Episode 139
The United States Supreme Court has ended Affirmative Acton as we know it. Predictably, the country is split in their reactions to this devising. Some applaud it and see an incremental return to meritocracy while others decry the perceived devolution toward empowering racists and oppressing colored people. In this episode of the Removing Barriers podcast, we sit down with brothers Sam and Michael to discuss what actually happened and what the Supreme Court’s decision means for the country moving forward.
Listen to the Removing Barriers Podcast here:
Affiliates:
Notes:
Transcription
Note: This is an automated transcription. It is not perfect but for most part adequate.
It’s very good that of course the majority was on the right side of those issues, at least in my perspective. But I guess it shows how important elections are. It shows how meaningful future elections will be and setting aside. Maybe what we. May just intuitively want in the outcome from a matter of litigation, having justices who are committed to properly interpreting the Constitution, properly interpreting statutes and regulations as opposed to being beholden to the person that appointed them, and kind of trying to do things that are going to. Favor their initiatives.
[Jay]
Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG, and we’re attempting to remove barriers so we can all have a clear view of the cross.
[MCG]
This is episode 139 of the Removing Barriers Podcast, and in this episode we will be looking at the Supreme Court decision to end affirmative action in the case of students for fee admission versus the president and fellows of Harvard College. And our guests. Dear Sam and the Michael, yes, the Sam and the Michael one is a genius. The other is insane. They are not laboratory mice. Their genes have not been splice. They’re just brothers who are brave enough to join us on the removing barriers. Podcasts. Sam. Michael, thank you for joining us on the Removing Barriers podcast.
[Sam]
MCG it’s a pleasure.
[Michael]
Thanks, MCG and Jay and I’m glad to be on a podcast. With the genius.
[MCG]
I didn’t know who won the genius who was insane.
[Sam]
I certainly think insane probably applies more to me.
[MCG]
I did not say that neither.
[Jay]
Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate, removing barriers, a clearview of the cross.
[MCG]
All right, so let’s jump into this, Michael. We’re going to start with you and talk about just the history, affirmative action, the laws behind of it and kind of bring it down to this current ruling. And everything is using your lawyer, mine and law, your brain, to just give us a clear understanding of what happened in here.
[Michael]
Well, yeah. Thanks again for letting me be on the show. And what happened? Students for fair admissions is in short, affirmative. Action in government education is or government sponsored. Education is no longer illegal and since that race alone cannot be a consideration for admissions decisions, that’s the short of it. A little caveat would be that experiences that an individual has had that might have some connection to their ethnic background. Hurdles overcome those type of factors can be considered, but race itself is not permitted to be considered.
[Sam]
That’s interesting. You mentioned the experiences thing that sounds to. Me like a back door, if you will.
[Michael]
Right, I think so. And I think the dissents try to jump on that a little bit and try to find a way that there might be a way to kind of backdoor out of the strong decision in students for fair admissions. But at least if it’s just a racial issue itself, that’s the very essence of the factor that’s being considered but. I think the justification for that is. Is if somebody has overcome challenges that’s not specifically their race. That’s the reason for that reality. Instead, it’s the circumstances that they’ve had, and the university may want to have the different viewpoints and backgrounds that are developed through difficulty as opposed to just wanting folks with, you know, different skin pigmentation. That’s unconstitutional now, as the court has interpreted it.
[Jay]
What was the history of affirmative action and why was it instituted in the United States in the first place?
[Michael]
I’ll make that one, or at least start off with it. I’m not a historian, so I know some would know more about it than others, but we know that we had brown for support of education. Getting rid of the separate but equal doctrine and requiring integration in the school system, and I think it started in earnest with President Lyndon Johnson when there was a question about how to help bring about integration and somebody had the idea of calling new programs, quote UN quote, affirmative action. I’ve read one article saying that I think Johnson really appreciated the alliteration in that term, but exactly what does affirmative action mean? I think that the meaning has morphed overtime, but the. The first milestone executive order by Johnson was requiring government contractors or the the government contracting process to not discriminate on the basis of race along with other protected categories. And then also there was a affirmative action component that some might describe as. Do something right. So for a long time. Particularly blacks were kept out of certain opportunities, so to try. To bring those opportunities back to blacks and others, do something, find a way to try to recruit people outside of the typical stream that otherwise would have been used previously. So I think that’s part of the history for affirmative action start. And that was in the employment setting. And then it quickly shifted over. To the educational setting.
[MCG]
Michael, he said something they’re interested in there that you know, it morphs into a lot more than the justices probably intended it to be. Probably when they first approve it. I think when the first time they actually ruled on affirmative action, they believed that he was only going to be probably, you know, I think one of the justice, say 20 years on the road, we shouldn’t need it anymore. Something like that. Why do you think in more into what it was rather than what the intention was?
[Michael]
Well, I think you’re mentioning time limits. So we know the first Supreme Court decision came down in 1978 and a lot of people hear Baki versus Regents of University of California. Hmm. And it was a very fractured decision. I think there were six separate open. Ends, so trying to discern what the court actually held is a challenge, but when you cobble together all the different perspectives, you have one viewpoint that rises to the top, and that is that racial discriminations or categorizing folks based on race one. It has to be assessed by something called strict scrutiny. Which is a exacting legal test where you have to demonstrate that you have a compelling. State interest that you’re trying to accomplish through the least restrictive means, so those would be the two prongs of the test. Compelling state interests accomplished to the least restrictive means. So then the question is, what is a compelling state interest? Some interests are more compelling than others, and the court has to discern what that would be. And the schools, particularly in Baki. The school had pronounced or set forth different interests that it thought it was going to be able to accomplish, such as writing. Past racial wrongs. I believe was one of them and there were several others that had somewhat of a similar flavor to that and the courts just didn’t see that as something that could be easily measured or really even discerned as to whether it’s being a. Published so ultimately, and I think one of the opinions indicated that if schools can make that decision on their own, they could come up with any number of circumstances where they’re trying to quote UN quote right past racial wrongs. And it would just be really hard for the court to have any meaningful input on how the Constitution applies to that. So ultimately that was not considered compelling state interest. But through the pin that came out on. Top the idea of. Of harnessing the benefits of diversity in the academic setting was seen as a compelling state interest, and that it was being accomplished to the least restrictive means. So that was kind of the start. But I think then there was one opinion. In that pile. Of decisions in Baki, where a justice said hopefully this won’t take place for much more than 10 more. Years before, our society would have been able to move past the Jim Crow era and that we wouldn’t really see our Constitution as permitting this type of discrimination in the future.
[MCG]
Yeah, definitely. Some question on Baki because wasn’t Baki more being discriminated on his age rather than race? I could be wrong on that, but. I thought he was because he was in his mid 30s like early to mid 30s. The college was rejecting him in California because of his age and not so much of his race.
[Michael]
Well, the primary theory was racial and that is this was a white, I believe medical student. And he believed that he was being excluded. At least the main reason that makes it a Supreme Court issue would have been based on his ethnicity, because the university had, I think, a certain number of slots set aside for non white students to make sure that they were able to get admitted. And this individual didn’t get admitted. And you believe that violated the Equal protection clause that he wasn’t getting the same? Protected set aside slots. As folks of other ethnicities were receiving.
[MCG]
Right. Despite the fact that he had the grades, I think he was like 80 to 2080 whites to 20 blacks or something. That was their quota that they had. And I think university Aggie was because of his age and he Aggie was because of his race.
[Sam]
Yeah. Wait 80 to 20. So it’s got to be 20% black is what you’re saying?
[MCG]
I think that was the standard for. Was it the University of California, some University of California? I remember the exact name of it.
[Michael]
Yeah, yeah.
[Sam]
I don’t. I don’t know about California demographics, but nationwide blacks don’t even make up 20% of the population.
[MCG]
That’s true, but the college had that setting that 20 slots are going to go. To blacks or by pop people of color and 80 will go to whites. I think that was their setup.
[Michael]
My recollection was 16 slots set aside for non white students, but I guess we could always cross check that to.
[MCG]
Be sure. Yeah, that’s true, 1620. Not much big difference.
[Jay]
Let me play devil’s advocate here and ask, well, what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with making space for people who were previously excluded, people who were previously unwelcomed in the academic sphere? What’s wrong with making a little space for them?
[Michael]
Oh yeah, the Supreme Court agreed with what you just said, Jay, and that is that it was constitutionally permissible that the equal protection. Calls allowed that to take place. And even now, Bachi wasn’t overruled. Instead, the Supreme Court says that at this point, it’s not a compelling state interest to do what was being done at that time. So from a purely legal standpoint, I think the court agreed with you that that that was constitutionally permissible.
[Jay]
OK, so at that time, the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action. But now they’ve overturned it and you’re saying that it’s because it’s no longer in our interest? Well, what changed between 78 and 2023? That the Supreme Court came to the decision that it did.
[Michael]
Right. Ultimately I think time I think the facts are different. It wasn’t a white student that was challenging the affirmative action programs. Instead, it was an Asian student group, and that makes the facts a little bit more palatable for some who are trying to be particularly politically correct, perhaps.
[Jay]
Oh, OK. It goes back to intersection. So because the people who were petitioning this time are not white. That it’s a little more say socially acceptable to take a second look at affirmative action, is that what it is?
[Sam]
Well, what that indicates to me is that the Supreme Court’s decision, either in the 1st place or now or maybe in both occasions, they were political decisions and not just based on the law. That would be my. My opinion, especially if they’re starting to look at like who’s bringing the case? And saying, oh, well, this won’t be as much of a controversy.
