All academic institutions would be able to provide a better education for all students if they accepted only the best students. I was a poor student and I definitely brought my CNC programming class down. I shouldn’t have been accepted.
I love Margaret Hoover and Firing Line, but I had a hard time following this guest. Between her hand gestures and her thoughts, I couldn't really identify with what she was saying.
Thanks @Firing Line with Margaret Hoover | PBS for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
Having watched all prior episodes of Firing Line with WFB Jr., (no easy feat lol) I am catching myself up through all the more recent ones from 2018 to date. I enjoy the hosting provided by Mrs. Hoover and the substantive discussions that occur. I will continue to follow and watch and I look forward to more content.
Jill Lepore is refreshingly plain-spoken and unpretentious, but make no mistake, most viewers are not knowledgable enough to appreciate the breadth and depth of much that she says.
Jill Lepore was terrific. Most riveting moment was Margaret pushing back, momentarily knocking the academic off balance. The drama! (10 minutes in: "I stumped you! I stumped Jill Lepore!") I don't agree with everything Lepore said -- and I so admire her clear, grounded speaking style. So now I must track down her podcast, alas. When Lepore talks about reading history to gain more perspective on the present I could only agree! For me, after Trump was elected, I managed moron president anxiety by reading Gopnik's A Thousand Small Sanities on the history of Liberalism. It helped. Insight about about problematic sources for gaining an understanding of such phrases as "a well-regulated militia" helpful. Sounds like James Madison was a problematic dude -- could it be the whole slavery thang? Yay Lepore! Yay Hoover! Long live their artful highlights!
Nixon was contrite and had feelings of shame and remorse and most importantly, the underlying reverence and respect for the office. It just so happens he put a bit more thought into his caper, let's do them both a favor and not compare em.
Just finished LePore's book, This America, the Case for the Nation. Should be required in every U.S. high school.
All academic institutions would be able to provide a better education for all students if they accepted only the best students. I was a poor student and I definitely brought my CNC programming class down. I shouldn’t have been accepted.
Wow.
I love Margaret Hoover and Firing Line, but I had a hard time following this guest. Between her hand gestures and her thoughts, I couldn't really identify with what she was saying.
The best academics are that way.
Beware! Both the host and her guest are Orwellian characters.
Excellent conversation.
Another excellent espisode
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I would be interested if Jill Lepore
wrote a book on the history of White Supremacy.
Thanks @Firing Line with Margaret Hoover | PBS for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action.
1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*.
2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally.
3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally.
4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed.
6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair.
7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed.
8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences.
9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough.
10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race.
*The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality.
*Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
Then why were they ok with legacy admissions ? And why did they exclude military schools......hmmm?
Get 5 votes on the Supreme Court, you can amend the Constitution and make it say what you want it to say.
Having watched all prior episodes of Firing Line with WFB Jr., (no easy feat lol) I am catching myself up through all the more recent ones from 2018 to date. I enjoy the hosting provided by Mrs. Hoover and the substantive discussions that occur. I will continue to follow and watch and I look forward to more content.
Margaret Hoover is an Orwellian character.
Jill Lepore is refreshingly plain-spoken and unpretentious, but make no mistake, most viewers are not knowledgable enough to appreciate the breadth and depth of much that she says.
Jill Lepore was terrific. Most riveting moment was Margaret pushing back, momentarily knocking the academic off balance. The drama! (10 minutes in: "I stumped you! I stumped Jill Lepore!")
I don't agree with everything Lepore said -- and I so admire her clear, grounded speaking style. So now I must track down her podcast, alas.
When Lepore talks about reading history to gain more perspective on the present I could only agree! For me, after Trump was elected, I managed moron president anxiety by reading Gopnik's A Thousand Small Sanities on the history of Liberalism. It helped.
Insight about about problematic sources for gaining an understanding of such phrases as "a well-regulated militia" helpful. Sounds like James Madison was a problematic dude -- could it be the whole slavery thang?
Yay Lepore! Yay Hoover! Long live their artful highlights!
This host and her unbalanced questions is exhibit A in demonstrating the extreme extreme partisan bias of PBS. What an embarrassment
Example of early radio false news is… Orsen Wells “War of the Worlds”.
Nixon was contrite and had feelings of shame and remorse and most importantly, the underlying reverence and respect for the office. It just so happens he put a bit more thought into his caper, let's do them both a favor and not compare em.