants to address that equality when we give LGBTQ community front row seat access to do whatever the hell they want in front of the children.
Black Panthers never did that.
Okay.
You know, highlighting social issues like you have.
that's a different debate than what to do about them.
The way to solve race discrimination and dissent and strife is not by encouraging it,
by having the government come in and give benefits to people based on race and deny benefits based on race to others.
That is the way to destroy the country and to continue the strife that none of us like.
That's Justice Thomas's point.
And of course, that's the, you know, and unfortunately, everyone, that's the law.
And with all due respect, here, the prior courts who ignored the plain reading of the civil
rights statutes, the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, to allow a little bit of race
discrimination in colleges, deserve a lot of blame for the disruption to America and the racial strife
that racial favoritism and being counting has caused.
So a couple of, wait, wait, a couple quick things.
So first one's here said that, you know,
the past courts made this decision,
and you can't be sure if this is the correct one.
Like, this is objectively looking into this.
This is racism against people based on the color of their skin, right?
If you look at racism in the dictionary, right?
preclearly says discrimination based on race
when people are streaming against people
because they're white or Asian
in the emissions processes
that's racism. That's not even like a question
about it. And then in terms of
the actual process of emissions
it's funny because this
this
It's selective racism that basically that it's okay when you exclude one group people to let another group people in.
Invert for exclusion for some people, just say you are.
I mean, you want to be hiding about it.
I mean, this has been, again, discrimination.
And this ruling is to remove the practice of discrimination.
So if they are against racism, they should be all for removing any sort of racism against students.
And it's a person who applied to colleges recently, right, who's been through a process.
as many people here are there's been no prior or no no priority for any race or or gender orientation or whatever
i went through a mission process and i wrote the essays and i had the SAT scores and you got you apply
are you white what well on probation point we're getting interrupted uh when i apply are you white
yeah i am what they're making different all right i just want to make sure everybody know that by bye go here
difference yeah so that was racist
Yeah. Wow. This is crazy.
Black people can't be racist.
You guys don't understand that. That's racist as well.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry. I don't want to divert here too much, but it just let me ask you.
So black people cannot be racist, Jamal. I want you to kind of go with that.
If you understand the term of racism and a definition?
No, no, no, that's not sarcastic. If you know the definition of racism, you have to have
power over something or someone.
Black people have no power
over anything. So if you want to say prejudice
or another word, you can,
black people can't be racist because we have no
power in America. You're a real estate broker
do you. That's so much economic power.
It's not even fun.
Linguistics.
even by your own definition, you can be racist
because you have economic power.
But it's about a collective.
It's really not about, it's not about an individual.
It's not about individual.
It's not about an individual.
It's not.
But I just wanted to say, I just wanted to say this really quick.
Thank you.
Wait, could I just point to say out really quick?
It's more of the audience to see.
I'm reading the dictionary here.
Racism here is discrimination based off race.
You can read dictionary too.
And, well, maybe the modern ones have been revised after the BLM story, which is what happened with one of them.
But no, it's just funny because when I make a point, his first response is, are you white?
So because of making an articulate point,
that may not agree with him,
his first reaction is to question what race.
because you're trying to compare yourself to someone as black,
and you can't.
You're white.
You go through the process.
Harvard and UNC was doing.
If you go through the process, it is a white institution that is, it will accept more white man than anyone.
Now, that's the reason why affirmative action was even in place in the first place.
was because it was they were only accepting you, but they were not accepting black.
Well, what is the basis for saying that? I mean, you say these things without foundation.
And it's so racially divisive. You have an obligation in a public forum not to say and make these racially inflammatory comments saying that,
institutions somehow, quote, are white and automatically engage in racist behavior. That is a
prejudice. First of all, let's mixing with that. That is a prejudice. That is a fact. You won't
even, you won't even acknowledge that America was built on white supremacy. You know,
No, I was.
No, I want.
I love this country.
Stop smearing America.
I mean, this is just a silly argument
you're making, sir.
It ain't nothing to be.
It's silly, emotional, and mature.
We can drop 100 different articles
to show that it's all fat.
And I can, oh, come on.
There is no cause in that statement at all.
Stop it.
I mean, you're making these comments.
Why do you even live in this country if you hate it so much?
Why do you live here?
We built this country, not you.
You did?
No one else did.
My ancestors built this country.
Oh, and no one else ancestors were involved?
All of the wealth.
Look at all of the banks in America.
Chase all of the big wealth.
in America. They all use...
That's crazy talk.
They all use black people for collateral
to get the banks that they have.
We can go through every policy.
You guys don't like history.
That's your problem.
In the 18th century, how many countries had advanced...
Can I speak after you?
America was one of the first countries
to take steps to remove slavery from the country.
Yes, it took generations.
It took hundreds of thousands of people dead.
to remove slavery.
And of course, the South.
That's not a butt there.
That's not a butt.
Say it again.
Say it again.
But this is generations ago, Jamal.
We're in 2023.
Now, do you want to take steps forward?
This is not generations ago.
We need to go forward to get back.
You are a young.
You are a wealthy real estate bro.
This is what just happened in the 1900s.
What are you talking about?
You talked about generations ago.
No, it's not generations ago.
racism.
When was the Civil Rights
Act?
Civil Rights Act that
Yeah, go ahead.
You were just about to say it.
Go ahead.
Go ahead and say when it wasn't passed.
Come on.
You just said,
Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act is LBJ's administration.
Right.
I mean, come on.
And he didn't want it either.
I'm talking about you are sitting here saying that all of this stuff is generations ago when it's just 50 years ago.
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
Well, you're using hundreds of years.
Well, they're a privilege that it's not tied to race.
Race is being used as a proxy by critical marks to divide it.
It's not.
It is not.
If you don't believe that this.
These are not off limits for people based on race, Jamal.
You don't believe in systemic racism.
If you don't believe that these systems was created on the backs of white supremacy,
then I can't talk to you because you don't like history.
You don't like history.
You don't like history.
You don't like history.
Thomas Jefferson wanted to condemn slavery because that was the British institution.
It was a British, we were British colonies, Jamal.
I don't know if you're aware.
But,
But we are British colonies.
Yeah, I'm not aware because I'm, because I don't have the Constitution.
Like stop it.
You need to go and do the real history of your ancestors.
I spit in fact, southern states, who raped, who enslaved, who created systems and corporations to continue.
You guys, guys, guys, guys, guys.
One at a time.
Yo, this was 18th century, my man.
You just brought up the Civil Rights Movement
happened 50 years ago.
What are you talking about?
Yeah, it's not the same thing.
These things,
these things are still happening.
You're saying,
You guys want to act like we're a thousand years.
You want to act like we're a thousand years.
Fighting World War II, that doesn't mean anything.
You know, Great Depression.
None of that means anything.
Jamal, it's all about you.
And it's all about black Americans versus white Americans.
We have to stop the stupid primitive way of thinking.
It is a primit.
Kyle.
Kyle, Kyle.
Hold it down, brother.
It ain't no.
All right, Kyle, Kyle, Kyle.
Hold it down.
You getting any of your feelings, my guy.
Look.
Look, look, in the words of Malcolm X, the black, the Negro and the white man must be able to sit down at the same table and discuss issues of race without one hurting the other's feelings.
Right now, both of y'all are getting any of y'all's feelings about this shit.
So that ain't going to work.
I ain't in my feelings.
You just need to acknowledge.
Bro, both of y'all are a couple of actors too high.
Come on, let's dial it back.
Guys, guys, way too much.
I'm telling you, like, we enjoy the debate, but it's very hard for people to listen to.
Malcolm, go ahead.
Malcolm, do you want to finish your point?
There's a mute issue.
Also, once you move, it remotes.
But anyway, sorry, continue.
Yeah.
All right.
So, again, I ain't got too much on this because, once again, I don't view this decision as, you know, groundbreaking or life changing because if you look.
people can still write essays about how, let's say, you know, race is, you know, how their race or how the struggles have impacted their lives, they can still include that in their admission.
So to me, most of the colleges that want to promote and, you know, promote and tout their diversity, they're going to do it.
It doesn't change anything.
This is just going ahead and putting it out there as in,
hey, you guys, y'all been using, you know, race and diversity in the admissions process
to basically, you know, circumvent, just giving everybody a fair shake.
Now, you're going to have to get a little bit slick about that.
And that's all it's going to do.
I mean, I'm still trying to figure out why people care so hotly about this because it's, you know, it doesn't necessarily move to needle.
I'm sorry.
Malcolm, can I ask you a question?
So, like, from my perspective, there shouldn't be discrimination based on race because what will happen, because it goes against the Constitution.
But there should be some kind of system that takes into consideration.
Right.
your basically financial capability.
So basically poor people should be based on financial needs.
We know poor people go to worse schools.
They're going to get worse results.
And so therefore there should be some kind of system which gives poor people a bigger chance.
So it's not based on race, but based on your financial capability.
That's the way I see it where you don't basically impact the constitution.
But what's your thoughts?
Well, it should come from a point of, okay, when you apply, we're going to look at your school.
We're going to look at how people perform technically.
That's where I kind of disagree when Tara says, you know, it needs to be less standardized testing.
I mean, you have to have some kind of way to see, okay, is this person just like the one diamond in the rough to stand out from a rough school district?
Or is this person, you know, sort of being in the school district that has the best teachers and the best resources and all of that.
I do think you need to look at that.
But again, yeah.
Race is only a proxy for looking at how advantage somebody is or disadvantaged.
But the problem is we put black people in this massive bucket of disadvantaged,
white people are automatically coming from, you know,
supreme circumstance when that's not always a case.
Like I said, a rural school and, you know,
boot of fuck nowhere in Nebraska,
sometimes going to have kids that basically have less than a school that's,
you know,
maybe like in the inner cities like Georgia somewhere.
It happened.
I think that we got to refine the process.
I'm not, but, you know, affirmative actions has been basically abused, used and abuse in.
It's like it was said before.
White women overwhelmingly are the beneficiaries of affirmative actions.
You want to pad your diversity stats?
Go ahead.
Bring a couple of white women in, you know, throw you some black people in.
And unfortunately, the stigma is that black people get looked at as diversity hire.
So, I mean, I agree with all sides, but I just think us trying to scream and holler at each other about
America's racist or oh shit, America's not racist, I think that that gets you nowhere because again, you're missing the main point, which is there is a problem, but the problem is really on the level of the resources that these areas have. So if black areas don't have, it's that. And I think that.
All we were saying and.
until we were told that no systemic racism is happening and no discrimination has happening in America, and it is.
Well, Jamal, like, I mean, here's the problem.
You're literally saying that members of a specific race can't be racist.
I mean, just, first of all, you're going back to that point.
I'm speaking of this conversation is not about.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Jamo, can I please speak?
Yeah.
TJ, look, we're not going to go to that point because it's going to cause argument.
We weren't past that point ages ago.
Malcolm's made a caution.
No, I have a point.
One second.
One second, bro.
So Malcolm's made a cogent salient point.
He's moved the conversation along.
Let's not going to fight about.
I'm trying to go to go right into Malcolm's point.
Right.
I'm going to somebody else.
I'm going to go to Chief Chief.
You wanted to finish one of the points, but again, we move past the other point.
Yeah.
Like personal things.
You know, but basically, though, the point is there actually was an interesting statistic out there that I think about a third of white students lied on their admissions on their race in order to get into schools.
And of those 70 or so percent who lied about their admissions on their race actually got in.
So this is an issue that has been.
impacting, at least in that statistic, at least,
that study I was referring to,
is impacting on white students and Asian students as well.
There should be no discrimination.
There shouldn't really be a,
a complicated debate or anything like that.
There shouldn't be looking at this and saying,
Oh, no, I don't know this is the right thing.
No, this is basically discrimination that's been allowed and they should remove.
And there should be legacy people who, you know, legacy things should be removed as well.
I'm in favor of that.
The smartest should be able to get into schools.
And also where states are, you know, selected or more people get hired or gets put in from certain states because there's less of population there.
That should be removed as well.
There shouldn't be preference for location.
or race or your gender, if you're the smartest person, you should be able to get in your school without worrying about things.
And I was trying to there's a point saying that as a person you applied to college recently and, you know, went through a process of that.
It was frustrating to see that, you apply and you have people tell you, oh, if you were this group or that group, you probably would have gotten to an Ivy League or something like that.
You know, I mean, you do your best in school.
You do volunteer work.
You do leadership positions.
You start your own groups.
You do sports.
And all that stuff in the middle class.
And you still have the back of your head thought from, you know, well, if I were a different person, would I have gone to the school?
or anything like that.
And I'm happy with where I am right now.
But the point should be that students shouldn't feel that way.
There should be no discrimination.
It shouldn't be a complicated point.
This bill is discrimination against us.
And we shouldn't have it.
There should be no discrimination based on that.
And I'll finish it up with three seconds.
The last point is that Harvard put a statement out that talks about,
how they will also talk about considering
images and processes or decisions.
Advocates discussion on how race affected his or her life
be through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.
So I do think that these schools
will be trying to use essays as a way to get around that.
And we have...
place like Stanford who have people who write hashtag BLM 100 times as an essay and get into school from Stanford, you know, compared to other people who write longer essays.
I think it tells you that there will be attempts in trying to circumvent this decision, which is not good.
Let me go to Malcolm. Malcolm, go ahead.
Yeah, now, I was about to just let you know I got a slide in a couple.
So I'm going to just go ahead and make that point.
Thank you, Chief, for backing that up.
Once more, again.
It's not necessarily the system that's going to fix everything.
It's the people that man the system.
So as long as you have the, you know, the diversity over everything type,
the people that want diversity for the sake of diversity,
rather than wanting diversity that can actually enhance the collegiate experience,
you're going to get this regardless of what system you have.
So I think that's where we really...
again changing you know changing just number one what is our value of college our value of
college to you know get all of these nice stories say oh well you know and i'm sorry to use
name it's just what comes up but jamal jemal came from you know the lowest of the low but he went
to harvard and now his family lives in this nice 250,000 dollar suburb he's a ward you know he's a
a highly acclaimed doctor.
Like, if that's what colleges want, they're going to get that, however.
So, I mean, you have to look at the people.
Systems are going to be abused.
But like I said, again, you know, I got a slide.
I don't think that this is important or, you know,
because it's the problem hadn't been addressed.
Nothing's, nothing's changed, nothing's going to change.
