Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Justices Gut Affirmative Action In College Admissions; Questions Swirl About Fate Of Wagner Boss. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 29, 2023 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Right now, protests are happening in front of the Supreme Court after justices handed down another momentous decision. In a six to three ruling, the court gutting affirmative action in college admissions, barring the consideration of race as a specific factor in deciding whether to admit a student.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, the transformational ruling once again finds this conservative court scrapping decades of precedent. Last hour, President Biden spoke out against it. Republicans, they are praising this decision.

And we are covering this from all angles, including with Jeremy Diamond, who is live for us at the White House with the very latest. We heard from the president, Jeremy. Tell us what he said and what he has planned.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, President Biden expressing his very strong dismay at this ruling from the Supreme Court saying that he absolutely disagrees with it. Arguing just as they dissented in this case that it rolls back decades of precedent.

But the president's vowing firmly that this cannot be the last word. Saying that the Supreme Court cannot be the last word on this in terms of the notion that colleges and universities should continue to try and build diverse classrooms, including by taking into consideration race. And the president is proposing a new framework effectively for how those colleges and universities can go about doing that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need a new path forward. A path is consistent with a law that protects diversity and expands opportunity. So, today, I want to offer some guidance to our nation's colleges as they review their admissions systems after today's decision. Guidance that is consistent with today's decision. They should not abandon -- let me say this again, they should not abandon their commitment to ensuring student bodies have diverse backgrounds and experience that reflect all of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And President Biden says that he believes the things that the colleges and universities should take into account include a lack of financial means where a student grew up and went to school. And also considering other hardships, including racial discrimination. And that was referencing something in the majority opinion that note that students can talk about the adversity that they have faced. Including racial adversity, and that is something that colleges and universities can take into account.

The president reaffirming at the end there saying this three times that discrimination still exists in America and that this ruling certainly does not change this, nor should efforts to try and combat discrimination, including in colleges and universities. I can tell you that the White House has been working for months on preparing for the potential for the Supreme Court ruling. And the president today directing the Department of Education to come up with a list of best practices to provide some guidance for these colleges and universities in this new era that we face, Brianna.

SANCHEZ: Yes. A statement that was backed by the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, who says DOJ is going to join in that effort to explore ways to keep universities diverse. Also joining us in this conversation, CNN's Jessica Schneider, Joan Biskupic, and legal analyst Elliot Williams.

Jessica, first to you. This was a very, very long ruling. A lot to get through.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Walk us through the important details.

SCHNEIDER: Well, I mean a lot to get through. I would bet that colleges and universities across the country are really scouring this decision today because it does leave some gray area here. I mean, the Supreme Court is saying that you can no longer rely on race for admissions.

You can't specifically factor in race when it comes to the admissions decision. But then they're also saying students, you can still talk about your race and how it's impacted your experience in the world. So, colleges will still be getting a glimpse of the racial makeup of some of their applicants here.

The court did take specific pains to say we are not overruling 40 years of precedent -- more than 40 years. But then the dissent said well, actually you definitely are. Now, why did the Supreme Court rule this way?

Well, they said that the admissions policies at Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause. And they went point by point to explain why that was. You know, these policies have to be narrowly tailored and the court said they weren't.

They specifically said the admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race. They unavoidably employ race in a negative manner. They involve racial stereotyping. And they lack meaningful endpoints.

[14:05:06]

So, the majority really trying to explain why they -- why they had this decision. But of course, the dissenters here, the three liberal justices, really ripping them apart, saying they were upending decades of precedent and really destroying the ability of these colleges and universities to diversify their student body. Because they say they're not going to be able to effectively do that without considering race.

KEILAR: Yes. They basically say that the majority is ignoring reality. Sonia Sotomayor and her dissent saying, in so holding, the court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society. How did this play out in the courtroom today on an issue that no doubt it is something that I think is quite divisive between them and it must have been pretty awkward.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It was. It was quite tense. And it's interesting to hear Jessica refer to the written documents say -- what the justice is saying is we're not doing that much here. In the courtroom, it was just the opposite.

Chief Justice John Roberts speaks first. He says this as the opinion of the court. He had a bit of a defiant tone.