[Michael]
Yeah. I think ultimately Chief Justice Roberts tries to avoid over ruling precedent and instead finding a way to try to harmonize things and move forward. So we had the temporal time limit that was imposed. So let me back up. So we know Bachi was a plurality decision, so it wasn’t the controlling final interpretation of the. Constitution. Then we have to get to 2003, where we have gutter versus Bollinger, where a majority of the court did adopt the reasoning. The main opinion in Baki and that’s where the court does say in the majority opinion, we should be done with this in about 25 years or so, and I think the way that they came up with the number 25 years, I think it had already been 25 years since Baki. So doing primitive action and saying that it’s constitutionally permissible for 25 years. We’re still trying. To harness the academic benefits of diversity so. 25 more years of this, and then we should be done. I think this is how the court came up with that number and then now one would say that students for fair admissions, even though it’s looking at the the Equal protection clause and saying that it really does require a color blind government, it’s able to now pull away from Baki because 25 years have expired and it’s just time for us to move on. And our Constitution ultimately requires color blind.
[Sam]
I would argue that there really was no space in the Constitution for affirmative action in the first place. And if we? Were that adamant to implement affirmative action, I think we’d need a constitutional amendment that would alter the 14th amendment, you know, because I would argue that the 14th amendment is where a lot of the notion that the. Constitution should be colorblind, comes from and the equal protection and stuff like that. And I don’t think that making sure that schools have a certain quota of different ethnicities accepted into the programs. I don’t think that that is equal protection under the law. I think that there is an argument or there was an argument that in the past, students are being discriminated against and that. Is antithetical to equal protection under the law, so I can see why they might, at least the way I’m looking at it. I could see why the court might rule and say something like discrimination on the basis of race is unacceptable, right? At least for state funded. Institutions, I think it’s easier for them to govern how these institutions behave. They’re state funded. And so I think that instead of focusing on meeting a quota, they should have focused on making sure that there’s no discrimination, you know, and that should have been the focus and ultimately in implementing. Some ruling that says discrimination is not allowed. Yeah, you might have some. Kind of a. A quote, but I think that quote looks different. You know, even though I think quotas are kind of silly anyway, because they’re uneducated in most circumstances. But like with the California thing that you brought up and you’re saying 20%, you need 20 slots, you have 100 slots and you need 20 for blacks and 80 for whites or something like that. And. That is actually. If we’re just looking at the demographics and nothing else. That is discrimination, right there. It’s discrimination against I’m a black guy, right? That’s discrimination against white people because there aren’t for every 100 people in America, there are not 20 black people, right? So what they’re saying is that they want it to be disproportionately biased towards admitting blacks into. At California school. And that’s not fair, especially since it’s state. Everybody, every tax paying citizen is putting into that school, so it should be an equal shot, you know? And then on top of that, you do have equal protection of the law and stuff like that. So if we had an equal shot and we just looked at race and we didn’t look at anything academic wise. I don’t. I want to say the proportion is something like. 14 or so percent black, so they should have 14 blacks and. You know. 80 plus white, 86 whites or so. In those hundred seats, you know?
[Michael]
Well, also accounting for other ethnic backgrounds, right? So.
[Sam]
Right. Yeah, yeah. So if we’re just looking at it as black and white, that’s what the breakdown would be. But you’re right, like there’s more ethnicities than just black and white in America.
[MCG]
Do you remember that this was back in, what, 78 or something like that? So I think that was the California University rule. Not that I agree with it, but that’s kind of the. Saying that spark back here I think because he was well Michael already touching it pretty much. Let me ask this though, do you think affirmative action helped or harmed the minorities he purported to support?
[Michael]
There’s an interesting judgment call question I think I’ll go with saying it’s kind of hard to give a definitive answer on my part. It may have had some benefit very early on, but to samy’s point, there’s also the importance of acting within our Constitution. So I think that’s the first question. Was it constitutional even at the time that Baku? Is decided if our Constitution, if the 14th amendment, really does require a color blind. Government and that’s kind of the starting point in whether you’re on the left or the right. We all exhaust the rule of law and that’s what we want. And it’s an enormous benefit in our society. Most benefit to being an American. So to the extent that government sponsored affirmative action. Stood in conflict to the. Meaning of the equal protection clause and the rule of law, then that’s particularly concerning. But on a social level early on within the next election, maybe. And then also I think you have to define what affirmative action is and different government bodies have gone about it in different ways. And I think the meaning has kind of more from the 1960s. To the present. Maybe there were benefits. Maybe. Maybe there was help, but at this point I think it’s more harmful than good. And there’s a number of different reasons for that. So I think there could have been some benefit from it, especially given all that a country went through Jim Crow, things like that. And the disadvantage that many people from the 40s, fifties, 60s were dealing with. But over time, I think it. Became more harmful than good.
[Sam]
Yeah. You know, I think I kind of have a little bit of a controversial take on it. I am not in. Ever. OK. If I had to choose. No affirmative action or affirmative action, yes or no, right? I would have chosen none. And the reason why? Well, first of all, one thing that I like to look at is who implemented affirmative action. And one of the major people accredited for it is. Lyndon Baines Johnson. Maybe some people think that he cared about black folks, but he he really was as far as I can tell, not a friend to black people at all. And in fact, if I remember correctly, Harry Belafonte and this is actually recorded, he gave a speech. This is. Either this was just before or just after Obama became president. He was giving a speech. Obama was president, and Hillary Clinton was present. And I do have the link to the video, I can share it with you later on, but he was talking about his experience with Martin Luther King just a little bit before Martin Luther King was assassinated. I think it was three days before and he was sharing this with Hillary, with Obama and with an audience. It looked like they were at some church. Like environment, a black church is what it. Looked like and he said that. Martin Luther King was telling him that he was becoming increasingly suspicious of Democrat politicians that say that they’re, you know, in favor of black folks. And this is. Me. What do you want to call it, paraphrasing Harry Belafonte, paraphrasing Martin Luther King. So there might be a little bit lost in in all this translation here, but pretty much what I got from his conversation was that Martin Luther King was getting suspicious of the Democrat Party and he was thinking that they were only entertaining the whole idea of civil rights to. To get the blacks to vote for them and that was it, right? And then three days later, Martin Luther King was assassinated. I’m not saying that those were related to each other. Well, obviously, it’s unfortunate that Martin Luther King was assassinated, but it’s also unfortunate the timing, because I’m curious what else Martin Luther King would have had to say, you know? About that. That being said, Lyndon Baines Johnson, if you dig into his history. The idea of him being. Being honestly friendly to black people seems to be very laughable and. I was trying. To confirm this, and at the moment I cannot, but it is attributed to him. People say that Lyndon Baines Johnson was behind closed doors laughing about how when they passed the. Civil Rights Act and other laws like that that they would have blacks voting for them for the next. 100 some people say you said 100 and then other quotes. I’m saying they say 2. Like I said, I wasn’t able to nail it down. I did look it up on Snopes. Snopes is more liberal leaning, so if they can at all poke holes in any attribution, negative attribution, negative quote, assign to a Democrat, they’re going to poke holes in it. And Snopes said that they cannot confirm, but they also cannot deny. That Lyndon Baines Johnson said that now, when I said that, he said that blacks would vote for Democrats for the next 100 plus years. He didn’t call them blacks in the quote that I saw, he called them something else, right? So anyway, that maybe you could say that’s more hearsay, but you also have the fact that Democrats are closely associated with the Klan. And that’s very well documented, especially back in that time. It’s just funny to me. That you would have all this affirmative action coming from the Democrats. Like I said, I think I would go against it because I feel that in all of this affirmative action, blacks have lost a sense of self-reliance. And they begin to rely on the government and the Democrat Party. So what’s happened since affirmative action? Well, fathers have disappeared from about 60% of our homes, right? Or thereabouts. Mike and I. And we’re like in 40% of blacks, those have. Somewhat of an education and also going along with that is having a father in the. Home and it’s crazy to me because it wasn’t like that before affirmative action. But after affirmative action, it’s like that. Right? So to me, some people might say, well, that’s not because of affirmative action. But I think that it is. So that’s an issue you know.
[Michael]
Yeah, if I can just add in that my reflection is President Johnson gained essentially unanimous black vote in his presidential election. So to the extent that there’s an attempt to buy votes, that becomes real concern. I do go back to the morphing meaning of affirmative action. So Johnson puts out his executive order. That says that in government contracting world, there has to be no racial discrimination, but then also this idea of doing something to try to recruit black employees. And I don’t know that it was entirely spelled out exactly what that doing. If something needed to be. But it does open up the question, even keeping the equal protection clause as the preeminent concern. Legally speaking, in the time that we’re rising away from the segregated era, is it appropriate to, of course not only have equality when it comes to race being colorblind, but also this might not sound so colorblind, but also. Say, let’s go ahead as we recruit different employees for our contractors. Let’s you know kind of inform other ethnic groups that originally were kept out this job open for you if you meet the qualifications, it’s open and and as you go out recruiting for employees, I get the sense that early on that was kind of the nature of affirmative action and the employment contact. But then it lingered on to becoming more of a stigma that raises the concerns. We’re talking about.
[MCG]
Yeah. Wouldn’t you say that the problems in the black homes, if we want to go there, wouldn’t you attribute it more to wealthy and that affirmative action? I know affirmative action is more than the schools, but it’s kind of more force of more into schools. But welfare will Lyndon B Johnson encourage as. Larry King will say encourage women to divorce their husband and marry the state. I think that was the big issue with the Black family in the 60s and then affirmative action. Thinking about the question where they benefited or harm the minorities that he was trying to help. I’m kind of on defense on that because I’m thinking. How else would a qualified again and then going back to the meaning of affirmative action, how what else would qualify black person necessarily get into Harvard or Yale or whatever these majority? The Ivy League colleges are. That’s the argument behind of this, because then we can say hey, was it necessary to end redlining? Was it any necessary to end dream Crow? Because ending those things kind of help black people, they can argue instituting affirmative action kind of help black people. But maybe you’ve come to a point to. When we need to end it, I’m gonna let you guys jump in here. Then I’m gonna change the conversation to a different direction with something that we. Might disagree on.