There's nothing to really worry about in this.
And that's my official take.
Kyle, J-Mall, y'all play nice.
Tira, good to see you again.
I'm out.
Let me go to Reverend Tim Christopher.
Reverend, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
And then a similar point I made before,
but if we had a system, which was, again, it's not,
because you can't have a system where essentially
is just based on results, because, again,
people go to better schools.
If they go to more affluent schools, they're going to get in much more quick.
They're going to get in.
They're going to get better as well.
So my question is to you, if they did it based on, you know, financial circumstances,
poverty levels, that would largely make up black people anyway because,
and so therefore there'd be some kind of balance where affluent people would not be impacted
irrespective of race and it's a lot more looking at poverty.
What's your thoughts on that?
And then generally, please, I'd like to hear your general thoughts as well.
Good evening, good afternoon, whichever one applies to you.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to come in here and say just a little bit.
First off, I think what we have to do is look at the historical contents in this here situation.
Right.
There was a time, I'm sure I'm probably older than a lot of people in this room because I go all the way back to,
I was born on a segregated floor in Melington in Memphis, Tennessee.
Well, my mom couldn't go up to a certain floor because all the black kids were on the bottom floor.
So when we look at that and we think about what we had to go through, right, just to get to this here point where there was troops in front of doors to keep black people out of those schools, right?
Where you got busing that even Joe Biden said what?
He didn't want black kids being bused anywhere and things of that sort.
So that just shows his racism.
Right.
But at the end of the day, when we look at this whole situation, I wanted to talk to that young man that just left who sits here and says that it doesn't matter.
It does matter.
Because if you think they're going to stop here, right?
The system never stops.
at one place. It doesn't.
Okay, let's talk about housing, right?
Let's talk about jobs, people getting, I mean, they have to pass a hair act for sports and things with that sort because we wear a hair different.
So I'm looking at those.
I'm looking down the road.
I'm looking at how the system and this government works.
I'm looking at years from now.
is what's going to happen years from now, right?
Those are the things that I look at.
You know, we can sit here and we can say that this situation to happen today is not going to do anything.
And he's right.
If you sit here and say, let's take some of the most poverty black communities and let's pull some of the brightest kids out of there and give them the opportunity.
Yeah.
What's the difference in what they're doing now?
I would rather for them to do it that way.
Then these white women and these white kids can't come up there, right?
And get in line and be part of what should be out here to help black people,
to help people who are poor.
That's what I want to see.
I want to see the poorest of the poor, right?
Right.
Those bright kids that we don't worry about, we don't think about, we don't see that just going through the motions because they know they have no recourse to get anywhere at all.
So they just live.
I would rather see those kids get into a good school than a kid get in school because, oh, well, he's black.
Oh, well, he's Asian.
Oh, he's this.
Give those kids the same opportunity.
that you're giving these kids that you're saying, well, we're going to do it because of diversity.
And we're going to do it because we have a quota, a number of black people or people of color.
We have that number that we have to get in.
We have to get in and make sure that they're part of the system.
Yes, so Ion, I want to, sorry, Iion, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to you.
You've been very patiently waiting here.
If you want to respond to what Reverend Tim was saying and give your overall opinion.
Yeah, so...
I mean, I really don't think that, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I really don't think that this is about black people.
I think that, like, this is all the facade and in the media to make black people and white people fight.
I think that this is between, like, white men and white women.
And I really believe that white men are concerned about white women replacing them when it comes down to the job industry and the college field, and they're using black people to do it.
So every time we have these arguments, right, I hear white people talk about, oh, listen, you know, it's discriminatory. And, you know, it's not fair. They're not talking about the white women because after that, just a few minutes later into the argument, they say, well, white women benefit the most.
So why would it be a problem to you that white people are actually benefiting more to this event than anybody?
It would still be discriminatory towards black people.
So it's just really confusing to hear this.
And I get concerned because I'm just like, I hear a lot of white women blindly follow up.
follow a lot of these kind of conservative talking points,
and I'm not against the conservatives.
I went with the black conservatives,
like Candace Omen's to the White House,
met Trump.
He's an awesome person.
But I just find it weird because it's just like,
damn, they just took away your rights to have an abortion.
And that, hold on, hold on, let me finish.
I don't want to yell.
I'm going to argue, you know, I just...
Let me finish.
I just find it weird like it's just the women's rights being taken away.
And now like the another attack on women's rights because we know that white women are impacted according to y'all the most.
And then we know that the other demographic of women, you know, black women are considered the most educated.
So it's weird to see women standing behind this.
Now for me, I agree with Michelle Obama's point when because it really kind of like, you know, made me think about things a little bit differently.
Because as an educated person, someone who grew up in the upper middle class, I went to private school.
You know, it was very frustrating to me because I felt like people kind of always thought that like I got into spaces because I was black, not because I came from a semi wealthy family.
I could afford to be in those spaces.
and it was just really frustrating because I felt like, you know, that I was being victimized and I always wanted to feel like, you know, that I was equal to everybody else, not only at a human level, but education too, right?
But, you know, I was at that point, I was like, you know, affirmative action is not really going to impact me, right?
But when I think about what...
Jamal said about how poor families are going to be impacted, not only, you know,
black communities, but other communities at that. That is problematic. Right. And like to
hear like white people or white men specifically, right, you know, like use this as an opportunity.
And I consistently hear this, right? Um, where it's just like, oh, um, you know,
like with this, what these many arguments having this, like, throwing out like, you know,
kind of like just weird and I'm not sensitive towards it because it's just ignorant um so you know
don't think I'm sensitive but it's just weird to hear you like complain that the white man is under
attack but then a few minutes later say that so no that that that I'm not talking about you
I'm not talking about you it wasn't you it wasn't it wasn't true it wasn't you it was not you
But it's weird to also now hear, y'all say that white men are under attack, but then also say that systemic oppression.
Systemic oppression doesn't exist.
That does not make sense.
You're contradicting your-
You're-
Kyle, you were not here.
Women outnumbered men in colleges.
Relax.
Relax.
So where do the patriarchal-you-go?
We're like, calm down.
It's okay.
Relax.
Let me finish.
And I will give you an opportunity to speak.
This casual definition of people.
You don't need to be.
You don't need to.
It's okay.
It's okay, Kyle.
Just calm down a second.
I know that this is frustrating to you.
But I also want to say, if y'all cared about white males not going to school,
let me tell you what the real problem is.
There is this big, a large amount of white men who are going to school and dropping out.
And there's actually studies where, you know, they're actually creating programs.
y'all want to talk about racism
creating programs for white males
to feel more comfortable to go to school
the privilege of that
can you imagine that like males
are like you know you have in a society
where they can create programs
It would be crazy or been already
I will link it
I guess
and things
right
right one second
guys guys
guys too many people
interrupted
IAN if you want to finish
your point
in 15 seconds
I'm going to give
Kyle an opportunity
respond
and then we're going to go
to volunteer
but continue Ian
if you want to just unmute
and just
summarize your point
in 15 seconds
I'll just finish it off
okay sorry
I don't I don't
can you hear me now
Yeah, I'm sorry.
I'm used to clubhouse not here.
But, you know, just to have that happening, and I'll link it in the chat once I find
the way how to do this because it's like my first time over here.
But like to have that happening and people just talking about affirmative action is
is taking out white males.
White males are becoming more lazier, according to these red pill dudes,
and they don't want to go.
So it's not impacting them.
They don't want to go.
Just say that you're lazy and stop making excuses for these young boys.
And actually be in their lives and do what you have to do.
And stand up and be men, like y'all say, y'all, or get Andrew Tate or some of these dudes out here to actually make a difference.
Period.
So stop, stop trying to blame everybody.
All right.
I understand.
Right, okay. Let's go to...
One second, one second.
Let me go to Kyle.
Let me go to Kyle.
All right.
May I say that it's just surreal the way that woke progressives casually deride
and disparage people based on their skin color or their gender...
No, that's exactly what's happening.
You just say white men or white people are lazy.
Like all of this stuff.
He just told you he went with Candace Owens to the White House.
So why are you calling him a progressive?
All right, all right.
No, no, no.
Stop.
I'm making a general point.
Trump, 2024.
It's not just him.
You see it anywhere on Twitter.
You see it everywhere.
Stop, disparaging, dehumanizing, degrading, slandering, smearing,
People based on their skin color and their gender and all of this stuff.
And you guys can't even follow that general rule yourself.
You are constantly combating people saying not to be prejudiced.
You want to get rid of race so bad when that's why we're here.
You want to get rid of race so bad when that's why we're in this position in America now.
It's just funny because, you know, we had it.
It's not equity to attack people based on their race or their sex or their gender.
That's not getting equity.
No one has ever black people attack no one.
Dude, you literally attack white people.
It's funny because you're acting like the CRT industry doesn't exist.
Come on, my man.
Okay, but see, the critical race industry
existing is based off of what?
Wanting to erase a certain portion of history,
so America doesn't...
That's a lie. It's a myth.
No, we want to...
We don't want to...
We don't want to...
I'm so angry.
Relax.
Just be realistic.
Carl, you got to, you got to calm down.
But let me say this.
I'm too loud. I'm Salaman.
Listen, Salaman asked this question.
I'm just trying to debate.
He asked...
His simple question.
His simple question was,
Should it be moved based on financial status?
Now, the answer to that is, let me tell you something.
The reality is that black people are owed for building all of these institutions.
Let's go to history.
Let's go and I don't want to start yelling, be quiet and listen, and you can talk after I'm done.
Let's go to history.
I'll link many articles.
slaves built Harvard slaves did cook the meals and were the maids and everything for the presidents for many many years slaves did all of those things the bank that that was used for Harvard the Harvard bank because I'm telling you because I'm telling you that based off the fact that we've had many slaves
that have built these institutions and the banks that have built these institutions,
it is a travesty to say that anything that would hurt black people,
their lineage from going to get a quality education that they help build.
Jamal, that's great.
That's great, and I'm not trying to take anything away from your ancestors.
But you did not do those things.
Just like nobody alive today enslaved anyone.
If you are spending your money and investing so that your kids and their kids and their kids can have a better life.
That's what white people do.
White people can go to discriminating against Asian Americans.
Guys, guys, guys.
Let Kyle respond and then J-Mall, I'll let you jump in.
Go ahead, Kyle.
Dial got on mute.
Bottom right hand.
No, you're right.
Harvard is a racist institution.
It was being racist against Asian Americans.
It was not properly giving people its entrance to the university based on their merit.
It was taking improper consideration.
Now, all things being equal, a black American from a poor district with not a lot of resources,
should all things being equal be accepted because...
We do want diversity in the sense that we want people of all different backgrounds to have their voices heard and to contribute to the conversation at universities.
And we want all students to be exposed to people from different backgrounds from different parts of the country.
So I think me, but I do think that means.
So I think that the essay still has a place in this because, you know, obviously,
You know, we have to look at America where it is now.
And I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg that, you know, maybe when she made the decision,
Grutter, I believe, I'm not a lawyer, but it's Grutter.
She said in 25 years we might not need it, right?
But maybe we're not there yet.
There should be some representation of college students at our universities.
That isn't what was going on at Harvard.
You just said there should be some representation of college students at universities?
What did you mean?
You just said there should be some representation of college students at universities.
So I'm seeing all things being equal.
College.
No, no, no.
Which students at universities?
You said college students.
That's,
You just made a mistake.
I'm trying to figure your argument.
Students entered into college, right?
There should be some representation of who.
Of college students from different backgrounds.
Different backgrounds.
Because it's good for the university,
for people to have to argue ideas against people
from different parts of different communities
and different backgrounds
and different parts of the country.
I think it's generally...
Fine, because America, when you're in the business world, you have to be exposed to people, different backgrounds.
I think that's fine.
But you cannot have...
like bigoted or biased standards.
You cannot penalize Asian Americans.
If you're going to use,
Kyle,
if you're going to use business as the whole representation, right?
I'm not.
Business.
Okay,
let's just talk American infrastructure when we're trying to tie in
how all of this ties to this whole affirmative action, right?
In order for a college to exist,
the foundation of this country,
the soil,
it had to be plowed,
people had to work on it.
people had to build a solid foundation for any infrastructure to sit upon it.
This is just basic logistics, right?
And we have to understand what period of time that existed in order for us to move forward
and talking about anybody attended any type of college education institution, even high school.
Right. So if you're going to say that these things exist based off that business infrastructure, then we have to tie in labor laws, rights, wages and all of that stuff that's been implemented because people don't want to do work for free. Now, nobody in the business world is trying to work today for absolute free.
Right?
So we have to think about a time period in history
in which the infrastructure was developed
and people had to work for free.
And in business, we know that is a debt owed,
especially over so many period of time.
When we do loans from the bank,
we accumulate interest.
And you have to figure out if you're trying to have an honest conversation in any aspect of 24 to 2097, you have to be realistic enough to include, since we're doing all inclusiveness, you can't be afraid of adding that portion of history inside of the all inclusive category, keep and get business oriented me.
meaning no feelings attached.
It's just the reality.
This part of business exists.
We got to figure out how to organize a plan to address it and move forward with bigger pictures, right?
But the thing is, is that affirmative action of the past was meant to do that.
And as Grutter pointed out, it wasn't we might not need it.
It's we expect.
But if it didn't happen, Kyle, then you know it didn't exist.
This isn't Kyle.
That's right.
I mean, my apologies, my apologies, TJ, but I'm saying if it didn't actually happen and people are still experiencing the atrocities, right?
We talked about this early in the crested space where if for 14 years I'm going to a place and constantly dealing with some type of harassment, then I'm entitled to encourage that to the next person.
You know, don't do business with them because we're talking business and networking.
Right.
So if they've been doing harassing business tactics towards me,
I'm going to tell the next individual that's in my immediate community,
don't go over there.
But that's the entire problem with using race, though,
is because the racial categories, as Justice Gorsuch very rightly points out,
is extremely broad to where you can't do that based on that ground.
Like just to quote Justice Gorsuch,
the quote unquote white category sweeps in anyone from Europe,
Asia, west of India, and North Africa.
That includes those of Welch, Norwegian, Greek, Italian, Moroccan, Lebanese, Turkish, or Iranian descent.
It embraces an Iraqi or Ukrainian refugee as much as a member of the British royal family.