This has been something he's been long seeking. He has long argued against any kind of race-conscious screening of students for colleges and universities. He's actually been against any kind of racial remedies across the board.

And what he said was that history precedents, all say that time is done for these programs. And even what he allowed is either, OK, students may speak of race in you know -- for example, admissions essays. But he said, what we're saying directly should not be -- should not be fought indirectly.

The regimes we are reversing and -- I mean, that was the clear message. Even if they don't want to say it out loud in the written opinion, this is over. They don't want anything going on in the shadows, as he said.

And then after he spoke, Clarence Thomas, who started by saying that he rarely reads anything from the bench, went on about how stigmatizing, how dangerous racial preferences, as he called them have been, even to Blacks and Hispanics, and he highlighted the Asian American students who this case was brought on behalf of. And said this is a zero-sum game.

Finally, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the nation's first Latina justice talked about how troubling the majority's ruling was. She said it was profoundly wrong. She spoke on behalf of herself.

Justice Elena Kagan, and the court's first African American female, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who, during all these 50 minutes of high drama just stared straight out at the spectators and just -- you know, just seemed to be quite tense and stone-faced in the face of what was happening here.

SANCHEZ: Such a fascinating dichotomy, specifically between Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, two people who had different points of their lives benefited from affirmative action. Clearly, both of them were very successful. They both went to Yale Law School in the 70s and yet they have very different views of this issue.

BISKUPIC: Boris, this is exactly right. And you know, we see the polls find that the country is very divided on this. But that -- you know, again --

SIDNER: I'm so sorry to interrupt you but Students for Fair Admissions, who are of course the folks who brought this suit are speaking now. Let's listen.

BISKUPIC: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CALVIN YANG, MEMBER, STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS: Today's decision has started a new chapter in the saga of the history of Asian Americans in this country. And marks the promise of new beginning. A resurgence of the principles of the American dream and a return to the egalitarian principles for all in this shining city on a hill.

Many people have asked me why I chose to speak out publicly for affirmative action, especially amidst the potential backlash. My answer is simple. If no one is standing up to speak out against the injustices faced by our community, then our well-deserved rights will never be realized.

Today's victory transcends far beyond those of us sitting in this room today. It belongs to thousands of sleepless high schoolers applying to colleges. It belongs to the overachieving son of a recently unemployed West Virginia coal miner.

It belongs to those with the last names of Smith or Li, Chen or Gonzalez. It belongs to all of us who deserved a chance. I can now rejoice over the fact that at least our kids can be judged based on their achievements and merits alone.

[14:10:00]

Most importantly, it belongs to all of us who believe that if we work hard enough, we all can have a chance at getting our own slice of this grand American dream. I firmly believe that diversity is very important for education. The future leaders of America need to have representation across all backgrounds of the society.

This is why as I mentioned my previous speech, affirmative action is a well-intentioned idea that is poorly executed in reality. Thus, it is my hope to see a renewed college ambition system that recognizes and rewards the multifaceted talents and diverse perspectives that each individual can bring to the table. Together, let us embark on this transformative journey towards a fairer, more inclusive educational landscape where the potential of our nation's youth knows no bounds. Thank you.

THOMAS MCCARTHY, FOUNDING PARTNER, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY: Good afternoon. Just a few quick words. On behalf of Consovoy McCarthy, we're very happy for students for fair admissions today and for the thousands of students and families who make up its membership across the country. We're very pleased that the court vindicated the promise of equal protection for all Americans.

And it's a little bit bittersweet today because my partner, and friend, and brother, Will Consovoy is not here today. But I know that he is very proud of our team. And it's very much his brilliance and hard work that is a large -- in large part, a reason for the result today.

ADAM MORTARA, LAWYER: And I have precious little to add to the words that were just spoken by -- elegantly by Edward, Calvin, and Tom other than I also think Tom McCarthy will for what they have managed to achieve here --

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: OK. So, you were just listening to Students for Fair Admissions, which is the group that successfully brought these suits against UNC and Harvard. And talk a little bit to us, Joan, about this group, about their success after earlier efforts -- these are -- this is really an argument about Asian American students, earlier efforts about White American students did not yield this result.