[Jay]
Well, if I could jump in real quick before they do, I would like to answer that and say that affirmative action may have had the intent to bring. More people of color into the academic sphere, but eventually it morphed into a sort of elite gatekeeping scheme. If I could say that there are many historians, prominent historians in, say, African American, and history and culture that say that affirmative action is nothing more than a cover. For other. Admission policies that colleges have that are not merit based. So we’re talking legacy admissions. You know, my great granddaddy was at Yale. And so I get to go to Yale type of thing or donations, people who donate large enough amount of money to the college, their kids get in. Well, they can say with a straight face that we value diversity we value. Inclusion when they apply affirmative action because the people that are getting into Harvard and Yale, the colored people that are getting in, are not exactly the black kid that you would find that struggling in dire straits. It’s typically, at least recently. It’s been black people of a particular social.
[MCG]
Middle to upper class.
[Jay]
Strata. Right. Right. They’re the gatekeeper. It’s a gatekeeping thing that allows them in, and so they can say with a straight face that we’re doing this to increase our diversity. But it’s still the same class of people. And so generally, what happens with race and things of that nature is that the problem is that it’s not a race issue, as everyone would like to think it is. It’s. More of a class issue. So if all of those things are working in tandem, then perhaps it’s important that it be torn down because the people who actually deserve a shot. To try and make it at these universities are not being given that chance.
[MCG]
Yeah, I agree. It should be torn down. I just wonder, was it necessary at that time?
[Sam]
Well, I think what Jay was saying is very interesting because and I haven’t had the time to look this up myself, but it sounds like this agrees with what Jay was saying. I was listening to an interview, yes, the other day with Vivek Ramaswami. I don’t know how to say his name, but I’m trying my best and I’m not necessarily endorsing him or anything. I just thought the interview was interesting. He was talking about affirmative action and the effect that it’s had on college admissions. And one of the things that he mentioned was that the argument about affirmative action and why it was instituted was to help poor, disadvantaged people. And at that time in particular, blacks was the predominant consideration, helped them get into colleges and. Get a leg up. Right. But you said that the reality is that a lot of the people that were admitted into the colleges on the basis of affirmative action were middle class people anyway, who didn’t really need any help getting a leg up. Maybe they may not have gone to Harvard, but they still would have. Gone to a decent school. And gotten a good degree and had.
[MCG]
A good career.
[Sam]
But it’s not helping the people that they suggest it’s helping is what Ramaswamy was suggesting anyway, what he was.
[Michael]
I think something that stands out is making the definition of affirmative action matters. It’s a nice phrase, but how it’s actually being implemented becomes infection, and if we’re at the time of segregation and if it’s an employment context and government contractors are informing blacks and others. That there are opportunities that this contracting firm and that contracting firm, if that’s how it’s starting. Then that’s one question. But then once it turns into holding open slots for folks who otherwise would not have been granted an opportunity simply on the basis of merit from a meritorious assessment, that person would not have been admitted. But now that slot is going to be opened up for that person. Well, that raises a whole lot more of a concern, even historically, as opposed to. Folks finding out that opportunities really do exist, there will be a meritorious assessment of all candidates and all applicants and folks in black communities and others can see that opportunity and do what it takes well first. Make the choice of their own as to whether they want to prioritize that field as their aspiration, and then secondarily if they choose to go in that direction, do what it takes to meet the merit based test that is needed to get into that position. It seems like that’s the approach that is much more. Helpful and wholesome than just reducing the standard.
[MCG]
Yeah. And The funny thing about affirmative action. You talk about the definition is that the minorities, black folks don’t seem to have an issue with getting into Harvard and Yale based on affirmative action. But when they sit in the class. And they appear, look across on them and say, hey, you only here because of affirmative action that’s offensive to them, but they don’t have a problem getting in because of affirmative action. And I think they die cutting me. They’re talking about what they it benefit or harm them. Is that OK? So if you get in by affirmative action, why is it that you’re offended if someone say it? You know, it’s so. Is this a benefit or this is a harm to you? I think if you look at it from that perspective, let me. Ask this too and I shoot this to you. Sam and I think I know the answer, but do you think that the justices got this decision right?
[Sam]
Ultimately, I would say yes, that doesn’t mean I agree with all of the language of the decision, but to end the policy of government sponsored affirmative action. Yeah, I’m in favor of that. So it’s good, you know, one of the things that I find interesting is, OK, the whole justification for affirmative action was to improve diversity in the school. And the reason why this was brought to the justices in the 1st place, this latest affirmative action case was because affirmative action was not improving. It was not like going against discrimination, it was causing discrimination in this case against Asian folks. So yeah, we have to go back. And I see the cons. Institution requires that we have equal protection under the law, so everybody must be treated the same under the law. The law should not be a respecter of persons. It should treat everybody the same. So that includes whether you’re of a different race or not. And I would argue that the agents had a point. That they were being. Discriminated against because the focus on some. Of these, quotas was on. Getting so many blacks in, but there was no provision for Asians. The way I see it, just do away with all this racial provisioning and just have people in the school on the merits, you know, forget about race and you know, and I guess that’s the other thing like this is sold I. Feel like a. Lot of this social justice. And and all this racial stuff was sold to us because we did have an unfair situation back in the 60s and earlier. And one of the things that a lot of blacks held onto was Martin Luther King’s Speech. I have a dream speech and one of the things he talks about is not being judged by the color of our skin, but the content of our character. Right. So judge me based off of. Who I am as a person, not my skin color. And to me, it’s funny that. You have a lot of people. Unfortunately, even a lot of blacks clamoring for affirmative action, like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the court claiming. Or affirmative action when that is exactly what Martin Luther King was arguing against you saying. Don’t judge me based off the color of my skin. Judge me off the content of my character or in an academic setting, you might say, judge me based off of who I am. You know, as a person. So. Yeah, this is kind of interesting. I’m glad the Supreme Court did away with affirmative action. Good call.
[Michael]
I agree, and Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent quotes from Martin Luther King Junior, but she stops her quote about one sentence short of the very component saying that you’re talking about. So maybe she was afraid of that line. Neither of the dissents Jackson nor cinema or mentioned Martin Luther King’s emphasis on. A colorblind society. And MTG to your question, I’d like to take a swing at answering that too, and absolutely, I think the court did get it right. We know after the Plessy versus Ferguson was. That the majority of the Supreme Court. Said that we. Can have separate but equal and the loan descent was written by Justice Harlan, and so trying to figure out what it definitely does, the Constitution require what does equal protection equals require and and justice Garland said he wrote. Disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision, he says in view of the. Constitution in the eye of the law. There is in this country no superior dominant ruling class citizens. There is no. Caste here our constitution is color blind and neither knows nor collaborates classes among citizens. And of course, that was a dissenting opinion at the time. Justice Harlan was the only one dissenting, saying we’re getting it wrong. We’re not understanding our 14th amendment properly, but. As time goes by, then we get to Brown versus Board of Education and then we recognize what a colored, blind constitution we indeed have, and the lawyers arguing in. Brown and the lawyers for. The United States government, in their briefs, and that’s emphasized and students for fair admissions and the opinions there. They’re all saying no, our constitution is colorblind, and that’s why separate. But equal needs to end. That was the argument in grammar support of education, and then lastly. There’s several other quotes. Put into Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion and. They’re concurring opinions, so there’s plenty to choose from, but this quote, the 14th Amendment, said one senator shortly after it was being passed or as was being passed. The amendment would give to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race. The same rights and the same protection before the law. As it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy or the most haughty, so kind of just. To wind up on. That issue from my view, we had a problem as the civil war was coming to an end. We’re trying to figure out. How to address race in America and we decide we’re going to have equal protection under the law and that’s going to be the resolution. And blacks are made citizens in America. When the 14th Amendment is established, those who were born on our soil. Generally speaking, those folks will be citizens. And they have the right to. And and they have the protection of the law. So rather than. Putting a thumb on the scale one side or the other, or letting one side win or anything. That we decide we’re going to go forward with equal protection and even the Supreme Court kind of got confused on that issue overtime. What screams out is that it establishes a color blind constitution.
[MCG]
Yeah, I would say that I definitely agree with the decision, but for me there are two issues here. One is the fact that maybe a year ago at this point, I don’t remember if you guys remember when we found out that the Supreme Court was going to take up affirmative action, I predicted that it was going to be what it is was like 6 three. I kind of waiver and Roberts because I wasn’t sure and the problem with that is that why is it that we can so easily predict how the court is going to vote when it comes to? Quote UN quote political stuff. My argument is it should not be that way. We should be able to. Look at the law. And if you’re not a lawyer, maybe you’re not. I get it. But at least in the layman’s term. Look, I didn’t say, what does the law say? Do what the law say. I’m sure I’m not the only one who predicted that it would have ended because the quote, quote UN quote, is majority conservative. Now, I agree with the conclusion, but I just don’t agree with the political nature of the Court and I don’t know how we. Fix that but. Almost every political issue you can almost predict how they got their vote based on who or which President appointed them. For most part, that’s one issue I have with this entire stuff. The other one is that something I always said and I thought about it again, and I like one of the big problem is that we are legislated.
[Unknown]
Right.