Meanwhile, black or African American covers everyone from a descendant of enslaved persons who grew up poor in the rural South to a first generation child of wealthy Nigerian immigrants to a black identifying applicant with multiracial ancestry whose family lives in a typical American suburb.
The fact is, like the best way to address anything, if you're trying to get rid of any sense of inequity,
economics is your way out.
Race is not the way to do it.
I disagree.
I mean, the only reason that is bad, I let many people take, many people speak, it was my turn.
Wait, Jamal, hang out.
Just let me respond to him real quick.
And I swear everyone will take.
Right, let Jamal respond.
And then we're going to, I think the Nick has a question for Voltaire.
So go ahead, Jamo.
Okay.
The point of the matter is, and why race is important here.
is because when you look at all of these years, since slavery, and we can go on down the line on how they have put systems in place to still enslave, policies in place, mass incarceration, war on drugs.
We can go on and on and on redlining, which is still going on today.
Last time we had this conversation, I told you guys how I fought Chase Bank.
a couple of years in 2020 and made them give back a billion dollars to Chicago because they
were redlining us.
It's only given 1.9% of the time to the South and West Side.
So the fact that we cannot continue to act like these things are not continuing to happen
today.
And just like Kyle said, maybe we're not there yet.
When you talk about 24 years, we're not there.
We're not there.
There are still very...
white supremacists or racist people over many institutions that still discriminate in our races.
And so you have to have, and then when you talk, hold on, let me finish, let me finish, let me finish.
And then when you talk about the fact that all of these institutions,
Every institution when we go through America, even these institutions that they dissenters on today from Harvard and U.S.
If we look at every institution in all of these banks, we look at everything, our ancestors, my great, great, great grandmother.
My great, great, great, grandfather.
So when you guys talk about legacy, because when you invest and you play with your money right now,
you're trying to make sure that your kids, kids, kids have a better opportunity than you have today.
So to say that my ancestors, a few generations ago, or a couple generations ago,
or just 100 years, 50 years ago, civil rights movement, that they did free labor to the presidents of Harvard, free labor.
to build the the banks use them as as collateral to get their wealth free labor and the fact that
their next generation or the generation after that cannot get into college you're conflating it
it be mandated that their lineage gets into college and there's too much and it's it's giving them
too much control to stop that is a travesty
So, Jamal, what recent question is ironic.
I think it's just ironic.
Let one second, one second, TJ,
is the one talking about power.
TJ, let's go to Nick.
Nick, you got a question for volatility.
Yeah, Voluntary. So I want you to kind of go over this just a little bit because, you know, a question that we're getting a lot from the audience, and I do want to remind the audience.
Bottom right hand corner, we are reviewing the questions. The team is going through them pretty ferociously because there are a lot of questions.
But I'm going to ask you, Voltaire, as an attorney, what part of this is...
unconstitutional. What is the justification for barring affirmative action in college admissions?
What are your thoughts?
Bobater.
Hey, hey.
Yeah, I heard you. I'm just surviving.
It's really as simple as this. They overturned Grutter.
First of all, we basically, this room has covered a lot of things that were discussed in the opinion.
And the bottom line is, you know, these admission programs have to apply with strict scrutiny because they discriminate on the basis of race.
The problem with that is when Grutter was handed down in 2003.
Okay, so hold on. One second. One second, Volta. What is you're talking about Grutter? What is Grutter just a brief summary?
Yeah, Grutter held that
college admissions could
consider race as what's called a plus factor.
In other words, for a long time,
colleges were trying to set out a,
like basically set out if there were 100 spots
for a college program,
a college would say,
okay, we want 15 of them to go to black people,
15 to go to Hispanics,
and the rest can go to whites and whoever else.
And that was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.
in 1978.
So colleges started doing this thing, you know, this kind of nebulous admissions practice
where they would consider, they call it a holistic review, and that maintains until this day,
where they say that race is just a plus factor where you consider their background, their SAT
scores, their essays, their extracurriculars.
and everything else.
And at the end of the day, you know, if there's a black person applying versus a white person applying,
if they're relatively equal, the college is fine to pick the black person over the white person on the basis that they're black.
That was overturned today.
And it's actually really simple.
When that decision is made, first, you have to understand that college admissions is a zero-sum game.
So if there are a thousand spots for a freshman class,
if two people are equal on scores,
extracurriculars, and everything else,
that's objectively measurable,
and that's fair to measure,
if a college decides that, okay, between John,
And James, James is black, John is white.
We're going to pick James because he's black.
Because we think that there is something inherently meaningful to a freshman class that's racially diverse.
The court pushed back on that today.
Which is good.
Okay.
Which I could get into.
Okay.
But the basic idea is that when that decision is made, that decision, we know, is a decision that's made based on race.
And when that happens...
But you actually proved a great point.
You are...
Can you quit interrupting everyone, Jamal?
Yeah, when that happens...
That's what you could be a call...
No, I didn't.
Yes, Mr. Voltaire.
Go ahead.
Just wrap your point up in 15 seconds now.
Jamal respond.
Go ahead, Voltaire.
I can't do 15 seconds.
So if he want to let him respond, you can.
Right, cool.
Yeah, go ahead, Jamal.
Just unmute bottom left.
Jamal, do you want to respond this bottom left?
If not, I'll let Volota, volunteer continue.
Right, Voloteer continue.
So this is, so this is, it's veiled in a lot of jargon, but it's really simple.
if a college is going to make an admission decision based on race that triggers strict scrutiny.
Now, you can technically do that, but you have to pass a test whereby you say we have a compelling
interest for discriminating on the basis of race, and in discriminating on the basis of race,
we're doing it in the most narrowly tailored way possible.
And so for years, what colleges have been saying is that, well, there's something inherent.
Our compelling interest is that,
If we have a racially diverse student body, that is inherently meaningful.
It helps, you know, it has all these wonderful things.
It's rainbows and butterflies and whatever.
And the court for years has been fine with that.
And so what college admissions do then is they construct monoliths based on race.
All white people are privileged.
All black people are unprivileged.
They're not, they don't score well on tests and they need a leg up to get into college.
And the court pushed back on that today.
They said, look, we've been allowing college admissions programs to discriminate on the basis of race for decades because they say that we need a diverse student body because, you know, it helps the discourse.
It brings in new ideas.
But in reality, that compelling interest that they're telling us, it's not amenable to judicial scrutiny, which means there's no standards by which to measure whether this is ever working.
We're just...
taking college's words for it when they say,
trust me, we need a racially diverse body,
and it's great.
You just have to trust us.
So what the court said today is that's no longer going to fly anymore.
College admissions is a zero-sum game, and if you're going to discriminate on the basis of race, you actually have to have an objective, measurable reason for doing so and to do it as narrowly tailored as possible.
So what does this mean?
In the past, they say, well, in order to get different experiences from across the country, different backgrounds, different, you know, students from different houses of different wealth categories or whatever, we're going to use race to do this.
Okay, so let me go to TREF to respond.
Tira, go ahead.
Okay, so first of all, I'm laughing because the idea that college is merit-based,
that admissions to Harvard is merit-based in general is sort of really nonsensical.
If you know anything about their process, you know they give legacy preferences,
they give athlete preferences, they give wealthy kids who happen to know a dean of students
who can write a recommendation preferences.
This is not just Harvard.
Okay, this is all top schools and competitive schools.
And quite frankly, even if you look beneath that, what you'll see is kids with money have more opportunities for tutoring so that they can get higher scores on test scores, etc.
So I just think this idea that we're living in a society where we get rid of this one tip factor and it's going to be merit-based is...
really nonsensical if you actually know how these things work.
That's number one.
That's not really to do with the opinion,
but that is the backdrop against which everybody's making these arguments,
but, oh, my God, it's all going to be merit.
No, merit is nonsense.
And not only is it nonsense,
what you're basically saying and what the group that was...
One of the tenets of what the group that was arguing for this case, which it won, was saying that you just should look at objective measures, right?
If you look at, you know, test scores, for example, Asian students generally have to achieve higher test scores, etc.
As if test scores is a metric necessarily that is particularly relevant.
Now, I've said this before.
I believe that what's going to happen here is colleges will go and stop the use of some of the more objective metrics.
They don't really need to do test scores.
I think the essays are going to become increasingly important.
I agree with Suleiman that I do think, here's the reason why a lot of schools don't use economic
factors, because the financial aid decision is completely separated from the admissions decision.
So the admissions officers are not even supposed to know that kids have applied for financial aid.
Now, there are ways that you can mention in your essays, et cetera.
But basically what will have to happen at some of these schools, and I think it will is...
I would have an entire scoring process.
They have a five-point scoring process.
Excuse me. Can I just finish?
There are many schools that basically...
You know what?
I...
I'm going to pit my knowledge against yours in these instances. There are many schools that basically do not, will not consider financial aid in the emissions process. So they actually knock off that portion of the comment app, which asks, are you applying for financial aid? You don't have to look at certain factors. Okay. So they will not look at that in the admissions decision per se. Now, sometimes they look at it if you get to waiting lists or sometimes when they're going to the LOPP,
portion of this situation. Some colleges will then sort of say, oh, we're going to factor that back in,
et cetera, because we don't have enough money, blah, blah, blah, or we want more kids who have
economic need, et cetera. But basically, they're going to have to change the processes a little bit.
I think that they can do this. I think this court has been disingenuous, and I've said it before,
the Gruder decision, written by the way, Kyle Bysos,
Senator O'Connor, not by Ruth Ginsburg. The Grutter decision basically said that we hope things will be different in 25 years, so we won't need this. It didn't say 25 years is a cutoff, and by the way, 25 years is 2028, not today, but so be it. Okay. What I'm saying is that that was not, that was not a, oh, it must be done by then. And moreover, I believe particularly with the University of North Carolina,
Can I just finish? I'm almost done.
The University of North Carolina, I believe that that particular admissions process was pretty, you know, it had a little bit of a factor for race, but it really wasn't race as a determining factor, as some people have tried to claim.
So I think, and also we've never really looked at, oh, we can't analyze this in other cases.
The court was perfectly prepared to.
What is going on?
I don't understand how you all keep having this conversation saying, I don't think in shoes you don't have to walk in.
Stop saying what you don't think about a lifestyle.
You don't have to live it.
A lot of us understand what's going on here.
And it's, again, our lifestyle of repetitive processing that has never been addressed is the transparency.
We talk about equality so much.
And again, here we are.
whole LGBTQ communities expressing telling people not to interrupt them, not to have any of these situations going on.
And we're talking equality, where equality right here would simply say, if the seats aren't full, you can get admission to get in.
It does not matter who you are as long as you're able to get to college you graduated high school.
very basic, very simple, very equal.
However, we keep promoting this political agenda for a little bit of this, a little bit of that.
Like, what are we making, the power pub girls here?
Can we please get realistic with the conversation?
Some of us are way too old to be having this same conversation.
It's like, are you trying to drag it on for another 50?
years just so you can say you did just enough. This is where we got to stop talking about racism
isn't an application and we need to take it out because you used it to mandate the infrastructure.
I clearly know logically every single citizen of the United States did not have a slave.
So you all got to stop bouncing off that old-ass narrative. We get that already.
So my point is you're holding on to some...
We're not going to it.
We're addressing the direct impact of what you're neglecting.
That if you're only in the sound that nobody can judge.
Let me land this plane, Kyle.
Because of that.
Kyle,
I've never seen a man jump in front of a landing plane.
I swear to God,
I've never seen it.
So just let me land this safely on the tarmac.
And I promise you can speak right after me.
So all I'm saying, bro, is,
well, we keep talking about what isn't available
and why we keep addressing into talking about it.
It's because this is what was,
actually used to create an infrastructure.
Not only that, people manifested off of that.
Again, we talked about it, even for healthcare with COVID, right?
Complacency does not mean that you're innocent.
So if you understand something wrong is happening
and you still don't take the objective to actually address it,
you're a part of the problem.
So if you don't want to be a part of the problem anymore,
take a little integrity, show that you actually are going to walk the talk you're saying.
If you really stand with people, then
That means in a military sense, right?
Because I served the country.
We keep forgetting I'm a veteran.
I protected all of you.
And it didn't matter what your skin color was
because it didn't matter.
My job was to protect everybody all walks of life, right?
My life could get killed for all of you.
So if I could understand entire equality with transparency, I don't get how I come back home after going overseas, you know, away from my family, doing all this stuff to come back and find out the people who got the power to run this stuff and just make the difference are refusing to do it.
You know, I mean, we could all just come together and make this really wrong.
really easy, but we keep wanting to use this terminology that, hey, I didn't ever make a Webster's
dictionary. Let's just be real. Never made Webster's. Never made a school. But, uh, you know,
we get where I'm going. Yeah. So thank you for your service. I respect you doing that for us.
And, you know, I appreciate that 100%.
So I just want to go back a little bit to what the purpose of colleges and universities in American society.
What is the role of that?
Because I think that's really a debate that we should get into beyond this because
It's apparent to me from listening to a lot of progressives that they view the role of colleges and university to be socially engineering incubators for them to try to bring people together and to get them on board their agenda and to go out into society and to be activists.
Whereas my point of view is that their institutions of higher learning that train people for life skills should have the best and the brightest based on objective qualities and characteristics and that...
That should be their primary purpose,
and then the secondary purpose should be for finding people who have talent, have ability,
who don't have means, like objective means, like what Suleiman was saying,
they've been deprived of means, but they have talent to contribute to society.
And so those people should...
you know, get consideration for scholarships and for be rewarded to have opportunity to be around
mentors who can really make them into great contributors to American society. I think colleges
and universities have really just gotten bigger, way too big for American society. They play too
much of a role in it as far as I'm concerned. I think that they're, that American, young Americans believe
view it as colleges and universities as the gateway to being successful in American society.
And when that is not the case, I think that in a lot of ways, you can find your own way,
you become an apprentice, you can go to trade schools and do very well for yourself and your family.
See, Kyle, there we go.
I think that we're forgetting.
Colleges are really where a lot of these ideologies that I see in American society that's...
I view them as very deleterious to civil discourse and to us mutually understanding one another.
Because just...
They want to radically transform American society, and that is where they get their meaning in life.
It's not from religion.
It's not from working in a business.
It's not from, you know, providing for their family.
They just see activism as a means to an end.
And so they're like basically hammers going out, and everyone is a nail.
Everything is a nail.
And, uh,
I think that it's doing a lot of harm.