BISKUPIC: That's exactly right. The conservative activist behind this lawsuit, Edward Blum, who was in that picture that we all just saw, he didn't speak on camera right then. But he created this group, Students for Fair Admissions, after failing with a young white woman, Abigail Fisher, who had brought a case against the University of Texas at Austin. That case had gone on from essentially 2012 to 2016 when the Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin's program.

And an earlier set of conservatives had tried with, again, white students suing, and those cases had been rejected but the timing of this challenge to this newly conservative court and using Asian Americans. Asian American students were not named in the lawsuit. They did not testify publicly at all. But this group was able to bring a suit on behalf of Asian Americans who felt that programs that traditionally had favored blacks and Hispanics squeezed them out.

So, essentially, we're pitting minority group against minority group. And as I said, that had much more salient for the justices. In fact, Clarence Thomas, when he started his dissent from -- his concurrence from the bench, talked about Asian Americans as if they had been as hurt by these programs as blacks and Hispanics. And actually, he always thought that blacks and Hispanics were hurt not benefited from these programs.

SANCHEZ: Well, the argument was that Asian American students were underrepresented based on academic achievement at institutions like Harvard.

BISKUPIC: Exactly. You know, that's exactly right, Boris. As I said, they were saying -- and, in fact, Edward Blum, the organizer of this had hearkened back to Jewish quotas from the early 1900s that Ivy League schools that had that kept high achieving Jewish students and they said this is just like that. Asian Americans -- high achieving Asian American students are essentially being excluded in favor of, what they argued was, lower achieving minority.

SCHNEIDER: And Edward Blum, Joan has talked to him, I've talked to him, he was outside the court at the October arguments. I mean, he has made this the fight of his life for about nearly a decade now. And he's finally winning on behalf of these Asian students in particular.

But I mean, when we talked to him, he just boiled it down to affirmative action simply is not fair. And that was his view. And he's been fighting this through the court, and today he got the win.

[14:15:08]

KEILAR: Elliot, what do you think, especially, we consider the changing narrative of this fight, ultimately, leading to a victory for this group and for this conservative activist?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I would piggyback on Joan's point, it was certainly a powerful image to see an Asian American individual being the one to speak out certainly, you know, in the press conference here, and also have been the folks bringing this litigation or at least behind it. Because it's not an accident when parties before the Supreme Court or when groups litigating before the Supreme Court choose their plaintiffs or choose the folks bringing suits very deliberately. And I think that was the case here and setting up a -- whether you want to call it tension or opposition, whatever term you wish to use, between Asian students and black students was I think, quite deliberate and powerful to see. Because there's still a person of color, a person of a minority group, however, you want -- you want to define it.

One other point I would make about today, and I think that the term or the expression, elections have consequences is a little bit of a platitude. But the simple fact is you are seeing the greatest success by all means of Donald Trump in his presidency and working with the Senate leadership, particularly Mitch McConnell over the period of those years. This was sort of both between the affirmative action decision today in a series of abortion decisions recently.

You will feel the reverberations for decades. And regardless of whatever happens, the former president and the legal issues you and I have talked about many times on this program, regardless of what happens there, his imprint as a president, as the nominator of judges, is set. And that -- and that that's the legacy and an incredibly powerful one.

SANCHEZ: And we could potentially see it become an issue in the upcoming presidential election, just as Roe vs. Wade, the overturning of that was one during the midterms. A lot of folks to thanks. We'll just say thank you to everybody that was part of that conversation.

We still have much more to come on CNN NEWS Central, including an unannounced trip to Ukraine. Former Vice President Mike Pence meeting with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv. It comes as questions swirl over Vladimir Putin and his grip on power in Russia, as a top general has apparently gone unaccounted for. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:21:30]

KEILAR: Mystery in Moscow. One of Russia's top generals is apparently missing and here's why that matters. Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that General Sergey Surovikin knew about the Wagner mercenaries plotting last week's insurrection. In the independent Moscow Times reports, he's now in custody. CNN though has not confirmed that independently.

He's actually among a number of top Russian military commanders who have not been seen in public since the failed mutiny. Also, out of the public eye, the man who led the revolt, Wagner's Yevgeny Pirgozhin. The Kremlin says the Wagner chief was exiled to Belarus but he has not yet been seen there. Russian state media saying before the insurrection, Progzhin that his mercenaries could no longer fight in Ukraine. That they would no longer be fighting in that war.