[MCG]
Morality, and I know. Of course the saying. They can’t legislate morality, but I’m going to put it this way because a lot of times we say that’s like we need to define affirmative action. We probably need to define morality. So let me use this. Example. Let’s say a state like Alabama that has strict abortion laws, right? There’s a young lady on Obama, 25 weeks pregnant, don’t have the money to go to California to have an abortion that would have bought the baby at any stage. But she wants to have abortion. She would have an abortion in a snap. If she could. But Alabama is preventing her from having an abortion. The question is she can’t have the abortion prevented by law by legislation. Is she being moral? Well, the way I look at morality is through scripture. I would say no. She’s not being moral, so the legislation did not make her moral or forced morality upon her. The legislation may have forced a behavior or try to control her behavior, but it’s in a control of morality. And I think if we look at it and say, look at it to Scripture, let’s substitute the term moral because this is actually what we mean when we say moral. As Christian. And let’s say righteous or holy, can legislation make us righteous or holy? No, it can’t. So hence it can’t make us moral. And the court in the US for most part try its best to legacy morality because there was an issue of racism. And segregation all these things and of course. Ohh well. In order to fix it, let’s force the colleges to upset more black people. Ohh, there’s enough black people in that in government working. Ohh, let’s force the government to hire more black people and therefore your force of behavior. But you didn’t affect the heart. Let’s go to the Old Testament in the Old Testament, the Bible says thou shall not commit adultery or fornication. But Jesus said no. If you look at a woman and looks after her, you’re coming. Adult, you’re already with her in your heart. So tell me, am I moral if I look at a woman and loss? After her. No, I’m not. Because I commit adultery in my heart, but the legislation can’t control my heart, which is what make me moral. But it can control my behavior so that I can go and rape her. At least with not without consequences. And that’s the issue I have when it comes to these racial or moral stuff in our society is that we normally side with the Conservatives or side with their liberal. We go in all different camps rather than say, hey, what are we trying to do here? Is this an issue of the heart? And then this comes down to Christians and say, hey, how do we change this? How do we change this in the heart? And I think that’s why. Convergent true biblical conversion coming into play rather than ohh let’s control the behavior and that’s the difference. One of the major difference between Christianity and conservatism, conservatism look and say hey, let’s institute laws and all these things to control people behaviour. Let’s prevent this hypothetical situation Lady from having abortion, but they’re concerned about the fact that there had she would have done it anyway. That’s my bigger issue. Would even come to the race and the affirmative action. I agree with the decision, but I can’t help but to say, man, we are still where at where.
[Jay]
We’re at, but we’re also living in a pluralistic society. Not everyone in our society has a fear of God or is even coming from the judeo-christian framework of looking at the world. And so the question is, how do we build and maintain a society where the foundation is fundamentally different? It’s not one solid, say, substrate or one solid makeup. You have part Clay part. I don’t know, cement or something. Just like y’all, remember the dream in Daniel. Remember if it was.
[Sam]
Yes, yes.
[Jay]
Yes, yes. The feet were part clay and part iron or something like that. I think the foundation of the US is very much like that. It’s a very pluralistic society, even though it had a beginning where a majority of the people profess some kind of belief in God or faith or some kind of moral framework from that judeo-christian perspective. Now that’s not the case. And so naturally, you’ll see the fracturing of. The society, but. We’ve ceded a lot of the societal underpinnings to be decided by the courts. The definition of marriage. Now, the definition of gender men and women, and those kinds of things. And so even if we wanted to. Can’t establish laws that will affect the heart. I’m agreeing with you on that point. My question is, is it a fool’s errand to even try and do that?
[MCG]
Oh yeah.
[Jay]
OK, so when they established these affirmative action laws, they were trying to right a wrong. It seems they were trying to write the prolonged effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws in the. Entry and so it sounds like you’re saying that we would have been better off if they didn’t establish those things and that, I guess I’m playing devil’s advocate and asking if they didn’t, where would the country be now? Because they would have continued in their discrimination or continued in their whatever practices that result in discrimination and segregation.
[MCG]
Yeah, I wasn’t saying that. I disagree with the law. I think the law should be in place. I think abortion should be banned. I think segregation should have ended. What I’m disagreeing with is how Christians should be looking at it is how Christians look at it and say hey, ohh yeah great. Give a round of applause. Was abortion was ended or thrown back to the states? Give everyone applause. Affirmative action is ended and we look at it as that. OK, now we have a more moral society or we have a. More society that is more in line quote UN quote. To the word of God. When I’m simply saying it’s not to get the society to be more in line, it’s true. The gospel changing gospel of Jesus Christ, not necessarily true the laws. Again, I agree the laws. If I was on the Supreme Court, I would have ended affirmative action too.
[Jay]
You mean kind of like what Ben Shapiro says where he says politics or cultures upstream of politics, like culture effects. Politics, not the other way around, right? So Christians should be permeating the culture so thoroughly that as a result, our laws are righteous and it results in.
[MCG]
Right. So even though we so the laws are in place and I I think the laws should be there, but I want to be careful because this thing is not going to go anywhere. We got to constantly be fighting racism. We’re constantly gonna be fighting the LGBTQIA. We’re gonna constantly be fighting these things because this thing is not a matter of law. Whether or not someone. And do this. I do that. It’s a matter of the heart. And as David somebody said, you know, service to God is a matter of heart. Sin is a matter of the heart, and salvation is a matter of the heart. When it comes down to it. It’s all a matter of the heart and not necessarily the folks, because how do you change behavior? You change your heart, you can control behavior to the laws. Because if I know if I pull a gun on somebody that’s ten years in prison, that might be a deterrent. But it doesn’t change my heart, right? And I’m not saying a deterrent shouldn’t be there. I’m just simply saying. What do we want to get more?
[Michael]
So it’s a legal solution, right? I mean, we got with the Civil war as a society and then we have to figure out how we go forward as a country. So we enact the reconstruction amendments. 13th Amendment says slavery is. And then the 14th Amendment says governments can’t deprive certain citizens of rights. You know, compared to other citizens. And we have equal protection under the law. And the reason for that amendment being enacted is that some of the states were continuing even after the civil war and even after the 13th amendment to try their hardest to. Prevent rights from being experienced by ethnic minorities. So then the. Government ask the question what do we do? And I think I want to say, just as Thomas outlines this history and his concurring opinion. So we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. We’re setting forth certain civil rights, but there was a question as to whether the 13th amendment ending slavery. Really gave the. Authority to Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866. So then we go ahead and we this is the process of having our 14th Amendment adopted and that gives the adequate authority to be sure that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was possible, all trying to deal with some of the States that are just not. From the federal government standpoint, being appropriate on racial issues. So yeah, it’s. Jason, we live in a pluralistic society and trying to find solutions to try to push aside in the right direction from a federal standpoint certainly makes this all squeamish. But we went through the constitutional limit process and put those limitations on the state’s trying to right. Bonds and push ourselves in the right direction.
[MCG]
Yeah, definitely. And morality is definitely a big topic. Sam, you have anything to add before we go into this work?
[Sam]
Yeah, well, you know, you mentioned the Ben Shapiro quote about, well, I think you said that people’s hearts, I forget exactly how you said it influences politics, but not the other way around and. I agree with it, but only partly. I think that. If you affect people’s hearts, then the law, you know, ultimately would you rather have a society where people don’t murder because they’re afraid of the consequences, or would you have a society where people don’t murder because they don’t want to right because they have a a decent heart? I would rather be in a society where people don’t want to murder. But that being said, I think that having certain laws can help improve the moral climate, if you will, and I think that this affirmative action case is actually a huge example. And the reason why. I say that is because. I don’t remember whether we’ve talked about this or not on the podcast or not. I know you’ve talked about it, but I just don’t remember where that. Was with us. Or not the. Whole idea of diversity, equity and inclusion. And ESG scores and stuff like that, the whole idea there, it’s supposed to be some score that helps right and wrongs and whatnot. But the reality is that the ESG scores and these DI E scores, they’re kind of like a social credit system. At least that’s the way I see. And it’s a power grab by large multinational organizations to control the world is the way I see it. Well, the SG has had several setbacks lately. I’m not saying it’s done right, but they’ve had several setbacks and it seems to me that they’ve had several setbacks in light of the ruling. When the Supreme Court related to affirmative. In action and I don’t fully understand why, but it seems to me that a lot of these organizations, well, first of all, my understanding is that many state attorney generals have gone after implementers of ESG like the S&P. They have all sorts of social scores. SG that they would apply to different companies and that would determine how they would rate you publicly and then that would also determine how likely you were to get loans or get investments in your business. It was based off of your SG score while the state attorney generals filed suit. Against this practice and against S&P and my understanding is that S&P has since dropped the practice. I guess in hopes of no longer being pursued by the state attorney generals. I’m not sure whether they’ve dropped their case. Not, but my understanding is that a lot of these organizations implementing ESG. Which, by the way, is part of the reason why we have all this LGBTQ nonsense like transgender underwear or bathing suits and target in the children’s aisle. Mind you as well. Part of the reason why we have that and by the way, not even 1% of the population of children are transgender in America. So I don’t know why you would put that in a prominent spot, which is very valuable real estate. Why you would put that there when almost no one is going to buy. It but anyway. And part of the reason why there’s this push for all this transgender and weird stuff and going after children is because that brings your SG score up. So the way I look at it, this policy or this ruling from the Supreme Court. Striking down affirmative action. While it may not have been obvious that it would have this ripple effect, it really looks like it’s having a ripple effect on other discriminatory practices like SG, which is promoting all sorts of ills in our society and is affecting the. Hearts of our. Children, you know, so I think in that way. This ruling is fantastic as well.
[Michael]
Sam, that was quite an interesting. The conclusion of your point there was I think really insightful. I was just kind of reflecting while you were talking and thinking about comments made by Jay. And tagging just the balancing act that our country has to do, that our Constitution has to do so we know the quote I think from John Adams that our Constitution was made for a moral and upright people and then fully that or any other. And our Constitution affords us or recognizes. Fundamental rights that other countries don’t recognize, so the right to freedom of speech being one profound one and the right free. Exercise of religion being another one. In our pluralistic society, we get to balance that. And we get. To wield that enormous power of being able to speak and choose. Not to speak. And the power to worship in ways that we believe is appropriate. So we have all those rights. But then we also have to balance when things fall off the wagon. And that is when we start becoming a less morally upright people. And then of course, we do have the 14th amendment dealing with certain problems that that our society had. So rather than letting the. For its control, how racial discrimination should take place, which is what Justice Jackson unequivocally advocates in her dissent that we should just let this stay in the hands of experts and evidence, she. Says and let. That dictate how to handle the racial issues in our society rather than that, Chief Justice John Roberts says. Let’s go back to the text of the 14th amendment. Let’s go back to the vehicle. Action clause and really respect everyone’s rights. So then it’s interesting to hear saying that you looked in how that could apply and be meaningful in other settings, while some might choose as experts in their field that government funds and government in general should. Or other interests that may be repugnant to the Bible, such as the LGBTQ ideology. It would be interesting to see whether students for fair admissions comes into play to say no. Again, government can’t do that. It has to afford equal protection under the law.