We can't even talk to each other and understand each other because we don't see the rules of universities.
Real quick, Kyle.
I think that's the backdrop.
But, Kyle, I'm asking you to reason with me.
Like, let's be men here real quick.
Like, is it safe to say that you can only make that assumption that college is over inflated, over promoted because you've
You've had ample amount of opportunity and access to get into it.
I grew up in Southern Iowa in a number of four counties in the United States.
I was an alcoholic and he was abusive.
And I had to go through that and also go to a university, four-year university, where I got a triple major with the highest honors.
twice at that university.
Then I went to graduate school.
Then I went to doctoral school.
So, yeah, you know, I did come from before.
I don't know.
Am I allowed to say it wasn't privileged?
I don't know.
Am I breaking some kind of rule if I say that I wasn't privileged?
I don't know.
But anyway, I'm just, you made an indifference.
I lived in South Carolina with a majority black schools.
Multiple majority black schools where I was a minority.
I was one of the few white students.
Come on, how can you ask a question?
Let Kyle finish his point, please.
And then I'll go to our call's going.
So let me go to Chad.
Chad, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
Sorry, Nick, I'll go to...
Let me go to chat, and then I can ask a question you want.
Chadica, what do you think?
What's your thoughts?
Yeah, this is a very interesting...
Very interesting, what we'd call it,
like, evolution of the discourse over this topic that I've been hearing.
You know, I've been cognizant of affirmative action
for probably, like, the better part of 10 years.
I want to say back in, like, 20...
11, so 12 years or something like that.
What I've noticed, though, is I hear a lot of black people complaining about this change.
I also keep hearing that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.
I also have noticed that a lot of...
A lot of ignoring of basic reality gets factored into this thing.
Whenever people are talking about it, you know, there's all sorts of things that are preventing
black people from, like, succeeding in America.
And one of them is not their inability to go to school.
And taking this away, I think, you know, I think they're still going to get into school.
I think you're still going to have liberals who are still going to abide by, uh,
you know, affirmative action rulings and, you know, make those decisions in their places of work.
I think that the liberals that ultimately support this decision have completely embedded themselves
in educational institutions in HR departments all over this country.
And so, like, I think that perhaps, like, the letter of law changing will not actually
change the outcome and reality of this.
Um, but to be quite honest, I mean, it's not black's inability to get into schools that's
holding them back. It's the absolutely atrocious level of crime that you find in black
communities. Quite frankly, as a mixed race person myself, um, you know, I don't want to be related
or I don't want to be like associated with, um, the, the negative, uh, behavior that,
that blacks on, on the whole will engage in. Let me not on the whole. It's what one third of them
that have been in prison or something like that. Um,
You know, I don't want, I don't want white people and Chinese people to like look at me and think like, oh, you know, I'm going to come up and jack they shit or something like that. You know what I mean? That's not something that I want to be associated with. But this always seems to get ignored whenever talking about this. You know, there's there's so many things that hold black people back and, um,
You know, I would say it's perhaps the fact that they're getting into fights in public schools and the videos are getting recorded and posted on world star hip hop.com.
I think that it's the fact that, you know, they're involved in gang-related violence, something like.
what, like 50% of gangs or something like that in America are made up of black people.
That's from a CDC report.
That's so high for 13% of the population.
You know, they should only be 13% of gangs.
But, you know, you see like literally like, what, three or four times their population percentage represented in gang membership rates.
And so, you know, I mean, these are really the things that we need to consider, not the fact that, you know, their SAT scores were low and they still got into college at one point.
Now they're not going to be able to get into college at all the same level.
That is extremely biased.
Hold on.
You'll have the opportunity to respond to me.
Yeah, Admiral, I'll let you respond here very shortly.
Yeah, yeah.
Chautical, if you want to wrap up here.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, for sure.
And so, I mean, you know, again, it's like, you know,
we'll talk about this like topical thing that's changed now that's been, you know, part of,
American society for the better part of what, like 60 years now or something like that.
But, you know, we won't talk about the other problems that actually are going to, you know, cause black people like very serious real world harm.
You know, we need to change their behavior, not...
the institutions around them.
You know, you can put, like, pigs inside of a university,
but they're not going to become, like, astrophysicists
and, like, get to the moon and shit.
You can put humans in a university,
and they're going to become astrophysicists and get to the moon, you know?
I mean, and that's just what it is.
It's like, I think that we're, like, literally dealing with,
a group of people who are being called people but not behaving like people and we really need to be like
be cognizant to that then you know if you're a black person you're listening to this and you're not
part of that i commend you in fact i look up to you as the um the highest form of humanity that exists
in society i'm not uh i'm not castigating all black people am i saying this but i am saying that we
do have a serious problem of black people not behaving like people and anyone can respond yeah
Yeah, Abro.
Because I want to say this my gosh.
I'll leave.
I'll let you respond right after Abro, because I told him he could respond to.
Abro, go ahead, and then I'll add Valter.
Yeah, a big shout out to you, Nick.
And shout out to everybody.
It's always.
Everybody and the listeners too, man.
This is a dope conversation.
So, you know, just to respond to what that narrative was that he was getting at is more of just a troll, right?
We don't have to listen to that stuff anymore.
Like, we as a community.
You like me to post the statistics and the Jumbotron that I'm citing?
Yeah.
Please meet your mic, sir.
So again, like I was saying, it's like one of those things where we understand as a community what we can do to advance and progress.
The funny thing is, I don't know if I'm in the twilight zone with everybody when we all just believe that the problem that's offending us isn't the problem offending the other 75% of the American population too.
You know, like the same thing that's bugging us over, which is tax dollars inflation and how difficult it is to buy actual organic food and groceries is the same thing whooping everybody else's ass.
And that's why you're all having these Twitter spaces and you're like having these conversations, right?
So it's like funny when we try to say the only thing holding us back.
No, the same thing that you didn't ever think was going to hold you back is now holding you back as well.
And that's the truth about it.
When you didn't think it would finesse you, it's right in your back.
door, snatching everything you don't have and putting you in the same pedestal. You actually
get to kick it with us more at rock bottom now, and you don't know how to survive it, but this is
where we've been for the entire, you know, the existence of the Western Hemisphere. And y'all just
didn't think we were actually paying attention to it.
You didn't think we actually kept up with the science classes or what was going on.
This is why I'm having an English said conversation with you all.
You understand exactly what I'm saying because I sound very articulate in my speech, right?
Who do you think I learned that from?
Right.
Not us.
It had to be one of your institutions that I had to attend.
And, you know, when you excel and get straight A's and, you know, those 4.0s and all that good stuff, yeah, you don't think that we're smart enough to understand beyond the basic application system that the H&R department, you know, human resources, where humans.
are the resources for the business infrastructure that keeps the move.
Also, because I was in, you know, with third Marine Expeditionary Force out there in Okinawa, Japan,
I'm one of those black people that lived around the world, you know.
So I understand logistics globally.
I understand humanitarian aid globally.
And when I actually have this conversation back at home, it's extremely disappointing.
I'm sorry, don't leave like that.
But I just want to understand like, you know.
I'm making this point, you know, I'll land this point again so we can get back to it, you know, that we're talking about the fact that this country has decided to overturn something that it shouldn't have never had to go through in order for us to have an existence into the college institution to begin with.
we should have been allowed free access from just the basic fact that we helped develop
help help help off blood sweat and tears you know people keep getting it fused like it just that
period it stopped no it's 2nd24 that period came it went but some of us actually remember
the history books everybody else tends to do that whole thing with celebrities when they go all
do some dope thing for 24 hours on social media and then like the next week you're on to
something else, right?
Let's stay focused and remember what this is actually about.
Because even when we do fix this government together, right, we got to make sure that the institution
we're going to be pushing our children and our children's children into are going to be able
to not have to have these conversations again, right?
That's the whole point of us actually doing this.
Let's do it.
If I can ask two questions, because make a point and ask two quick questions.
Because the first point is that I think that the comment about the lack of integrity when it comes to college missions is absolutely spot on.
We see it because colleges are motivated by money and also retention rates.
Retention rates comes in within legacies and all the points.
We see it within fraternity models.
We also see that also enveloped within the higher education process too.
So that's a very fair point to make.
But my two questions are, one is...
Does racism exist today?
And then two, is there a point of where, for those who believe that affirmative action should still exist, is there a point where affirmative action should stop existing?
And I do also want to make, and sorry, one final point is that I want to be persnicking in terms.
Saying that there is systemic racism does not mean that things are inherently racism or inherently cannot be racist.
Right.
There is a point to that.
So I think that we have to be persnicking with those terms because we do see racism.
Racism is learned.
Hate is learned, but that doesn't mean that things are or cannot stop being racist or hateful.
Those things can be distinguished.
So, again, two questions.
Is there racism today?
And then two, if affirmative action is needed, is there a point of where it's not needed?
And if so, what does that look like?
Okay.
Sean?
I just hot, there's no point, Kelly.
Well, let me, let me, let's first, because we brought Deshaun up here.
Let's get you answer to that question, Deshawn.
Welcome up to the panel.
Go ahead.
Good evening, everybody.
Glad to be here.
I'll just answer
Michael's question with
two points.
2015, I did.
I was a part of a lawsuit
against Allied Bank.
They were charging minorities.
A higher interest rate
than black people. They actually went to court
and lost that one. Yes.
I got my little $35,000 check in the mail.
So to that point, interesting enough, we're talking about college admissions,
and nobody's talking about urban education and how racism has plagued that area for decades.
I mean, we're going back and forth from college, you know, we're talking about crime,
but nobody has mentioned educations and how it has affected education.
our children, how it still affects our children today.
I mean, all you have to do is go into a nervous school that is majority black.
And look how, you know, our black children are treated.
Look how they're taught.
Look how they're disciplined, specifically our black boys.
So when we ask a question like that, I think we don't need to look no further than education.
Right.
And I think we are missing that point on this stage.
And I'll leave it there for right now.
The point is I was trying to just to bring up quickly.
Like, this entire argument is specifically about the Supreme Court action banning affirmative action.
And there's been a lot of just...
random point to get back to the main issue here the the act itself should be condemned is you know
the actual affirmative action premise should be condemned as discrimination and i think we came
to get a consensus on that point so before we're talking about different other issues about where
systemic racism is real or
a variety of the factors that do contribute to how students get to colleges or not.
We should be addressing first that main issue and then they can probably move on to the root of different problems.
But I still want to make sure for the people who are here, I guess who may not agree with this or not, do you think that this actual issue,
you know,
the Supreme Court action is justified
and do you think that it was,
in fact,
racist against certain groups?
Because I haven't heard consensus
on that.
Some people have said yes and others.
I think someone left,
Jamal left,
but some disagree with that.
So for those who are here,
just want to get a clear stance
of where you guys are on that.
But in general,
though,
the,
I guess the point about urban education.
Education has an impact, yeah, that's true, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there should be no discrimination against people based on their race and admissions processes.
So doesn't we talk about that main issue.
Just a quick point.
The topic of systemic racism and then if racism wants black today is relevant because it was the point in the O'Connor opinion in which stated...
affirmative action may should be allowed for the next 25 years because we're still dealing with it.
So if we're still dealing with racism, we're going back to the previous opinion, which that's relevant.
Let me address it real quick.
Brother, like, look, you call me Admiral Black Wolf, call me Black Wolf.
You don't have to, like, you know, be afraid.
I know Jamal is the cool guy probably, you know, token kid like South Park.
You know, I get the show, man.
It's pretty dope.
And it's funny sometimes.
So just laugh a little and breathe.
But look, is racism still existing?
We all understand terminology, right?
So if you go to the book and you search up racism and it tells you it's an idea, an ideology.
We know what an idea is, right?
Like, I just thought of one.
Let me see if I can get a touch with Mario so we can have this conversation.
So shout out to you, Mario, for letting us make this conversation actually happen, right?
So with this idea and the understanding of it, as long as people support an idea, let's use another example like LGBTQ unity.
You know, hey.
As long as people get behind it in society, this starts becoming existent.
That's how the dollar bill came to life, right?
So here we are looking at ideas, innovations,
turn into actual societal influences.
And this is why we have social media influencers.
So the reality is, if people are still practicing,
right?
this ideology, then it is still here.
And when we say, should affirmative action still be around, well, think about it.
Affirmative action is an immediate just decision to make something happen.
Apparently something is going on that shouldn't be, right?
And in this sense, we can't keep overlooking history.
These institutions had to be developed on an infrastructure.
People manifested off those infrastructures and that development.
So if we're going to address labor laws and wages through history
and how people were doing labor unions and strikes,
then we have to be all inclusive since that's what we want to do, right?
Want to be all inclusive.
That means everybody, we the people, meaning we, weed's not I,
meaning the few people that are actually making these decisions got to stop
Doing that 1% makes a decision for 99%.
I don't understand how you all are scholars
and you don't understand we let 99% control by 1%.
The math ain't math, right?
So let's just say,
from reaction with 20%.
Affirmative action would be us collectively,
with 10,000 deep in this space,
so I'd network with each other
and having more further conversations,
expanding that diversity that we talk about we don't need,
but actually understanding it's the beneficial way of the world,
This is how spices got from China to America.
And this is how oil got from one country to the next, right?
So let's be logistically sound and realistic in our conversation, right?
As much as we want to refuse it, if the world was on pure equality, everybody would be in our own tribalistic mindsets.
And we wouldn't have any issues in the world, right?
that's not the world we live in, right?
So let's have a real conversation, fellas.
You know what I'm saying?
Nobody's going to bite anybody's heads off the phone.
Right.
And that's a good point.
And I also recommend the Righteous Mind by John Hyde.
It goes into that and how boring of a world
if we were all truly equal and also truly equal in thought.
Yeah.
So, but the, the point I was making, I don't think you guys address what I'm saying about, because you, you, you, you talk about a lot of different issues, but 99% one percent and a rivalry of things.
I'm trying, I was trying to get this back to what, what the justification is for affirmative action and why, you know, in this case, you think that, um,
I might have a sure your position we say it specifically, but in general, the justification for allowing determination on, I guess, white or Asian student skin color.
I don't understand why.
I'm just trying to get a clear answer on that.
Can I try answering your question, Chief Trump, or?
Trumpster.
Sorry.
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah.