[MCG]
Yeah, I think you may have misunderstood a little bit what I said, Sam, definitely, I’m in favor of laws that control behavior. I just think that Christians put too much weight on the law to. Say that it will institute some level of morality, and my argument that I don’t think the Law Institute morality because the law may prevent an action may prevent the behavior, but it doesn’t go to the root of the matter, which doesn’t have. So even if the law say you can do affirmative action. We all know that they’re gonna find a way around. So and even the loss, so you can’t kill somebody. We know somebody’s going to go around it and try it and hide it over the case. Maybe. I think they’re important thing is, even to just to answer your question, you say, what do you want someone not to kill a based on this I will say I want someone not to kill me based on the fact that I was made an image of God and they fear God so they if they’re not going to kill. The image of God. But of course I will admit that’s a totally if you want to say a Christian point of view, a Christian worldview, the conservative worldview might say, hey, don’t kill this person because you’re killing a human life or whatever the case may be. But I guess my argument is, just maybe moving it from. The hands of the government and put it in the hands of God, because at the end of the day, yes, we can have a perfectly well behaved society and great, I would love to live in a society like that. But still, that’s not the heart. That doesn’t say anything about the heart in my respect. Another example, we just had a missionary to Japan recent Sunday here and he said that in Japan. There are tons of tons of tons. Lack of better term break else, but no one can.
[Sam]
Tons of blunt.
[MCG]
Brutals and he said no one knows about these things because they swept under the rug because no one wants to talk about this because their moral or their cultural atmosphere of. Happen don’t want that to be out, but they have thousands of them around and people go and do it in secretly and then leave. So you look at this, OK, it’s Japan, the moral country because no one know about these things because laws against it. But they still do it. That’s the point. I guess I’m trying to bring out. It’s deeper than just instituting the law. While I agree with the institution of the law. I think again, I just admonish Christians that are listening to this. We need to step maybe a little bit above the law and say, hey, how do we change the heart? Because I don’t believe the law is going to change the heart, like for instance. In 50 years, when the Supreme Court changes to a more liberal court, or in 10 years or whatever to liberal court, will they reverse abortion? Will they reverse formative action? The hat doesn’t change based on instituting these laws is behavior that we are controlling. I guess that’s my crux of my argument.
[Sam]
So I’m not arguing with the heart being more important than the behavior. I guess what I was getting at is I commonly here in conservative. That well, I hear oftentimes a focus on not well, people where they say let’s not focus on the law or let’s not focus on the rulings. And I guess what I’m trying to get at is while laws and Supreme Court rulings or other court rulings cannot make people moral, the laws. And rulings from the courts can turn society. The into an increasingly evil society, and likewise ruling in another way, can reduce the growth of wickedness in a nation.
[MCG]
And I do agree with that.
[Sam]
Yeah. So in that sense, I see it as very important, but obviously in addition to these rulings, which? Slow down the growth of wickedness in our country. We clearly need a Christian revival in America. And then if we had that a lot of the societal problems that we have would become less, because if we are properly behaving Christians anyway, we would treat each other according to God’s word. And all these problems.
[MCG]
Oh yeah.
[Sam]
Could go away. Obviously. We’re not perfect. So we would still have some problems, but a lot of these major issues would just not be like they are, you know.
[Michael]
And just to jump on something that you had said earlier, MTV, you’ve made a couple of comments. You also talked about the Supreme Court and the disappointing aspect of. Being able to anticipate that this would have been a six, three decision get take a couple of votes and I echo that disappointment and there’s been a series of moments with the court over the past couple of years that illustrate that. So President Biden implemented CDC eviction moratorium. You continue to promote it.
[MCG]
Right.
[Michael]
And that went up to the United. States Supreme Court. And that was over. Turn 63 is my reflection, where the majority says yes, CDC doesn’t have the authority. And of course we have to dive into the statutes and the regulations to be able to really fully walk through how the court reached that decision. But the Centers for Disease Control ultimately doesn’t have the authority to keep landlords from evicting their tenants. During the COVID outbreak, if that was the decision, disappointing to see three of the justices going to decide, I think at that time Justice Breyer was on the court. But then later on, we have the OSHA litigation where there’s the 100 employee COVID shot mandate. And it was again A63. Decision in my mind, I thought that was such a clear issue. Of course, the occupational entity OSHA doesn’t have the authority and the Department of Labor which controls OSHA doesn’t have the authority to require a bunch of individuals to get a COVID shot. When COVID people said was ubiquitous, you could pick it up at. A restaurant, you. Could pick it up visiting a nursing home. Could pick it up in all kinds of settings. I thought OSHA was supposed to regulate. You know what takes place in the workplace. And of course, there’s statutes and regulations that are dived into, but it was a six, three decision and then we have. The Heroes Act litigation with the student loan cancellation that President Biden tried to implement, and he tried to say that this statute that ultimately existed to help military veterans, since its name heroes deal with certain student loan obligations, each ideas that to make a wholesale cancellation of student loans. For many Americans, and again, the Supreme Court picks the race as no the Heroes Act doesn’t give the authority for the president to do that. So it’s very good that, of course, the majority was on the right side of those issues, at least in my perspective. But I guess it shows how important elections are. It shows how meaningful future elections. The and setting aside, maybe what we May just intuitively want in the outcome from a matter of litigation, having justices who are committed to properly interpreting the Constitution, properly interpreting statutes and regulations as opposed to being beholden to the person that appointed them, and kind of trying to do things that are going to. Favor their initiatives.
[MCG]
Yeah, definitely. Well, you’re listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. We assisted out with brothers Sam and Michael, and we’re talking about affirmative action and a whole lot more. We’ll be right back.
[Jay]
This is the removing barriers podcast. If the podcast or the blog were a blessing to you, leave us a rating and a review on your favorite podcast platform. And don’t forget to share the podcast with your friends, removing barriers, a clear view of the cross. Hi, this is Jay MC G and I would like for you to help us remove. Barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things, removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate, removing barriers, a clearview of the cross.
[MCG]
All right, so we have been talking about affirmative action. We look at a number of things. The Supreme Court decision, I want to play a clip by Joy Reid as she talk about herself and Clarence Thomas and the fact that they benefit from affirmative action.
[Joy Reid]
Here we go. Well, let let me just be clear. I got into Harvard only because of affirmative action. I went to a school no one had ever heard of in Denver, Co in a small suburb. I didn’t go to Exeter or Andover. I didn’t have college test prep. I just happened to be really nerdy and smart and have really good grades and good safety scores. Right. But someone came to Denver, Co to look for me. A Harvard recruiter flew to Denver and I met up with her at the Village Inn restaurant and did a pre interview to get to route to pull me into Harvard. I wasn’t. I was pulled.
[Unknown]
[Unknown]
[Joy Reid]
And and the and the schools like Harvard and you. Well, that I got into affirmatively. Yes. And it was literally not saying we’re gonna take an unqualified person and put them in Harvard. We’re gonna take a very qualified person who we would never know existed and put them in Harvard. That’s how I got there. That’s how Ketanji got there. That’s how look, Justice Jackson, I should say Justice Jackson got there. It’s how Clarence Thomas. Not there, right? But the minute I arrived for my majority black little town Mount Bello in Denver to Harvard, the. First, like week or. Two that I was in class. My presence was questioned by white people. I was in this big conference class where some white students stood up and said those students, the black students, they’re only here because of affirmative action. It became a huge argument that we all ended up having this was freshman year. I had never had my academic credentials question. I had never had anyone question whether I was intelligent. Until I got to Harvard and it was a defining point of my experience there. It’s why I really was one of the many reasons I was miserable there my freshman year. Yeah. You feel completely out of place and people keep telling you you shouldn’t be here. And yet some of the people I went to school with. We’re far less smart than me or the other black folks there. They got it because their daddy and their granddaddy I went to school with somebody whose name was on one of the buildings.
[Unknown]
You’re going to.
[Joy Reid]
School with people whose names are on the buildings, who are third and 4th generation legacies whose parents pumped money into Harvard to get them in. But that affirmative action is OK with this majority. They said that the people who benefited from slavery, they’re descendants who are so far ahead of black folk in terms of opportunity that will never catch up to them. I don’t care how many oprahs we get. Those people’s affirmative action is a OK because those people can pay for fancy trips for them. Yeah, but you people who want to get in just because of your brains, but you’re not from a legacy. Too bad you can’t come in.
[MCG]
Alright, so that was it. So let me ask though. So firstly, there’s an article that’s called the miners. Clarence Thomas, the American dream for me, but not for thee. So did Clarence Thomas benefit from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder. The hand did joy. We’d have a point here. Comment on what Joy said and also on that I’ll shoot it over to any one of you. That want to take it first.
[Sam]
Well, I don’t really have much to comment on what she said about Clarence Thomas other than in her statement. She talked about how she got to Harvard through affirmative action and she said Clarence Thomas did too. But I’m not aware of Clarence Thomas going to Harvard, so I don’t know if he’s saying he went to Yale on the basis of affirmative action. I’m not sure what she was saying there.
[Michael]
Yeah, I know, he. Was admitted to Harvard Law. And then.
[Sam]
For was it?
[Michael]
He to Yale law. Yeah, he was. Admitted to both and then attended Yale Law.
[Sam]
OK. Well then I’m not exactly sure how our statement has any bearing on affirmative action. Did he make it into Yale because of affirmative action? Because in her statement, she was talking about Harvard, is what it she never mentioned Yale. She only mentioned Harvard.
[Jay]
Or maybe she just met Ivy League schools altogether.