Okay, yeah, I mean, just to go directly to it, I don't think there's a justification whether you take it from the perspective of the majority opinion or even, frankly, the dissents, because the dissents are still, at least Sotomayor's dissent, is applying strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny is a two-step test, one, whether a compelling government interest exists.
And then if said compelling government interest exists, whether it's narrowly tailored or as has been described in matters of race discrimination, essential to further.
So you have to prove further that the regulation is no more restrictive than is absolutely necessary to achieve the goal.
So talking about compelling government interests, stopping discrimination is absolutely.
absolutely a compelling government interest, the equal protection clause, exists to stop discrimination by the government.
No one is disputing that.
Now, on to narrow tailoring, whether this is truly essential.
Well, I don't think there, I don't think that it exists anymore.
You have race-neutral alternatives.
Biggest one being, as I point out in the PIN tweet poverty that Michael Frazier tweeted about six hours ago, talking about economic status, background, communities, regions, inner cities, rural areas, addressing poverty.
That is something that where once you go into economics...
You're not subject to strict scrutiny.
You're subject to rational basis under the law, which all you have to prove for rational basis is a legitimate government interest and whether that policy is rationally related to it.
So that's the part one.
The judicial philosophy that I'm actually on is I like Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion, which calls for going to Justice Harlan's loan dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, which is that...
The Equal Protection Clause says what it means.
No state shall deny any person equal protection under the law.
Yes, we absolutely failed to apply that for 150 years,
and we're still failing to apply that by saying we're doing strict scrutiny.
The fact is the first time strict scrutiny was ever applied was in Korematsu,
which upheld the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps in light of World War II.
strict scrutiny is an exception to the 14th Amendment
and equal protection clause and I think colorblind
constitution is truly the way to go
if a law makes a difference based on race
it's unlawful that's my personal philosophy
though
yes and this is just on
Yeah, go ahead, Michael.
I'll let you respond, and then I want to shift right after that.
So go ahead.
Absolutely, just a quick point.
And TJ is absolutely right in the assessment and getting to Voltaire's point about the dynamics of the case in which the metrics, the metrics is what,
It's really outstanding. This is what I'm hearing in some of the arguments too, is that we're not qualifying the metrics in any sort of way that meets the purpose of which affirmative action was attended to a point. That was the point of the justice as well. How are we doing the metrics? And I think that this is a problem that we get into DEI education and also some of these safe zone trainings. Look, I'm queer to boot, but...
There's no substantive qualifications for studies that shows that I'm like the same bias we're talking about here exists in artificial intelligence as well, which is why it's all a problem.
Like the Supreme Court decision here that we're looking at is a pure example of what unaddressed non-transparent bias looks like on decisions that impact everybody who pays money to keep this system.
flow and running and in a full effect, right?
So this is where the problem lies.
The people that are saying no, have no reason to say no, unless internally, which we
don't all have time to go behind those doors and see what's going on, except for those
that do.
Where's your integrity?
You're talking to a man that put his life on the line for.
you, you're not putting your life on the line for me. I gave you blood even though we know
history shows I've already given blood ancestrally, right? So you can't talk about me playing a
victim. You can't talk about me not understanding because I still signed up for the military.
I signed my name on that contract. I know what I was doing. So there's no victim role there,
right? So this is where I say, can we all stop playing like we don't understand what's really
going on? You feel me? Like, just...
Let's be real. Let's just be real.
And it's cool.
Like, it's a conversation.
You know what I'm saying?
It's nobody gets harm from.
Let me make the point that hasn't been made yet.
And I've been on here for two hours trying to get it in.
You know, first off, you don't alleviate, if you listen to many of the black men that have spoken in this space, it has been a consistent tone of resentment for past evil that has been done to their people, their ancestors.
Well, you don't remedy that by creating the same paradigm, but inverting it.
And if you're going to be racist towards Asians and whites to alleviate evils of the past, we don't progress.
We just create new resentment, but for a different skin color.
And I just, for the life of me, I can't understand how people can advocate on behalf of race-based discrimination, which is what they're doing.
But they won't just say it overtly.
If you're going to, if you're going to advocate for that, I wish people would have the courage to explicitly state it.
And no one, no one's willing to do it. It's bizarre.
Yeah.
I think it doesn't make sense if you think that, you know, there's not like an immense amount of just like racial hatred that's encoded behind everything that's being said.
Like, once you come to understand that, it all makes sense.
Yeah, I've been trying to make this point, like, for a while.
I've been trying to specifically get to what to say that any of this race-based discrimination is bad.
And I've had a lot of song and dances, a lot of long-winning...
talks,
monologues,
maybe I want to call it,
but they have not answered
the pure question
about whether racial discrimination
against agents or whites
is acceptable.
If they feel like it's just
and they want to be more inclusive.
No type of,
no type of discrimination
should be acceptable.
Okay.
Now,
I've been sitting here for a while
listening to this.
And host and co-host,
I'm pretty ashamed of you
because,
like,
A little bit ago, you let this guy come in this room and basically take it into a atmosphere that we did not need.
He came in, he punched down on black people.
Now you let this guy Liberty basically come in here and do the same thing.
Now, hold on for a second. Hold on. Let me speak.
I'm sorry. I didn't not punch down on black people at all.
No, no, no, no. Listen, if a black person is telling you that what he heard is you punching down on black people, just like this Cedric dude, who I just blocked, did.
And the co-hosts and the host let them do this.
It is wrong, my brother.
It is wrong.
Now,
but Reverend,
we give everybody,
I know,
I understand that.
I understand that.
I understand it.
The talk is supposed to be about the Supreme Court banning
the actions of today.
It's not about gang members.
It's not about all of this here type of stuff.
And you're letting this room go to a place that it should not go.
It's not.
It's what I'm telling you.
We don't,
we're talking about how is this affecting people,
not just black people.
How's it affecting white people?
How is it affecting Asian people?
And then you let some,
okay,
come in here and say the things,
and say the things that he was said.
You guys should have stopped him from the get jump,
from the stuff,
get jump.
And then you should have kicked him out.
I'm not even exactly sure what you're talking about.
So one second,
what I will ask you,
Nick, let me just jump for one question.
Rev, the issue is, like, you need to specify what is the point that you have a contention with?
And the second point is, then you need to counter it.
There's been a number of comments made here on both sides that I both sides find offensive.
The whole point of this is that you're meant to counter it.
and just dispel any kind of information that you believe is problematic to educate people.
And both sides attempt to do that.
So we won't kick people out just because they said something you disagree with.
But what you can do is you can quite easily counter it and it's easy to do so.
So go ahead and counter the point.
And that's all we want.
Well, I've been trying to get back and forth.
My phone is acting up today for some reason.
But again...
When people come in here and start punching down on the black community, talking about games, hold on, let me finish.
And things of that sort, just like this dude, Liberty just started talking about how we, telling us how we should feel, right?
I don't come in these rooms and tell white people how they should feel.
Those, when did I do that?
When did I do that?
When you, from the get-jop, when you sit here going, we coming in here, as if we're mad, if we're upset.
We're not mad.
Yeah, you do, you sound upset and you sound resentful.
We're passionate.
We're-
Exactly.
Passionate about a situation that has happened to us over and over and over and over and-
It's in the blender.
over and over again.
Reverend, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, I'm going to go to.
I, I, I, I, I, I, I know.
Reverend, the mic's, but Mike's not, angry.
I'm not angry.
I'm trying to respect the problems that we're having all the time. I mean, I.
I mean, it's just confusion and terminology.
It's going to be affected at a table like this, right?
There's a lot of diversity, a lot of language barriers, a lot of people trying to understand for some people coming from.
So nobody is perfect in linguistics here.
And I think we've got to be a little more genuine and understand how much more thick skin we need at this table to make this conversation happen, right?
Listen, my understanding.
The entire point I was trying to make was that the resentment, the resentment that comes from past discrimination.
Liberty, I'm going to let you go, fam.
Just relax.
I didn't even take what you said offensively.
You see who decided to take you offensively.
People pick and choose what they find offensive.
I've been seen here the whole time with y'all with no issue.
Would none of you say, why?
Because I've saved lives like this before.
It doesn't bother me for the conversation.
I'd rather sit back, absorb other walks of life understanding.
If you make a mistake in a conversation,
expect it to come from me too.
I'm going to make mistakes.
So if I'm willing to say, all right, my bad,
made a mistake, you can say the same thing.
We can just get past it and keep the conversation flowing.
Don't analyze for the next man.
You don't want no man putting words in your mouth.
So let's keep the same respectability.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Fire with fire.
We're on the same team here because we're all trying to address a bigger picture.
Okay. Let me just,
let me just reiterate what the point I was trying to make.
The resentment that has come from past injustice is,
If you try to alleviate it with current injustice, you're going to create resentment amongst white and Asian people in this country.
I think it's counterproductive at its core.
It's circular reasoning that we have to be racist to alleviate past racism.
We don't actually get past racism by perpetuating it in a new iteration.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
Now, I understand that, but this is a thing, right?
You speak for one specific understanding.
I can hear him if he's if he's talking.
Yeah, yeah.
I think we want to...
Real quick, though.
I mean, Libby is passionate.
You can't...
Wait, can you hear?
Can you hear me, she?
Yeah, but I'm just going to point, real quick.
The...
Right, guys, I think what it is is there is some Twitter glitches today, so that's the reason people are getting muted and unmuted.
I've received a number of messages that this is happening.
So just for your information, nobody's getting muted.
There are Twitter glitches, and that's what's happening.
Denise, thank you for joining the panel.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this before we go to somebody else.
Go ahead, Denise.
Hi, thank you.
I appreciate having the space, and thank you for the invitation to talk.
So...
So much has been said.
So I'm just going to share some of my original thoughts based on the invitation.
I think this ruling is less catastrophic than people are framing it as a ban.
It is a ban on race-based.
Your original title was appropriate, by my estimate, on race-based decisions,
which are decisions that are rooted in the race-only of the person.
When I read through the...
decision, the concurring opinions and the dissenting opinions, I see throughout it the repeated mention of the history that necessitated affirmative actions in the first place.
I heard many of the brothers who came to the stage and...
talk about that history and also mention the ways in which that history has the deprivations,
the extractions, the economic extractions, the educational and other deprivations that
President Kennedy was trying to correct and, you know, Johnson added a whole bunch of people to and his version of the EO.
That hasn't been repaired because everybody's been added to it.
So people have talked about the idea that Negroes, the freedmen, the people who fought for affirmative actions to...
implement our constitutional rights that we've been deprived of from 1865 to the 1960 civil
rights era had not been fully implemented. And thus we were still deprived. And those deprivations
add up. And I think it is we're having...
conversations about race and people aren't acknowledging the realities that the 14th Amendment
and the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were specifically designed to repair Friedman,
those people who had been so deprived, who had been chattel slaves, building wealth of the nation
and not being able to benefit from it.
And it's not about what I think. It's about what they argued about. And I think what's going to be
interesting, because this isn't the last lawsuit on this by far, what's going to be really interesting
is how when universities and others start to actually implement programs for Friedman, which is
operationally defined by the program.
the radical Republicans, when they start to implement those programs,
as this edict says, people can be considered for discrimination.
Even in oral arguments for this case,
they probed the idea that Friedman, the descendants of U.S. slaves,
are protected by class.
One of the justices, and I can't even remember if it's Kavanaugh,
acknowledged that reality, that it is a class-based
protection because of the history of discrimination in this nation.
It's going to be interesting to see how people respond to that.
Because what we can't have is this.
We can't have people saying, yes, we understand the discrimination.
Yes, we know to some extent it's still happening.
Yes, we know that there are even economic estimates that came out in 2020 about the cost
of just the last 20 years, but we need to move on now.
I think that's grossly unfair.
And so while we shouldn't be discriminating against white people, it's not a discrimination
against white people.
It's a repair of the people who have had been historically harmed.
And we have to be right over that as well.
Yeah, sure.
So I want to go, I'm going to go here real quick.
I'm going to hear an audience question.
And again, reminder, bottom right hand corner, guys, you can leave your questions and
I sit here and my job is literally sit here and read them.
So definitely put them bottom right hand corner.
I want to ask you, Denise, the main demographic that is affected by affirmative action in a negative way when it comes to college admissions are Asians.
We're not talking about white people.
We're talking about Asians.
that are, you know, being shut out.
You know, they apply to a college such as Harvard or UNC.
Those are the two that were directly involved in the case that came today in the Supreme Court.
Why? Is that not racism? I mean, we are shutting out a minority in the United States.
you know, just based on race and nothing else.
Is that not unfair?
Is that not racism?
Denise?
My mic is glitching Twitter.
A couple of things about that.
One, we have to look at the arguments for those particular cases against those institutions
and their practices, specifically and particularly.
And if I recall correctly, there were some nuances there.
Right.
There were other elements that I recall from the evidence that was based on things like leadership, personality, gregariousness, yada, yada, yada.
Those things are institutional issues.
Nothing that those, and when you talk about discrimination, we're not talking about the number of women who get gender-based preferences.
We're not talking about legacy emissions, which take up the vast majority of such things, which discriminates, if you want to say that, against everybody, including the freedmen.
who, there are 50 some odd million of us if you want to do the upward estimate of that.
So let's not conflate the individual practices of those institutions with the larger obligation
that the nation and its institutions who had slaves and use them as collateral, the obligations
they have to those free people. And I know while it's,
you know, the best way to gain momentum in America
is to make the Negro your enemy,
which is actually what has happened here.
Now, they talked about legacy.
I'll have to look at,
how did you get to that conclusion to see if they address that?
This is a very important point.
How did you get to that conclusion
that the best way-
He just hates white people.
That's how.
Don't know, man.
I'm sorry, Nick.
It'd be really helpful.
Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry, Denise.
There was like four people talking at the same time,
so I didn't meet the entire room.
But, but, but now, how did you get to that conclusion
that the best way to succeed in America
is by putting down black people?
That's, that's a pretty important charge.
So let's make sure you understood,
let's make sure you understood what I'm saying.
The best way to succeed with this kind of case
about affirmative action or ending any kind of preferential treatment or ending or uprooting the
protected class statuses that the people who were here at the time decided were important
because they understood the cost that those groups have borne.
The best way to attack them is to attack the Negro special class statuses in particular.
That is what I am saying.
Okay.
So Chatticle, let me bring you in on this.
I'm curious, do you agree with that?
Is that the best way to go about this?
It kind of cut out.