[MCG]
Yeah, I think that’s what she was talking about. Basically, is just she got into Ivy League schools altogether by. Action. And Michael, what you said was that true? He did get into Harvard, but he didn’t attend. But the important thing here on it is this as well is the legacy admission because a lot of times we are against affirmative action, at least in the ways instituted and going to the definition, the way joy we look at affirmative action is that. Hey, here’s the pool of qualified black folks that would have not gotten into the school unless someone go and actually get the. They’re not going to the bottom of the pile and grabbing any old black folks off the street and say, hey, we’re going to put in in Harvard or Yale or Cornell or whatever the Ivy League school, but we are looking for the best of the best of the black folks that we’re gonna put them there because even though the grade could have gotten them there, they would not get there because of the color of their. Skin now in some respect on that. If that’s the way affirmative action was being practiced. Yes, I would agree with her to some degree, but that is not how he was practicing the way affirmative action is practice is that if let’s say, Asian student or white student has a grade of let’s say 90, let’s say they need an average of 90 to get in, they will take a black person that’s averaging maybe a 75. Is significantly lower than the person that they’re getting it, so especially if your agent, you probably could have a 95 and a black person averaging a 75 and getting over you because they’re black. So the way it was practiced. It’s not what Joy Reid said. If the way was practiced, what joy we said I was saying, yeah, maybe I can see that, but he’s not practiced that way at all.
[Michael]
Yeah, I think I heard three different types of affirmative action articulated by Joy Reid. One she described A recruiter coming to her locality. I would assume, particularly because it was a black locality and they were trying to recruit as she put it, highly qualified black students who otherwise would not have even considered attending. And then the other category she described. Was folks looking at her and saying ohh you were admitted? Even though you didn’t have the credentials, so more like 75 score compared to a 90 score standard that you were describing MJJ. So she goes into that. The last category of affirmative action that she referenced is legacy admittees she called that affirmative action. But I think we do have to pause and say, what are we talking about when we speak of affirmative action? It means do something right. You can do something and all sorts of universes, so you have to really tailor the conversation. And when we speak informative action, we’re talking. Racial distinctions, ethnic distinctions, so her whole comment about legacy admittees that’s not even part of the conversation. I think when we’re talking about traditional affirmative action, it was a little bit of a jumble set of comments on her part, in my opinion. So that’s my take on. Her comments?
[Jay]
So she messed up by conflating all of these different things. You think.
[MCG]
Indeed. But would she have a point, though? Because if you’re not gonna let in someone based on the color of the skin, why would you let them in? Because their grandfather’s last name is Bush and my last name is Bush. Isn’t that discrimination? Just like affirmative action?
[Michael]
Would say it’s a different type of discrimination now. As for whether it’s a good idea to have a legacy program that’s an interesting question that frankly I haven’t digested, but that’s not a racial issue. That’s a school that just likes to keep alumni who have graduated. They want to have the children of those alumni come to the school as well, kind of like one small family type mindset. I don’t know the history of that, but that’s very different than what Joy Reid’s trying to describe. So I just think. She got way outside the context of affirmative action, and students are very. Missions, when she went down that road.
[MCG]
Algorithm. Let’s jump in here, Sam, but for argumentative sake, though, if they’re going to allow legacy admission, whose? Legacy is most likely going to be at these schools. It’s not gonna be black. It’s going to be white. So that’s the big argument. The political let’s gonna make here. They’re saying, hey, yes. Well, you don’t have a problem with legacy admission. Well, the legacy of Harvard is majority white. So what are we going to do here, you know?
[Michael]
Yeah, right. So maybe there’s probably something to really consider when it comes to legacy admissions. We’re using government funds to operate in many of these schools as the types of schools that we’re talking about, so should there be a legacy program or should it? Maybe that should be done away with? That’s an interesting question, but when Joy Reid is addressing affirmative action, she’s raising into the conversation, doing something to address desegregation and. That type of thing, and that’s not what the legacy programs are about. So I just think she confused the conversation a whole lot of comments that she made.
[MCG]
Yeah, somebody has to pay the biller because let’s face it’s tuition and all these things don’t really pay the bill. So I guess they’re gonna have the legacy program because they gonna need the money from the. Which people? I’m on defense and legacy admission. I I would say it should be done away with, but I’ll let Sam jump in here.
[Sam]
Yeah, I was going to say to me the legacy admissions program makes sense. If you look at it from a financial standpoint, maybe not at every school, but I know with many schools a lot of money comes in through these legacy families. But to me that makes more sense in a private school. I don’t know why they have these legacy programs in a public school. Personally, I don’t think the government should be in the business of schooling at all. That should be private in my opinion. Communism, one of the things that Karl Marx made very clear in his Communist manifesto was that if you want to turn to society communist, you need public schools government. Tools and sure enough you can. The America was not founded with government schools, but since we’ve had government schools, we’ve slowly marched towards communism. You might say that was inevitable one way or the other. Anyway cause our. Form of government is inherently unstable, and our founding fathers acknowledged as much, but it was optimized for maximum freedom. So anyway, I think that this whole legacy. Program. If the concern is the school raising money. I think legacy program makes sense in private school, but in a public school or a publicly funded school, then the whole idea is that the taxpayers need to be benefiting, you know, fairly from the money that they’re putting into that school. And if the legacy program, you know, legacy programs seem to disproportionately. Affect the ability of applicants to get a position at the school to get a position as a student in the school you know. So with the legacy program, your average taxpayer does not have a fair shot at landing a spot in that school. And they’re paying for it. Every taxpayer is paying. For these government funded schools, so. We need a fair shot, you know. That’s the way I see it.
[MCG]
Yeah. The legacy program to me, of course, as I said, I’m on the fence because at the end of the day, these schools, they can say they’re not-for-profit all they want, but they’re trying to make money. So at the end of the day, you’re going to need someone to donate a building and donate. There’s. A donate that for. Something either going to put the name on the building or they’re going to say, hey, when you’re a child or grandchild, become college age, they’re going to be automatically enrolled in our school. And I guess at the end of the day, if this school have some autonomy, I guess it’s a business, yes. Let them do what they want to do, but I can see issues with it as well. As I said, because the legacy of Yale and Harvard and all these. Other schools. It’s going to be predominantly white.
[Sam]
I agree that private schools ought to have autonomy, but if they’re funded by the taxpayer, then they should be beholden to the taxpayer. The way I see it.
[MCG]
Yeah, you have a point there, but I guess at the end of the day, the taxpayer is not paying enough to fund and pay the professors on all these things.
[Michael]
Did Joy reads comments about that Justice Thomas, I think she had suggested that he had benefited from affirmative action. I. Think that was part of. Quote and from what I’ve seen, I don’t know what data she’s looking. At or what? Research. She’s relying. On, but as far as I understand, there is no proof out there, no proof that I’ve come across that says that Justice Thomas attended Yale Law School because of affirmative action. Instead, what I’ve seen, and I’ve looked into it. Is people make that. Option. For example, they say Yale University had just started a affirmative action program just a few years before Justice Thomas was admitted. So temporally they would argue it stands to reason that he was admitted based on affirmative action. And obviously there’s a huge logical leak there. And then the other arguments that I’ve heard are quoting statements made by Thomas and others. Particularly quoting Thomas and using those quotes to suggest that he himself has acknowledged. Has admitted that he was admitted to Yale through an affirmative action program, but when I looked into some of the quotes that are being identified, those quotes are often being taken out of context. So there’s one statement that Justice Thomas made as part of his role when he worked at the EEOC. And there he’s talking. And as far as I can tell, he’s talking about. The benefit of civil rights laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it seems like that’s what he’s talking about, which requires employers to not. Discriminate on the basis of race and other protected categories as well as it has also provisions for the educational context and other settings. But when you see folks try to argue that Justice Thomas says or admits that he was admitted based on the affirmative action programs, they take a portion of his quote and then take another portion of his statement and kind of splice it together. Make the point and that’s what I’ve seen in article after article on this point. So the point being, we don’t really know that he was admitted on that basis. People will say it, they’ll say it many, many. Times but it’s. Not true. That’s true. And last thought about that. Ultimately, the conclusion is I don’t know, and frankly, I don’t care, and neither should anybody. And the reason for that is ultimately, we know that Justice Thomas is on the court from a conservative standpoint, he’s been a tremendous justice. And for those who agree with him, he’s been just one of the most phenomenal justices that we could even imagine President. George HW Bush said that he appointed him not on a racial basis, but because he was the best qualified person for the position. So when we start going into this affirmative action conversation and just assuming that he was admitted to Yale on the basis of affirmative action, ultimately we’re casting a stigma on Justice Thomas because the argument would be that he was admitted on the basis. Of the permissive action. Either there’s a stigma that comes with it or there isn’t. If we’re going to make that assumption, then there clearly is some harm that comes from affirmative action in the 1st place, and Joy Reid describes the stigma that she experienced. People just assumed that she did not merit being admitted, and the same assumptions being made on Justice Thomas. So clearly there’s a stigma and perhaps we should remove it.
[Unknown]
Right.
[Michael]
Or there is no stigma? And therefore we shouldn’t be making that assumption in. The first place.
[Jay]
Yeah, that’s why affirmative action on its face seems like it’s helping, but really it’s insidious and it’s nefarious. No one wants to be in a leadership position and have their qualities questioned. That’s one of the reasons why I didn’t continue in the military to go commissioned because the idea that there’s a certain number of slots for black women to become military. Users is appalling. You don’t want the race and gender quota on the battlefield. No one cares about that on the battlefield. Can you fight? Do you know tactics? Do you know strategy? Are you a good leader? That’s what really matters. But if affirmative action is in place, they will always, always, always have a reason to question. Their credentials, and that’s not compatible with a meritocratic society. And that’s not compatible with long term success.
[MCG]
Yeah, that go back to what I said earlier as well because when they get into these. Institutions and their peers point to them and say, oh, you’re only here because affirmative action. They bristle at that because they want to say, hey, I was qualified. I had the grades to get here, but they don’t mind getting in by affirmative action that also what they want to point out and to the point of Clarence Thomas and. Should anyone care, I would definitely agree. But here’s the issue who apply for affirmative act. No one.
[Jay]
No one is just baked into the systems, right?
[MCG]
It’s given it’s given to you because you have to fill out these forms. You have to check your race. You have to whatever the case may be. I’m sure Clarence Towers gonna go and raising and say yes. Let me in by affirmative action. So even if you’ll decide to let him in based on affirmative action. He didn’t apply and say let me in because of affirmative action. They gave it to him. Right.