You can reiterate.
It kind of cut out for me.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, Denise, reiterate your point in, you know, like a few seconds here, just so Chattaca.
I know he heard most of it, but reiterate your point real quick.
People are trying to attempt to...
deride the protected class statuses for the people who were founding populations of this nation.
Negroes, freedmen, descendants of slaves being one, Native Americans being other.
The best way to gain momentum in your attack against those things and framing them somehow as racist
because they get in the way of your newfound ambitions,
is to go after the things that black Americans,
Negroes, their protected status,
because Negroes are an easy target that people can and tend to pile onto.
Notice they didn't go after legacies, which are mostly white people.
Statical?
The point, can I say, really quick?
10 seconds or 30 seconds? That's okay?
Yeah, sure, sure.
Yeah. So you know is what the Mies did. So after all that talking, at the very end of that, she said that so that the racism against the white and Asian students is okay because it's repairing for. I absolutely did not say it was okay. Lineage based quotas are fine with.
me. I don't think Negroes should at any point. I don't think Negroes at any point should be lumped in. So I'm talking about Friedman. Friedman should be a special set aside altogether that should not be in competition with any other people, particularly at institutions like Harvard.
Denise, Denise, can you play as collateral? Period.
Denise, Denise, can you briefly, briefly summarize Friedman for the audience?
Denise.
Yeah, it takes a while for the mic to cooperate.
Friedman is the class of people that the framers of the post-Civil War Constitution,
those folks who codified the 13th, 14th, 15 amendment conferred that Friedman protected class
on the Negroes and their children, their descendants, who were freed and emancipated from slavery.
So there were three groups there.
It was the actual people who were enslaved at the time throughout the nation.
It was the free Negroes of various types of ethnicities, right?
So you think about the Aboriginal Negroes, the mulatto Negroes who are part native and all those types of things.
And then, yeah, it was those three.
So those folks were freed from the threat of slavery per the 13th Amendment.
And with the 14th Amendment, they imposed.
implemented programs to repair the extractions, the economic extractions, the educational extractions
that those formerly enslaved people and their descendants had endured. Those are the freed men.
And they also said that those freedmen were the Negroes who were emancipated, those three groups that I mentioned.
So the point was like...
I made a point that Denise did not.
I got interrupt it first of all.
And then she wasn't my entire point.
The issue was, again, we have a recording of this.
We all look back at this and watch this whole thing.
But you, again, the very end of your statement,
you said that you're okay with it.
And this is-
No, I did not.
You just say you're for, are you for affirmative action or against it?
I am for a Negro affirmative action as originally intended.
Now, if you think affirmative action is racist,
then that's your own cognitive deficit.
That is not mine.
we have recorded this i'm watching replay that too and i'm watching it back on my own spot my
side of this but no it's funny because you so you said negro affirmative action that's your
direct words just there to make sure you're keeping track um so you see like you got to understand too
like what we like to do is bounce around and find the weak points and conversations where i've had
a discussion with you and we actually got to the bottom of that as mid right so what i what i wouldn't allow is you to
the weak point in the conversation to kind of conflate the argument.
Well, we're basically, you know, just allowing people the freedom to speak, right?
I thought we're all allowed to God given right.
You know, just allow her to have her peace.
And, you know, I mean, don't like really tell you.
If you really got to go play it back and prove what she's saying, you're going to have to wait to do that.
That's just what happens in conversations, man, thick skin.
Is it in you?
Like gator, you know what I'm saying?
Like, shit, sometimes you just go out to miss a couple of points in it.
Go play the playback.
If you really rock,
whether you'll follow her,
y'all'll get each other a follower,
you'll have a conversation like adults could.
Like, you know, can we do that?
up to me. If I had a different point, it'd be great because we're having a conversation is two-way dialogue. So if you could be muted, or if my question point, it would be great. The point was trying to make for Denise, specifically, not you, was that you said that you're for a one-race affirmative action, which is exclusionary to a variety of other races. So if you were for, I guess, prioritizing one race and excluding another race, do you think that is racist?
Affirmative actions were designed to repair the people who were enslaved in this nation.
And it is unfortunate but true that that was a particular group of people.
It does not apply to black immigrants.
It does not apply to black immigrants.
But, Denise, you're saying repair the people that were enslaved in the United States.
It's not just reparations.
It's also their dissuaries.
ascendant, sir? How do you not understand that Martin Luther King, Jr., a Negro called at the time, is also a freed men? That is the point. We're not talking about generations ago. I have siblings who were born during the time of this stuff that we're talking about, the implementation of affirmative actions. It's not generations ago. We're talking about people who are still
alive today and slavery and Jim Crow are a continuation of an unbroken chain of harm to a specific
line of people and those people happen to be the people who were enslaved in the nation and
the people who were there at their emancipation decided that they needed special considerations
and it would be wrong.
really against the 14th Amendment to suggest that those people throughout their documents who talk about
Negroes and the black freedmen and the like were colorblind when clearly they were not.
They were looking at that class of people and they weren't talking about all black people.
They were talking about those people who had been subject to slavery and were freed by the integrity of the nation and its leaders at that time.
But, Denise, you get the history right, but you get the modern application so wrong.
The history, as you pointed out, I'll trust you on that.
I'm going to explain. I'm just giving my conclusion in advance.
Now, you mentioned three categories of individuals that constituted freedmen, slaves, freed blacks, and their children.
All categories of those three individuals.
I said also the people who were enslaved by Native Americans, but of course the descendants of the same.
Your exact words were their children, which is what the Freedmen's Bureau applied to.
It was their children.
It was not their descendants all the way down at infinitum.
Their children are descendants, and it does indeed say that.
Can I please finish?
I did not interrupt you at any point, except for the time when your mic cut out.
Please let me finish.
Under the plain text of the 14th Amendment, it says no person shall be deprived of the equal protection under the law.
Yes, Friedman's Bureau for the categories of individuals you mentioned, that was absolutely justified to make sure that Friedman were off to the right start.
There is no former slave...
or their children who are alive today. None. Zero. Okay? So now we have to go back to the plane text.
A man just died this year who is the last child. He's dead. He's dead. He's dead.
You can't be an absolutist, like, you can't be an absolutist unless you're able to state those facts and put the resources.
You know how that works. So it can't be these statistic majors if we're not going to actually show people where those facts actually go.
I'm saying there's no living person who was ever a slave unless we're counting human trafficking, of course, but I don't.
But let's go to those plain texts.
It's no person.
It doesn't say no freedmen.
It's no person.
So now we talk about the issue.
Denise, can I please finish?
I never interrupted you even.
We did let me speak.
We did let you speak, T.J.
Finish your point and then I'm gonna go to,
I'll let Denise respond and then I'm gonna go to chat.
So go ahead.
It really is as simple as far back as the 1890s,
the first time the Supreme Court took on a race discrimination case
in Plessy versus Ferguson, the lone dissenter who said discrimination is wrong,
said that the Constitution is a colorblind one.
It is meant to apply to all individuals now under the Eco Protection Clause.
We have failed to apply that.
It's about time we start doing so.
It says person.
It is for everyone.
And I mean, just looking at the pure facts of it, Harvard's consideration of race has led to an 11.1% decrease in the number of these Americans admitted to Harvard.
I mean, there was discrimination against another race.
But T.J., do you believe in genetics, genealogy, lineage, heritage, any of that? Does any of that apply to you?
Not under the law.
I mean, does it apply to you?
That means it does apply to you in some way, just not lawfully.
So that means it's an application, right?
Sure, of course.
Culture matters.
And so the fact is weird.
It's a work with me, T.J., I don't want to cook you too bad.
I just want to know.
If you're talking equality, right, and then you're talking about lineage and heritage
and that's applicable to you, then in humanity sense, why can it be applicable to
everybody else?
And their lineage and heritage have a different tradition than you.
What is the problem?
I'm not saying that it can't.
What I am saying, though, is that the Constitution, which I took an oath to, I took a oath.
You said it's non-existent.
Remember, it's recorded.
So you said it's non-existent.
So what is the problem with how?
heritage or lineage that actually can relate to history.
Aren't you the person doing the same thing as a human being?
Do you not do the same thing when you look back in your history book and your book
at your great grandparents and your parents' accomplishment and stuff?
Do you not do that?
Well, my family of history books were kind of burned down in a fire, so I don't really do that anymore.
But...
Like, hold on, TJ.
If they were burned in a fire, do you not have a brain?
Do you not use a brain with memories?
Dude, I was joking with you there.
They actually were burned out.
But I'm just being fantastic.
But let's be serious as men.
Like, do you not go back from time to time as a man and think about the past that got you here today?
Sure, the past matters.
But once again, though,
I don't know, look, man, here's the problem.
Can I please address your point of why I just speak.
I dispute the relevance of what you're saying,
because at the end of the day, yes, that can matter to you as a human being.
Where it cannot matter is in application to the 14th Amendment,
which is a false of a constitution to a non-booked oath.
walk, come on, TJ, like nobody on the planet Earth walks around telling the next person
in a state of equality what should and shouldn't matter to them.
This is why we have this whole equality situation going on for the, you know, LGBTQ community,
right?
So you've got to be honest, man.
You got to stop dictating things you don't have the ability to dictate.
You believe in religion, right?
So if you believe in God-given rights, where's everybody's applicable God-given rights
and what you're talking about right now, man?
Like I'm just saying, man, I'm not saying you're not.
having the ability to have the freedom of speech,
but I'm saying if you're going to have a free speech,
are you going to be genuine with it?
Like, if I can respect,
you can look at family lineage, right?
Why can't you?
I'm being entirely,
I'm being entirely genuine.
What I am saying, though,
is that this conversation about lineage,
about heritage,
it has no place under the equal protection law.
I'm not here to talk.
You're politicizing a fundamentally legal issue.
You're talking about a legal issue.
That's the entire problem.
This is the entire problem here.
We're trying to turn a legal issue into a political one.
This isn't politics.
Let's start with the title of the conversation, right?
The title of this conversation is about the Supreme Court.
That alone has history, affirmative action.
All right.
history, the debates alone have history, TJ.
So what we're doing here is being unrealistic.
It's obviously like grandstanding at that point.
I mean, I understand.
I can point out more things that we should all be able to point out to.
But remember, I'm the dumb black guy.
I shouldn't know any of these things.
But it's okay.
I'm helping people walk in the path of understanding.
No one's ever said that.
No, I mean, I'm cracking jokes.
See, you thought you was the only one that had humor, man.
That's what I'm saying.
Like, get a little sensitivity about your system, dog.
But I'm telling you, bro, if there's history in everything, even in the terminology we use, no human being can dictate what part of history belongs to each other.
And that's called respect and genuine.
Right.
No, I'm not trying to disres.
I'm not trying to disres anyone here.
What I'm trying to say, though, is that the 14th Amendment says no person, not no freedmen.
That's the entire point.
The 14th Amendment applies to everyone.
The thing, though, it's like, Tia's making points specifically illegal.
Can I address that now?
Because I'm pretty sure I was next to respond to T.J.'s comment.
So I would like to have the mic to speak freely and without interruption.
I would appreciate that.
Sure, Dinez.
Yeah, yeah.
60 seconds, please.
Yeah, sure.
So when you look at the arguments...
and the congressional minutes of the deliberations about that.
They were talking about if it should say Africans born in the United States, right, that particular language.
So people need to read those things that they were discussing.
And when they talk about people in person, they were making sure they were clear that the freedmen were no longer considered three-fifths human, counted as property and chattel.
They were people in person.
If you doubt that, look at the fact that United States sued Wong Kim Ark to get him up out of here saying that he wasn't a citizen.
That was potentially wrongly conferred because his parents had relinquished there.
citizenship or their
permanent legal domicile
to the United States. Not only that, Native Americans didn't fall in the 14th Amendment,
even though they were born inside the United States. They had to have their own separate
law to make them citizens in 1924.
So, uh,
Chatticle, let me bring you in here real quick.
I want you to, I know you've been trying to jump in here for a while.
So I want to let you jump in, but then, you know, I'm going to have a follow-up question for you as well.
So Chatticle, jump in.
Give me your thoughts.
Yeah, a couple things come to mind.
I've looked into this couple of pretty extensively ways.
One of the things that I was really surprised to find out
was that the overall literacy rates of Black Americans
were much higher under Jim Crow than they are today.
And so I wonder, it's like if they had maintained their same literacy rates,
we'll be dealing with the same economic inequality that we're seeing.
And would Denise even be advocating for race-based discrimination...
only for black people who were descendants of slaves.
And do you think that Denise would have been literate enough to figure out that Friedman only applied to the children,
not the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, the great-great-grandchildren?
Well, if you read the deliberations, it does indeed talk about their families and obviously
birthright citizenship, which they also conferred in the 14th, tells you that their rights
conferred again to their children. Why would the framers frame something like that, which
wasn't going to confer downward for the rest of time? They were interested in repair, and it's
very obvious that you and many others are...
are interested in perennial, ongoing cultural wars when we have much more important things to deal with.
No, I went to YouTube college.
I taught myself to code on free.
I don't care.
And so have I make over $100,000 a year.
And so do I.
Congratulations.
It means nothing.
You should be smarter then.
No, I am smarter.
I've also got like individual business ventures and stuff.
But it's to drive home the point.
It's like I don't really care about this stuff because I'm successful.
I think it's like all the drug dealers and like the whores.
That's beside the point. Can we move the conversation, please?
We're talking about affirmative action.
So all of that is just beside the point, right?
Is it beside the point?
Because affirmative action seems to be that, and the arguments that have been here today
are that black people don't have the opportunities because they are oppressed.
You have chattical coming in here who is...
you know, based on what he said, is successful, has been able to make it in America.
So, you know, is affirmative action necessary?
So that is the question here.
It is related.
But go ahead.
Well, yeah.
I mean, I think it is necessary because I hate white people and I only want black people to get good opportunities.
The thing is, we've been to space for, for, like, how many hours?
I'm even sure.
And I've been asking this question specifically, just about if you think that it's racist against Asian and white people.
And I've got a variety of responses.
And I've not really gone a coherent response to anybody who would...
It's the admiral speaking.
Which one of those responses?
You know how the rank works in the military admirals over chiefs?
So I think real quick.
What answer did you actually gravitate to?
Because you keep saying you've got a variety of responses,
but as men who understand how communication works,
what did you pick to actually take into an answer?
When you keep saying you heard a variety of responses,
where did you hear an actual response you can alleviate or elaborate on, you know?
Yeah, I found out.
I'll have a point of a great.
It's who I respect being able to listen to someone and be quiet and then listening to my person and be quiet.
I've been very quiet listening to everybody here.
I haven't interrupted or anything.
But Ambril and other people have been interrupting a lot.
So if I can mention the point about being interrupted, that would be great.
It's called conversation two-way street.
So, let's get a chat.
And you have interrupted.
Don't get sensitive.
Yeah, well, Amber, I've been very respectful to you.
I'm not sure of the same about me.
But anyway, the point I was trying to make again, before I was interrupted,
was that I haven't got a clear response about the calling out of
In this sense, why I'm seeing it as selective racism against Asian students and white students.
This is a problem.
There shouldn't be a debate.
There shouldn't be any discrimination based on race.
I don't want legacy student stuff.
I want that gone to.
As a middle class American who apply to colleges, I wouldn't want to be beat out because of my race or because someone has a higher status than I do in society.
So it's like it's like what about isn't I'm hearing about the legacy stuff.
Well, chief question, right?
Yeah.
First of all, like, I, I, Chief, can you hear me?
Yeah?
So, in terms of, like, I made my point earlier about what it shouldn't be based on race
and it should be based on economic factors, so therefore...
And so whoever's economically disadvantaged, it should be based on that.
There should be some kind of system in place.
Like it shouldn't be just affluent people getting a better opportunity
because they've got better education because that's not about intelligence.
So that also applies to Asians because Asians, generally speaking,
are more from affluent people.
backgrounds from from more affluent areas and so that would impact them so what do you think about
this situation let's say it's just me and you you've i've gone to a like a posh school i've got the
best teachers i've received the best education uh
And so obviously I'm going to get better grades.
You might be smarter than me, but you didn't get the better teachers.
You didn't get the better schools.
You didn't get the better grades.
For that reason, you didn't get the better grades.
Should I have a better right just based on the fact that who my parents are to get into university or college?
So that's why I'm saying that.
So what do you think about that, Chief?
Got a point about this.
I think our country.
Our country is we spend the most money per student of any country.
We spend so much money on one student.
And some states actually spend, well, each state depends.
Some states spend a lot more on one student than other people with very different results.
until we can get that part figured out
where why we're spending so much money in education
we're not getting a return on our investment
then we can go and figure out the entire
that's fine that's a separate point but this specific point
because the issue is if you don't have
if you don't have a system
that takes that into consideration
and have a very binary system
you're essentially going to have
a large proportion of people,
a large proportion of certain races as well,
a large proportion of poor people.
Essentially, it's not about race,
it's about poor people.
You have a large proportion of poor people
who won't get into universities
and won't get into colleges, Chief.
Yes, so to answer that.
So my response is,
we shouldn't have a system in place
that excludes based on,
you know, based off of race.
So I'm against, so to...
No, no, so I'm not saying race.
I'm saying financial, yeah,
because...
When you, once you go, and the reason I'm saying that is once you go into the aspect of financial capability and poverty, then generally speaking, more black people, it will benefit more black people because they below the, black people, the fact that black people achieve less is because of a major factor is economic aspects.
And when you, when you talk about Asian people, when you talk about Asian people, chief, they, uh,
they achieve better because of them being from more affluent backgrounds, Chief.
They actually tried controlling for this of college and then admissions a while back.
And what they found is that when controlling for historic poverty,
it benefited more white people than black people.
I'm not saying historic poverty. I'm not saying historic poverty. I'm talking about
current financial situation no it would still be the same thing there's significantly more
poor white people in america than there even are black people that's not true there's not that's
not true there's more black people under the poverty line than white people no there's only
44 million black people in america and there's like what something like 60 000 white
people are better no no but proportionally so more percentage of black people are in under
yeah but i'm just saying in raw numbers yeah
Chief.
So the answer again, so I see this in terms of the situation of hand.
I'd say point one, we should not, the solution should not be to discriminate based off of race.
Point two would be, I guess, in that sense, it would more, it would be more of a, how I phrase it,
if we put so much money into education,
and if we're even trying to,
we spend as of right now currently,
millions and millions of dollars on,
sorry, billions actually,
and we're not really getting a return on investment.
So if we,
if we were to really address that,
it would be on like a,
I guess,
I guess education basis of reforming that.
I think there is a lot of miss spending for education across the country.
However, I think that the,
that question is a whole separate topic in terms of how to refix education,
you know, or whatever, or how to ingrate technology into there
or how to teach because we are behind, you know,
for a variety of other countries.
We're ranked like, think what, like,
I'm not sure what ranking we are on education based off of the world, but we can be better than that in general.
However, let me go.
Let me ask Admiral.
Admiral, what do you think?
Admiral?
Yeah.
My bad. My mic is glitching, man.
But again, like, I see, again, we're still dancing to me.
Like, I don't think Chief is just actually trying to accept the fact
nobody made the statement that we're excluding anybody.
We've multiple times said, we the people in this space.
So if we the people is all-inclusive, there's no way that anybody is trying to...
Here, brother, let me explain the confusion here.
There's a limited amount of admissions to college every year, right?
So if you're going to give...
any sort of favoritism towards any sort of group based off of ethnicity,
that has to be to the exclusion of another.
So while the framing appears to be that,
this is just about benefiting,
you know,
descendants of slaves,
well,
it has to be to the detriment of others.
And based off of the statistics I've seen,
it is largely Asians and then secondarily white people that are being
discriminated against to the benefit of,
you know,
other minorities.
It's just on its face, it appears and in practice, it is discriminatory and in fact, racist.
And I just don't see how you get around that fact.
Okay, I have a question.
Like he said, we keep dancing.
And I have a question.
And I want somebody to answer it.
How can we keep having this conversation when we're talking about affirmative action and race, but we're not talking about legacy?
And we're not talking about those who pay their way in.
Like, is that, is that equal?
Is that on the same playing field?
I really need to understand this.
Because we talk about race, but it seems like everybody is going straight to race,
but we're not discussing legacy and all the other admission tactics that are used.
But that thing, John, I'd actually love to this best legacy, if possible.
But the thing that's majorly being ignored here is this transparency.
and we keep talking about moving into a world with the evolved transparency where right now
we're not even understanding that there was no transparency as you mentioned liberty right if these
people are actually racist and against the communities like this why don't they just say it so
people could stop voting for them right let's have that type of integrity because they're
requiring that to be some of the basic job requirements for just some type of stepping stone
in life but the people actually in charge of
millions can't seem to have this integrity point where they can just say, oh, well, I'm just plain out biased against certain people and communities.
So this is why it didn't happen.
We wouldn't have to have this conversation that those overturning it would also not make us wait 300,000 years to find out what was the real point behind it.
You know, that's what Transpian.
So, I asked the question,
did I finish that point?
Yeah, so I can't remember you ran.
Deshaun finished his point.
And my answer, a couple, like, five minutes ago,
I specifically said I don't want
their legacy stuff with admissions.
I literally said this.
So we should be having an overall conversation
because what's happening is now
we're tilting this conversation more, you know,
to...
to the black student population.
So that's where this conversation is going.
And we're going to really talk about affirmative action.
We need to let everything out on the table and talk about that.
But as Denise mentioned earlier with the decision,
they didn't even take race all the way out.
From my understanding.
And Denise, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Did you say that or?
Correct.
Yeah, they did not.
So it's not even all the way out.
So what do we, my question now is, what are we talking about right now?
What are we really talking about when we peel this back?
Deshawn, I'm highly sympathetic to getting rid of legacy.
The-
Wait, wait, I'm sorry.
Can I just finish the point?
Because that's what I was talking to me.
And I was trying to finish the point before I interrupted again by people.
The point where I was trying to explain was that I mentioned legacy stuff.
We mentioned this several times in the space in the very beginning of those probably legacy issues as well.
What people are doing is that what about is I'm saying, what about this?
What about talking about this?
we're talking about one specific issue right now about the affirmative action he wants about
legacy issues okay i've already talked about that i already said that that's that's an issue too
i've already talked about that as a white middle class person who applied for colleges i had to go
against affirmative action and i was legacy people so i've already spoken up and said many times
if you were paying attention to you know on this space about the admissions process from a person
who applied to schools recently
and talked about how the affirmative action was bad
because it's a determination based of race
and legacy stuff.
So I've answered the question.
We're not, no one's not talking about it,
but we're trying to state on this specific topic.
If you want to respond to that,
you can, while you finish, like respond to that
and we can have a discussion not talking over people
and interrupting it.
But this isn't something new, right?
I mean, conservatives have always been against affirmative action.
This isn't like where they've changed their stance in like the last like five,
10 years, right?
Like 30, 40 years ago, I was hearing conservatives complain about affirmative action.
And that's correct, right?
I mean, for the conservatives that are in here,
conservatives have always been against affirmative action.
I don't want to speak for them.
You can confirm that.
Is that right that you've never been for affirmative action?
Correct.
I'm a conservative.
I'm also a Republican, like a Republican.
Okay, okay.
Well, the original affirmative action was from...
Executive Order 10925 President John F. Kennedy in 1961 that included a provision that government contractors, quote, take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated during employment without regard to the race, creed, color, or national origin.
So the conservatives in here have already said that they're against that from the very beginning.
LBJ, a Democrat in 1965, issued another executive order.
11248 in 1965, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin by those organizations receiving federal contract and subcontracts.
And in 1967, he amended the order to include sex on the list of the attributes.
So...
from the beginning affirmative action was ensuring that applicants and employees are treated
during employment without regard to their race creed color or national origin.
And so the conservatives have already said that.
And I just want to point out how unbelievably dishonest this guy is because he's trying to make
the claim that modern affirmative action, which openly gives preference to individuals of
specific races, is the same thing as old 1960s were to.
That is exactly what we just did.
It is dishonest.
You are an intellectually dishonest.
No, that is bullshit.
Yes, you are.
You are.
You are.
You are.
You are.
Hearing of the personality is despicable.
Yeah, I was alive in 1998.
You're a liar.
You're dishonest.
You're a liar.
You're a hack.
That was not struck down in this decision.
Affirmative action as defined by SCOTUS.
In this case was.
Yes.
I didn't ask if.
You are such a liar.
If you ask if they always get against affirmative action.
And they confirm yes.
Okay, well, are you for free speech?
And if you're for free speech, does that only apply to quill pens?
Because when it was put down, it was only a quill pen, you're a liar.
You're dishonest.
You're right.
Okay, okay.
Okay.
Dude, just quit being a fucking liar.
And you can't argue with.
that that's your problem
no it's because you're a fucking liar because
no one understands
guys guys you both are just being a bit really rude
let me go to Michael Michael
you got your hand up go ahead
I think that the point moved on from this
that I wanted to make so I'll
go ahead and pass on chime in
no problem let's go to Calisi
I think I'm muted Calisi.
Yeah, no, I, it was muted by the host.
Thanks, listen, really interesting discussion.
Now, I'm British.
I've got no stake in the game here.
But what I will say is that there's been a lot of talk about the fact that the banning of this affirmative action is a racist action against the black community, the African American specifically, the African American community, and therefore it's racism and there should be equality and things like that.
I'm not denying that there are aspects of racism in American society, as there are in generally in Western countries, including in the UK.
We have institutional racism and this has been proven through various different kind of government investigations and reports.
But here's the thing, if you truly want equality, then you have to fight for that equality.
When you've got congresswomen, and I'm just going to take it a little bit out because people have taken it out here.
You know, you've gone into history and things like that.
So when you've got congresswoman like Rashida Talib saying, I think she was in Detroit, this is the beautiful, the most beautiful and blackest and beautiful state or city ever.
I didn't see the African-American community raise an eyebrow or a finger to say, hang on a minute.
That's quite racist because there are a lot of different nationalities that live in Detroit.
So when you say the most beautiful and blackest, you're excluding all of those.
When I heard Biden say, if you don't work for me, you ain't black, he's just excluding every other race and nationality.
I didn't hear the African-American community stand up at that time and say, hang on, we want equality.
We don't want preferential treatment.
That's not true.
We didn't even like that.
Wait, wait, let me finish.
I didn't interrupt to anybody.
I waited.
Excuse me, I waited.
I literally have waited 20 minutes to speak.
Right.
So please, let me finish.
Do not interrupt me.
I didn't interrupt anybody.
Do not interrupt me.
Let me finish my point.
And then you can address me, okay?
Because it's just rude to jump in.
So you can address me once I finish.
I'm not going to listen to you until I finished.
So have that decorum.
Okay.
So my second point is, no, wait, shush, my second point is that...
When you go into historical injustices, I accept that they have happened,
but they have happened across different communities.
And yes, the African American community historically has suffered.
But we're in 2023 right now, okay?
This banning of affirmative action is taken in 2023, June the 30th, specifically,
or 29th, 2023.
So when you try to go into what happened in the 50s, 60s, 70s or whatever,
you're actually just causing more division.
You're not addressing and uniting to deal with the issues of today.
And this I find is very divisive.
And actually, a lot of the, you know,
I have a lot of American friends who come on my spaces from all walks of life,
from all backgrounds,
Generally speaking, they agree that they want unity, but this rhetoric of going into history and talking about, you know, what happened centuries ago or decades ago is very divisive.
That's what I want to say.
Bear in mind, I don't have a stake in the game, but I'm telling you this is how it looks.
Then you shouldn't have spoken about it because why not?
Why not?
Why not?
What happens in America affects the rest of the world?
Why not, Denise?
What happens in America affects the rest of the world?
You just said you don't have a stake in it.
So why are you?
I personally, I'm not flat and I'm not American, but I haven't affected.
It doesn't impact me.
You all sound down talking over.
Guys, guys, guys, everyone's talking over.
So let me go to Admiral, Admiral, okay, go for it.
Yeah, like this is where, okay, like, the political shit's starting to go out the window because y'all do this shit on television.
And in the real world, we just don't give a fuck.
Because now where you're pissing me off is where you're pretending to understand the atrocities that apply to our community.
When you're 4,000 fucking miles away and you wake up every day eating tea and crump, it's not giving a goddamn, what the fuck is going on here?
I don't give a damn about you jumping on a Twitter space and pretending to understand what the hell's going on in Southeast Alabama, where my woods are.