[Jay]
Right.
[MCG]
So it’s something that’s given and data, one who did the discrimination that climates Thomas and also to the point of pulling up the ladder behind of you. So let me say something if someone gain wealth by questionable means, let’s say we just talk about agitating our last podcast. That he gained his wealth through a webcam business. Now he’s already rich. Should he give up his money? Because now we realize that was wrong. I will say no. You already have the money in your bank account, so you can come back and say hey, having a webcam business is wrong. Haven’t seen me on webcam. I’m wrong. But that doesn’t mean he necessarily have to go and give up his millions that he have, I guess. Maybe he could, but. I don’t know many people who would decide to do that. No, it’s true, Clarice. Parents say. Well, well, I get into Yale by affirmative action, but affirmative action is racist and discriminatory. But I’m still gonna leave it in place because. It benefited me. I said no. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. People grow and learn. Let’s say he agreed with it at one point, which a majority of black folks his age probably agreed it at one point, and now they look at it and say, hey, no, it’s discriminatory. I don’t think it should be around. People grow and learn. So regardless of how we get in, the important thing here now is. That hey, is it right? Is it constitutional? No, it’s not. We’re going to end it. So it’s a weak argument by saying it because it’s like, OK, leaves a lot of deer. Well, the latter is wrong. They should meet in a latter. Everybody should be on the same playing field.
[Michael]
Yeah, it would be great to know what President George HW Bush saw in Thomas that prompted him to appoint Thomas. And I don’t know that love her now. He specifically said it wasn’t race. He specifically said that he was filling Justice Marshall. Seat, but that Thomas was the best for the time for the job. You know, usually when you’re making appointment decisions you consider age. Thomas was in his young 40s. He was one of the youngest ever be on the court. So you go into that process trying to have somebody who’s really going to stand for right principles for years and years and years to come for a lifetime appointment. So it’d be interesting to know the thought process. But part of. That was perhaps we can see that Justice Thomas wanted to get the law right and he does it regardless of what anybody says about him or what opposition he faces. He had experienced opposition so much even before then, and so the backbone and the respect for the rule of law that Thomas has exhibited shows that he even. Overturn. You know, the constitutional viewpoint that affirmative action was permitted despite all the opposition and all the noise because he. Wanted to get the law right.
[Sam]
Yeah, I can think of two reasons why Clarence Thomas and oh boy, this is kind of. Back to affirmative action in a way, why he might pick Clarence Thomas one you know, so he’s looking for conservative justice because, you know, George HW Bush was running as a conservative president. And then if he’s looking for political scores, he’s probably going to look for a black guy. Honestly, if he can. Nominate the first black justice. That would be a political score.
[Michael]
Following Justice Marshall himself.
[Sam]
Marshall was black too, then. What you’re saying? Ah, you know, I didn’t realize that. We’ll see the. First, black justice had a curiosity. Wow. OK. All right. Well, then he would be the second, which makes even more sense because we have a tradition of replacing justice that covers a certain demographic with another justice that covers a similar demographic. You know? So like, if we have a woman justice retire, normally we replace her with another woman. Justice and in this case, if a black justice is retiring, then you might replace him with another black. Justice. And then the other thing is Clarence Thomas and Bush went to the same school. And I’m not saying that’s a good reason to nominate somebody. But maybe they knew each other already. You know, like if I was in a position somewhere, let’s say I’m running a business and I need to look for somebody to help me run that business, there’s a good chance that somebody. And PC might be on my list, you know, cause I already know them or have some understanding of who they. Might be if you will so.
[Michael]
Yeah, interesting reasons. I know Bush specifically disclaimed that race was part of the rationale.
[Sam]
Wait, he claimed that. It was or it was not.
[Michael]
He disclaimed, he said that. That was not.
[Sam]
OK, so he’s saying it’s not part of the rationale.
[Michael]
Exactly. Yeah. But yeah, that academic connection is interesting. So, but ultimately, I think we all folks who believe in the rule of law should celebrate the fact that Thomas was put on the bench because he stood for the law even when others wanted to take the convenient route and say, oh, you know, there’s decades or maybe even 100 years of precedent on a particular issue.
[Sam]
OK.
[Michael]
Thomas says if the law doesn’t say it, he’s not going to stand.
[Sam]
For it so like this is kind of going slightly on a rabbit trail, but if George HW Bush was to replace Thurgood Marshall with a white guy, right, which shouldn’t be, you know, we should be colorblind. But if he was going to place him with the white guy, do you think that might have caused George HW? Bush some political problems.
[Michael]
I don’t know I. Mean maybe. I guess we’d have to study the historic context, but the only example that comes to mind to give a thought to that is Ginsburg. When she died, as she was replaced. I do believe by the Canada. Amy.
[Sam]
A woman. No, she was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, yeah.
[Michael]
Did Barrett follow? OK, well, if that’s the case, then I’ll try to back up to Justice O’Connor and I can’t recall who replaced. This is a Connor, perhaps I followed the tradition as well. Thank you.
[Sam]
Sotomayor, I want to say replace Connor.
[Michael]
OK. Maybe there would have been some backlash. So sure. Perhaps Bush didn’t have to think about that. But ultimately, all we have are his words. And he says that race was not the basis for nominating Justice Thomas, but that instead it was because he was the best person at the time for the job. And we can all look back. And say pretty awesome choice.
[Sam]
Yes. Yeah, whatever the rationale, it worked out really. Good, I would agree.
[MCG]
So let me ask this though. Do you believe that affirmative action is an example of the phrase soft bigotry of low expectation?
[Sam]
That’s an interesting question. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I would say that happened. I would say that, that. Is. I can see that because yeah, there is kind of that insult. I mean, you see that when people talk about the stigma of affirmative action, which I myself have even experienced where people say ohh. Are you in that position because of affirmative action? I work with the government and affirmative action runs pretty strong where I work and. I’ve even been overlooked for some major projects. I understand because a high up military guy thought I was there only to fulfill a quota. You know, I don’t want to talk about it too much, but pretty much I was working on an AI program for the military and when the army guy, you might say this is. To affirmative action, or you might say it’s due to other prejudice. I’m not sure, but the high up from DC flew into mobile to see what I was working on. I kid you not, and I can’t say what he was thinking. Obviously I don’t know, but once he saw me, he seemed to be disappointed. And what I was told later on was that he thought that probably the AI project that I was working on really was just more of like a token thing. If you will because. I was just filling in some quota, if you will. Now the AI product, you know, I’m partial towards my project of course, but everybody else in the office seemed to think that it was a a really good project, but they already knew that I wasn’t there to fulfill a, or at least I don’t think I was there to fulfill a quota whether I was or was not.
[Michael]
Oh wow.
[Sam]
I would like to think that I’m qualified, but I guess it’s really. Not you have to. Ask you know, you have to ask everybody else who’s in charge. All the bosses, whether I’m really qualified or not, whether I’m really doing my job well or not. But it just seems like that affirmative action. There’s a stigma with it, and I feel like that affected me. That’s what I’ve been told. And if there’s a stigma, why is that stigma so sticky, if you will? Why is that stigma there? I think it’s there because it suggests that we aren’t capable. Right? And so, yeah. Affirmative action. It does have a soft, discriminatory feature to it, and that it suggests that we are not capable of getting to certain positions on our own and that we need assistance and thereby it brings into question our qualifications for wherever we are.
[MCG]
Yeah, I would definitely say in practice because when you can have significantly and this is the truth, a black person can have significantly lower grades than an agent and get in over. The agent is because the color of their skin, and to me they’re saying, hey, you can meet the standards that we have. So therefore we going to lower the standards. So you can get in, some people can get in and that to me is a problem. And I echo your statement because sometimes I go to job interviews and I wonder, did they really believe I’m a quality software engineer or was it because I’m black and I have an accent, you know, because even more than you, Sam, that’s Cookie points for them. Because I’m not just black, you know, I’m an immigrant, you know. Also, that’s another intersectionality. If you want to put it that way. That way they look at me, they’re like, ohh, well, yeah, let’s give this guy a job. I’m like, I’m saying no, let me in because you think I’m quality not because you think that I’m feeling some kind of quarter. That’s why. Yeah. Even right now I’m currently, you know, interviewing. And when they ask you to self identify like your race and all these things, I always check. Prefer not to identify, prefer not identify because I don’t want to get in the door because you think that I’m going to fit some kind of quarter. But at the end of. They you can do as much as you want, but you can’t get away from it because at some point they gonna see you. At some point they gonna hear your voice and they’re gonna say hey, yeah, let this guy in this kind of boost our stuff, especially with all these companies that are pushing the UI and all these things now you almost like men if you apply for a job as soon as they see you, they might want to lower their standard. Hopefully not but. I do understand the feelings.
[Michael]
Yeah, at this point, I think affirmative action in the sense of lowering the standard to bring in other ethnicities really creates an. Enormous crutch for those groups. So rather than striving for excellence, it creates the temptation to try to just expect the program to come to ones aid. Interestingly, and the students are fair. Missions decision. I think the dissenting opinion by Sotomayor tries to show all the different harms that blacks have experienced over the years and tries to just tie it to race. General. And then one of the numbers was financial success. So if you take household income and look at different ethnicities averaged out, blacks have the lowest household average income and then next comes Hispanic. And then there’s white. And her point is that race has just been used to create a bunch of disparate. Outcomes. Something along those lines. But what she does not talk about is what she quotes in her opinion, and that is that the highest economic household income average is for Asian cultures. And when we talk about the history of discrimination that has been experienced over our long history in our country, we talk a lot about black relations. But we also talk about Asian relations and there’s a history there too, but.
[Sam]
A long one.
[Michael]
The long one, the one that really deserves to be discussed at depth but averaged out Asians, have the highest economic household income. When we look at those ethnic groups as identified. So what was the response? There is a strong. Educational emphasis in a lot of Asian households and it pays off and a dedication to excellence, right. And it pays off. So I think there’s a lesson to be learned. For all of us.