I don't see no London-ass little blonde hair
women went around like what are you talking about
so what the fuck are you addressing about the Supreme Court at all
if you're not even over here giving the vote for the Supreme Court
you're focused on emperors and something
everywhere else is disingenuous for somebody to talk about
division to throw their whole narrative.
It's like that feminist movement shit where, oh, I can just jump in the conversation
and say whatever the fuck I want.
And this is where I'll be all inclusive because it's not just one type of woman.
So clearly we don't have this being addressed when it comes to all these other communities.
Like women just get to go anywhere they fucking want, say anything they need to, then tell
everybody they're being divisive and land a fucking playing with, I have no stake in the goddamn game.
Please take your no-stake having asked to the steakhouse and find one.
Oh, well, when America takes a nose out of everybody else's business, yeah?
Because at the end of the day, what happens in America affects the world.
So tell your government to stay out of everyone's business and stay out of America.
End of.
then if you're going to be global
why don't you model it first
talk about okay okay if we're going to be global
then we can start addressing the shit
on the level of the Vatican
and everybody fucking us up
from the deep side right
so you got to address the corruption
that's trickling over waters
making our lives even more miserable
that you're not standing
I don't see you raising
if you know that's Italy not right
not that you can
I forgot
I forgot
forgot. We don't do lineage, though, but Ms. Colise's only point is to go with lineage so she can be
included in the fucking conversation. So we're going to make sure she gets her rightful
attention like all feminists want. What do I want? I don't know.
I'm not even a feminist, but you go ahead and label me whatever you want to, yeah.
Okay.
My bad, my bad, we're not going to call you feminists no more.
She's just very attentive.
She needs her attention.
I clearly see it's the blue eyes that charms all you guys up.
And what we call it on our side is pander and stop sifting for this bullshit.
You feel me, fellas?
Like you can be better than this.
The world could be fixed already.
If you stop letting women.
Oh, my God.
Any more labels?
You've got there, Michael, in that chest of yours.
Anything else?
Chill, chill, chill. Like I said, I'm gonna land a private jet. I get it. I get it. You know what I'm saying? Like, you don't like all of this attention. Now, she don't want the damn attention. So, all right, fellas, you see what I'm saying? We got-
Admiral, I have a question for you.
Add hominem. At home in him. Hey, real quick, because we're just going in circles. That's not a very riveting conversation.
So Thomas Sowell put out a book 2005, The Termin of Action Around the World was a study, you know, multiple countries.
And his conclusion that was that when racial preferences were banned in the University of California, there was an initial decline in minority enrollment at top-rank campuses, but it was offset by increases in other campuses, notably the ban led to a significant rise in graduation rates.
amongst black and Hispanic students, including a 55% increase in four-year graduation rates and a 51% rise in STEM degrees.
So the data actually suggests that minority students tend to perform better when they are not mismatched with institutions for which they don't meet the regular admission standards.
You know, we're afraid of action.
So I'm curious.
Every time you do that.
Okay, look, you're curious.
I'm going to go ahead and cut the curiosity.
Curiosity killed the cat.
Bro, what's what you're like...
Okay, go ahead.
Enlighten us.
Call, let's be serious.
Everybody knows we've had this conversation.
There's admiral's entire thing is gas-sliding other speakers.
Dude, you don't make a coherent thought.
I'm asking you a genuine question.
Give me a genuine answer.
I'm giving you a genuine answer.
Again.
On topic.
Listen, call, stop hanging on to California like it's the only state in America.
For some reason, when I left Alabama and came here, everybody here has this little,
I live in the entire world mentality, but California is not the only state.
Yeah, it's also dictating a lot of people's lives across the country, right, with not only mass
migrations and...
all this other excessive, we don't need this all over the place happening.
So let's be realistic when you keep bringing up California and its infrastructure.
And it's demographic, which we know the majority population demographic in California's Latin Americans and Asian Americans.
So something that got kicked out of school because I kept addressing in the city college.
The question is, Tom said, argued that affirmative action was detrimental to the black community.
Are you aware of that argument?
Have you read the book and what do you think of Thomas Sowell?
I don't care about.
Thomas Sall is a coon, bro.
Like that shit ain't going to have no purchase in this man's head, bro.
Thomas sold the queen.
Is anybody else going to actually make a point?
Because that guy's just been saying.
I'm waiting for you to make a point.
Just I'm asking you a genuine question.
Like, what do you think of what he said in the argument that he made for the case?
I get the point, then stop being in your emotions and rejecting all the words.
Because I hear every word you're saying, but for some reason I'm speaking French back to you.
And it's just not making sense.
And we talk about this.
This is why black kids don't graduate in high school, bro.
They can't answer questions.
Please remove the troll.
It doesn't make any sense.
It never has.
I'm not a troll.
You're just scrambling and not saying anything.
I'm a profession.
So call.
What I'm trying to get you to understand is, gee, California's statistics, you know,
something I addressed in a college curriculum myself, which is why does it seem like you all
have this heavy study analysis on this demographic of black people in here?
And of course, the readings are going to always be.
Do you like to be informed before we speak?
What's the problem with that?
Artificial intelligence can be biased.
You can't relate, bro.
That's why he's getting upset.
There are other programmers that are making the artificial intelligence bias, right?
So we got to understand statistics have been biased in order to create biased artificial intelligence programming, meaning the people.
Denise, do you have an opinion on that?
Like, the argument is that affirmative action actually is detrimental to the black community.
And he makes that argument that they're being mismatched to colleges where they're at the lower end.
So their graduation rates are lower.
I don't need another man fucking talking for me.
You will grow up fucking man.
You do.
You can't even answer his question, bro.
You do need somebody else talking for you.
Yeah.
Like I said, don't be a fucking wussy and fucking act like I'm not talking to you like a man, dude.
I'm talking to you directly.
So don't go asking and hide him behind the fucking women.
Tell our men that all the time.
Got to answer his question then, man.
I'm just asking you a question.
Just answer the question.
That's the answer that when...
This is why Baltimore doesn't even have, like, one black kid.
It's, like, literally...
This is what happens when you hang out with just any black person, right?
You get used to that bullshit.
Now, start actually, like...
Listen, let's just make false...
False comments.
That's not even...
What are we talking about?
And we're going to be posting the jump on.
And this is why...
Right.
Guys, too many people are talking, I was very.
It's really hard to follow.
Phenam. Thanks for joining us.
What's your thoughts?
Yeah.
Hey, well, I don't know how long the space has been going, so you might have covered this, but the court precedence for affirmative action indicated that this was meant to be temporary.
So I think it was in 2003 with Sandra Day O'Connor.
The court ruled that it was just a temporary measure and that within 25 years it would be obsolete and not necessary.
And it's clear that we've long met that.
standards. So, I mean, discrimination based on race is discrimination based on race. So giving anyone
preference based on their race is discrimination. So the issue at hand is not emotion. The issue at hand
is the Constitution. And that's what the court has found. And they write it a wrong.
What wrong did they write?
Let me go to...
Admiral, I just want to go to Denise on this if that's all right.
So Denise, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
We are about a wrap-up as well,
so I'd love to hear your thoughts about what Fienham said,
and then just generally,
your general thoughts would be lovely to hear as well.
Yeah, so affirmative action has not been ended, first of all.
People need to check their overstirring of that.
In addition to that, there's no legal precedent that said affirmative action had to be ended in 25 years.
That was someone saying they would hope that in 25 years somehow affirmative action would be ended.
I think that's poor argumentation on the part of the people who were the defendants.
in all of those cases because they went for the diversity grift for affirmative action versus the original intent.
I personally believe that this decision that limits race-based
admissions, it does not say that you cannot consider race.
You have to read it what they are saying.
I believe that this limit on race-based admissions
gets us back to the original intent of affirmative action,
which is to repair a particular lineage of people
who have been economic,
who've had significant economic extractions and exclusions from education.
And yes, if you'd like to host another space about Seoul and his...
theories and applications, I think that's a whole other thing that we could talk about.
Denise, before we end, I have one one quick question for you. It's been, it has been 50 years of
affirmative action. That's two generations. Is there a point at which you would concede that,
okay, this is, this has been enough. We have, we have repaired enough. Or is this an eternal battle?
So there were 20 plus generations of deprivations that we are addressing.
So when we recover all of what was lost or a significant portion of what was lost in those 20 plus years,
including the $20 billion or $16 billion, I apologize,
that has been lost from the last 20 years of racial discrimination.
Then I would consider that what I would like to say is Liberty Island.
over affirmative action was briefly implemented where Negroes were benefiting, but after the 1965
Heartseller Act, other immigrants migrated here in mass numbers. They were more favored. Look at
Muhammad Ali's talk about that. Look at Malcolm X's talk about that, how they were better treated
and had greater access to America, including Indians, including Africans, did Negroes.
So when Negroes are the exclusive or prime beneficiaries
of affirmative action, then we'll be doing it right
and per original intent and benefiting our nation.
The money that we make as Negroes in this nation stays in America.
This is our homeland.
There are ways people are thinking about this
in their own feelings.
about race and all of that, but they're not thinking about how this was designed to get our nation on the right track and to repair the harms that had happened.
And were happening, not to people from a thousand years ago, but to my mama, to my siblings.
That's important.
And we want that. We don't disagree. We want the black community to thrive to have wealth to be successful. I think this.
force this false correlation
that somehow because we don't agree with affirmative
action because it's discriminatory means
we're against or we want to oppress
the black community like nothing is further
from the truth. We just think there's better paths
to get there and there's a lot of evidence
that this actually doesn't help
and it makes it worse because it puts people in institutions where they're...
Ms.MetMet is a specific element of the issue, which needs to be discussed as a particular element.
But that doesn't mean that affirmative action as a whole is problematic.
So let's not talk about umbrella terms when we're talking about a specific issue.
I agree to...
Well, any cases that come forward will ultimately end up back to the Supreme Court who just made this ruling.
So, in effect, it is over.
You need to read it as I doubt it.
The Supreme Court ruling and we keep being disingenuous when the same Constitution you all are preaching behind.
I mean, if we're wrapping it up here, I'm just going to let it be nothing.
The point here is we all swear by the Constitution that says we the people.
So if you're going to be all inclusive, you can't be selective on who you're being inclusive with.
You have to suck it up and accept that this is the Constitution you wrote for everyone to abide by.
So that means we should be able to get the accesses and the privileges,
and we're not saying that we're excluding anybody.
We're just making ourselves known in the inclusive pot and category.
There says, the constitution says nothing about giving privileges.
The affirmative action is, is definitionally,
interrupt it again, because that'd be great to make.
Thank you.
The point was trying to ask, well, I wasn't going to go to your chief, like,
but anyway, just slow, just wrap up your point within 30 seconds.
I was about to end there, bro.
But go ahead, 30 seconds.
Yeah.
Yeah, so actually, I agree.
I read a couple things with Denise.
So I agree that this is not going to, unfortunately, colleges like Harvard will be using the essays to get around affirmative action ban from the Supreme Court.
So by using the affirmative action essays, talking about different things or experiences and prioritize that to get around the front of action one.
But I think the issue is we shouldn't be trying to discriminate against any race.
Right.
or give preferential treatment to anybody.
And I think that should be condemned by everybody.
We shouldn't be giving any sort of treatment to anyone or excluding Asian or white students for this.
It shouldn't be allowed and we should have a condemnation of that.
And by trying to elevate one group by putting down other groups, that's not a solution.
That's just racism.
That's all it is.
So that's my point.
Right, right.
I really don't stand for it and you really want to make the change then, you'll start taking action because talking about it is an action.
Real action is changed behavior.
So when people say these things after 60 years, we're trying to see if people really believe in a thing.
the things they say.
So step to the things you believe,
actually show that you want to be behind the people.
Like Cal just said,
we want to see you thrive.
If you really want to see us thrive,
then show us that you want to see that thriving ability.
No, you show us by thriving.
You go out on your own.
I mean, we have by going through slay.
We didn't thrive by going through slavery, allowing civil rights.
You did.
You're not a slave.
You're not a slave.
You show us.
You show us that you can thrive.
You can do it.
So we are thriving.
I even served the military to give you the ability to say that shit when you don't even know I put my life on a line for you too.
You said it a dozen times.
We all know you serve, man.
You did was help fight for the Jewish globalist banking system.
That's all you fought for.
You fought for the central bank to be in every single country.
That's what you fought for.
You didn't fight for our freedom of speech.
We can get kicked off a Twitter for saying there.
We don't have freedom of speech.
We don't have freedom of speech.
So when we talk about sacrifices, let's talk about the sacrifice.
Because we always know a better way.
You sacrifice for the Jewish globalist banking system.
That's all you sacrificed for.
It wasn't for our country, bro.
Yeah, you know what?
I'm sick and tired of you.
Right, guys, guys, guys, guys, like, forget.
That's the, Denise, I'm going to give you 15 seconds just to wrap up so we can wrap up on a good note and then we can end this space.
Go ahead, Denise.
Yeah, thank you for the space.
Affirmative action was not banned.
This decision basically clarifies that there needs to be specificity and why race is used.
And unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it, Harvard had poor legal strategy.
This is not the end of it.
The use of essays.
would be an implementation of this decision,
not a way to get around it.
The justices mention the use of essays
as a way to understand
a student's experience and to decide
on their admissions criteria.
Thanks again for having me up. I appreciate it.
Thanks for coming to Nice. Nick, any last
thoughts? Yeah, I think this is a
debate that is going to go on for a very
long time. I think there is, there's more to it.
There's more, there were
some things as we learned tonight that
were not covered in Justice Roberts' opinion, you know, his majority opinion that was put out.
Clarence Thomas seemed to be a lot more strict on this and totally abolishing any sort of affirmative action in college admission processes.
But,
You know, this is a, their affirmative action goes further than just college admissions.
We're talking about hiring practices.
We're talking about, you know, DEI is a huge thing right now, you know,
especially with firms like BlackRock, for example, that are pushing this.
That's one of their narratives when it comes to rating whether or not they are going to
invest their clients' funds in companies.
And, you know, that's something that needs to be addressed as well.
So this is only step one.
We could be seeing a lot more abolitionment of, you know, different affirmative action programs that don't just apply to colleges.
So that's what I've got to say.
You don't fix racism with racism, guys.
Please reflect on that.
I appreciate you coming on this base.
And we'll see you same time tomorrow, 6 p.m.