[Jay]
Mike, if I can interject real quick, I don’t think it’s just the culture of the importance that they stress on education and achievement. That wouldn’t matter if there wasn’t a sort of sort of a fear and irreverence for their parents and for their ancestors. The child knows that they would not be able to face their parents or their grandparents because the family is so tightly knit. If they came home with a B or A C, they know what the expectation is, and so they’re living up to that because they respect their parents because they respect their grandparents and the Asian culture overall has that respect for elders. Respect for community, respect for family, and so even more important than the emphasis on education is the tight knit nature of the Asian family, the respect that there is before children for their elders, which inspires the children to. To live up to whatever aspirations their ancestors, my ancestors, I mean parents and grandparents and great grandparents have for them. So even more important than the educational emphasis is that. And so compared to the Black family where we can effectively say that the black family has been absolutely decimated in the United States and so. Even if there was a strong emphasis on education. That’s undermined by the breakdown of the Black American family. And so I just want to throw that in there as well.
[Michael]
It sounds like it’s strong homes respect for authority, respect for parents and respect for achievement, education excellence and as a Christian, the biggest goal should be thorough and complete respect for God and obedience to him.
[Jay]
For to honor God, yeah.
[Michael]
Mm-hmm. But that is an interesting issue here and now. Obviously, history is a very complicated thing in the history experience by many blacks in America. It’s probably hard to compare. History experienced by blacks versus histories compared by Asians. It’s just two different conversations and but nonetheless, I think there’s a point to be taken away and something that can be strived forward for those who might feel like they don’t have quite the achievement they want to have.
[Jay]
Sure. Fair enough.
[MCG]
Yeah, I’m definitely agreeing that. So I guess you’re saying that affirmative action was discriminatory against certain races, might have benefited quote UN quote black people, but it did discriminate. Against whites and agents especially.
[Michael]
Chief Justice John Roberts says it’s a 0 sum game. And of course the dissents throw this word holistic around, over and over again. It’s a holistic review process, they say. And that raises just one small factor among many, many factors. But we all know when pursuing a job. And pursuing academic admissions, you want as many factors going in your favor as possible so you can win, right? So all the hub hub about a holistic approach at the end of the day, Chief Justice John Roberts says that’s not true. It’s a 0 sum game. And if one person wins. Another person loses.
[MCG]
Yeah. How about you, Sam?
[Sam]
Yeah, to me, that holistic approach language is utter nonsense to me and you try to use that to say that they’re not discriminating is ridiculous. I do think like Mike was saying earlier, we need to focus on trying to honor and please God. And if we look at what God’s word says over and over again, you know it talks about treating your neighbor or treating others as you would yourself. And you know, I’m a black. Guy, at least that’s. What people would consider me to be? And I don’t disagree with that, but I guess to me, it’s like if the shoe were on the other foot. So I’m like, yeah, I want if I go with the traditional stance. Yeah, I want affirmative action, which is discriminating against the white guy in favor of the black guy. But if I flip that around, let’s say I’m a white guy and. I’m told hey. You’re not going to get this position. You’re not going. To get this job. We’re taking a holistic approach and one of the things that we’re considering is the fact that you’re white and therefore you’re not gonna get this job. You’re not gonna get this position at the school. As a student, you know, I’m not really gonna like that very much, would feel much better if they said your grades aren’t high enough or something like that. Oh, OK. All right, fine. But if it’s. Well, one of the factors is that you’re the wrong race. That’s horrible, you know? And so to me, it shouldn’t matter. As I’ve been saying already. Shouldn’t matter what your. There is, we should be treating everybody fairly and I know they’re saying well, this is to right wrongs of the past and whatnot. But the truth of the matter is those wrongs have happened. And you know, when it comes to slavery, that’s 100 plus years behind us, probably like 150 plus years behind us. Manipulation proclamation may have happened, you know, even further back. But that doesn’t mean that. Slavery ended at that point, but slavery is, I’ll say, roughly a. 150 years behind. We’re not going to correct all of the consequences of slavery. We’re not going to correct all the consequences of discrimination. The best way going forward is to just quit discriminating and affirmative action is discrimination. We should quit it. You know, it’s race based discrimination and we should stop doing that.
[MCG]
So it sounds like you’re saying that affirmative action did not correct the ills that they intended to correct.
[Sam]
It did not correct the ills that they said. It was intended to correct.
[MCG]
Do you think you further it?
[Sam]
I think you might be able to argue that years ago it may have made some correct. But in balance today, yes, I think it is furthering discrimination. Maybe if we would have stopped it earlier, the argument would be weaker for furthering discrimination. But at this point, with it continuing on, although by, say continuing on, it’s just been terminated, at least legally, you know just recently. With this ruling, but up until that point, just before that termination, I think it has been contributing to discrimination, you know, and just because the court ruled on schools doesn’t mean that this kind of discrimination is not still happening in the workplace. It is still happening in the workplace. Part of the reason why the business that I work with has the contract that we have is because we’re minority owned, believe it or not, if we weren’t minority owned, we would not have the contract that we have so.
[MCG]
Michael, any?
[Michael]
Well, yeah, I think I just echo that. I think if nothing else, government sponsored affirmative action prolonged some of our discrimination is. Is or racial issues at large? Jesse Jackson disagrees with all of us, of course. He says that by virtue of us ending affirmative action today for a couple of months ago, that now we’re going to have to deal with discrimination and those types of issues even longer. And the fight to have equality, it’s just going to be a. Even a longer battle. But there’s no endpoint for her. And again, she says we need to turn to the experts basically to figure out how to resolve. The issue as opposed. Do that’s just all deciding right now. Race is not a factor, right? I’m not considering race and I think that’s really what we want. As a people, we want a fair opportunity to be able to engage in our society, and that’s what the Constitution requires.
[MCG]
Great. Alright guys. Well, let’s wrap it up and say hey, what’s the answer to this? You know, we know the human heart is wicked. We know racism will never be completely removed from society. So how can we stem the flourishing of racism or more discrimination now that affirmative action has been repealed? What’s the Christian answer to all of this? I guess is the question.
[Michael]
I’ll jump on that one and just say I think the right answer for all of us is do the next right thing. The history is behind us. The future is in front of us and the response we talk a lot about the law. We talked a lot about government decisions, but at the heart of it, the response is a personal one. And for those who are in ethnic minorities, are you going to let the past and the history define you? Are you going to? Are you going to read Justice Jackson’s opinion and her connection to almost everything to race and let that control your own life? Well, I’m let that control my own life. Or am I going to say? At the end. Of the day I get to make the decisions that I can over my own life. And I think the Bible gives us the guidance that we need on how to address those issues. Am I going to be hateful about the history experience by others or even history experience by myself? Or am I going to love my neighbor and the Bible answers that question for me and then also am I going? To view myself as primarily a creature of culture, or am I going to be myself primarily as a creature created by God for a particular purpose, and the Bible gives us the answer for that too. So. You know, different folks feel different levels of engagement with different cultures and and families and things like that. But at the end of the day, for all of us, our. Biggest goal should be. To be excellent in a biblical sense. So whatever the Bible requires of us, that’s the biggest objective. So when other people say that I need to talk a particular way or act a particular way, or vote a particular way, or think a particular way because of a certain culture, I have to back up and say culture is not my primary concern. God is the Bible is and that’s. What’s going to define me?
[Sam]
Sam. Yeah, there’s several verses that I think we can look at as well. You said, how do we answer this problem from a Christian perspective and several verses pop into my mind. One of them is Matthew 22:30. I’m going to go back Matthew 22:38 and 39. This is the great commandment. This is the first and great commandment, and the 2nd is like unto it. So the first commandment was above that 3739, and the 2nd is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. And then verse 40 on these two commandments. Saying all the law and the prophets. So love thy neighbor as yourself, Matthew 2239. That’s one verse that jumps out. And so to me, if I love my neighbor as myself, I’m going to treat my neighbor like I would like to be treated. Right. So the whole idea of prejudice and and when I talk about prejudice, I’m talking racial prejudice and racial discrimination. Those aren’t issues if you love your neighbor as yourself, you know, at least when we’re talking about prejudice with malice, those aren’t issues. And then I’m also looking at Leviticus 19, verse 18. I think this is also applicable. Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people. But thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the Lord, right. So right there we’re seeing the whole idea, at least to me. It means we shouldn’t be holding any grudges. So yeah, my great grandpa. Or actually, I think it’s my great, great grandpa. May have been a slave and may not have been treated right. My great grandpa may have experienced Jim Crow and my grandpa had to deal with all sorts of civil rights issues as well, but just because they went to that. Doesn’t mean that I should be holding a grudge against the children of my people. The people of my nation, right? Our nation is America and OK, so 3 generations ago, they weren’t treating my grandpas right. Two generations ago. Right. But that doesn’t mean I need to hold a grudge. And I’m not holding a grudge against the people that did my grandparents wrong? Because they’re dead, right? So if I’m holding a grudge, I’m holding it against their children, in contradiction to the Bible. Leviticus 19:18. So I think that verse applies. And then there are many others. Is Matthew 19:19 honor thy mother and thy father. And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and it just goes on and on and on. You see similar things in Romans and in James, so over and over again you see, love your neighbor as yourself, and not to be holding grudges and. Treat people like you. Would like to be treated in the. Bible. So if we abide. By that, this whole issue of racial discrimination. We go away, you know. So our problem is we’re not following God’s word.
[MCG]
Oh yeah, I definitely agree with that, Michael. Sam. I didn’t say which one is the genius. Which one is insane, but we do appreciate you guys joining us and removing various podcasts.
[Michael]
Thanks so much.
[Sam]
Thanks for having us.
[Jay]
Thank you so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Make sure to rate US everywhere you listen to podcasts, including Spotify, Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, or Stitcher. Her moving barriers, a clear view of the cross.
[MCG]
Thank you for listening. To get ahold of us to support this podcast or to learn more about removing barriers. Go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the removing barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.