CNNs Nick Paton Walsh is following all of these developments. And there are many from Kyiv. Nick, no sign yet of many key figures.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely. And with that too, the mystery around the grip on power of Vladimir Putin has does indeed grow because without knowledge, of the sort of fate of these individuals it's still very unclear how in control of the situation he really is. Now, Sergey Surovikin is an important figure not only because he ran the war in Ukraine earlier on this year, and was considered by some in the West to be a dangerously competent "general" in charge of that. But he was also one of the only members of the Russian top brass who Yevgeny Prigozhin, the rebellion leader spoke off in a complimentary fashion.

Now, he also appeared on Friday, as this rebellion was getting underway, in a video looking pretty uncomfortable. It seemed to be holding some sort of weapon under his right hand. And gave at Times a labored address where he basically told the Rebels go home. Stop this.

He's not been seen in public since. And so there have now been a growing number of reports in the media suggesting that in fact, that was because he had been detained. Now, it isn't clear at this stage if he is still detained, or whether that resulted in an arrest for some sort of treachery, whether in fact he was just being interrogated.

And in fact, was -- a key figure analyst of the Life in Moscow, Sergei Makarov, a former MP has in fact suggested that of course, there will be a lot of interrogations of key top brass after something like this. There have also been people suggesting that maybe Surovikin is absolutely fine. And there's no problem here at all.

But whatever the truth, there's now a cloud of suspicion hanging over him. And that will certainly perhaps blight how trustworthy he's felt among certain parts of Russia's top brass and elite. At the same time, it's important to point out the General -- Chief of Staff of the Russian military Valery Gerasimov who's running the Ukrainian war now, he's not been seen since then as well. So, it is common at times for these key military figures to not be around.

But there is still yet for Vladimir Putin another abiding question and that is where is Yevgeny Prigozhin. He's meant to be in Belarus under the terms of the deal. That's where Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus's President said he was a couple of days ago, but he's not confirmed that himself. And so, with each of these questions, there is another sign that possibly Vladimir Putin isn't in control in the way that he would perhaps like to be. And certainly, with someone Surovikin, he may appear in public.

He will probably after that have some sort of cloud of suspicion hanging over him, whatever the truth of the past days. And it's that kind of division and finger-pointing within the Russian top brass that will prove disastrous probably for them in the days ahead in the war in Ukraine.

[14:25:03]

Their management of it has already been pretty catastrophic with quite a lot of infighting already. Now, we're looking at what may be described as some sort of purge or cleanout of security forces by a weakened Vladimir Putin. That could be catastrophic potentially for their decision-making in the war, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much, live for us in Kyiv. Boris?

SANCHEZ: The dust certainly not settled yet from this coup, so let's continue the conversation. Joining us now is CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. David, thank you so much for being with us.

Interpreting the inner workings of the Kremlin, the intrigue, and the power struggles, it's almost sort of an art form. I'm wondering beyond all the rumors and speculation. What do you imagine is happening right now? Should we anticipate another purge?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Victor, good to see you. And, you know, they call it Kremlinology for a reason because it was hard in the Soviet era, and it's hard in the Putin Russia era.

We know a couple of things. You know, a week ago, we would have said that Putin's control over his own military was, you know, complete and total. We now know that there is suspicion about one very senior general, as we've just discussed, and it would be hard to imagine that he would be the only one. Putin is also going to be worried about the fact that when the -- when the uprising began, the Wagner forces made it down to 150 -- 125 miles from Moscow without any real significant opposition from the Russian military. Now, we don't know if that's because they were cooperating, because they were ignorant, because they are all decided to take a lunch break at that convenient time, but that's what happened.

We also know that when he did take over the military operation center close to Ukraine, there were pictures of him having coffee with the Russian commanders there. So, it's not entirely clear that the Russian military was completely on Putin's side until it became evident that this wasn't going to work. And that Prigozhin was not going to go all the way to Moscow.

SANCHEZ: David, to the question of Prigozhin's whereabouts, we've been tracking planes linked to him. He's supposedly in Belarus. The planes were apparently there, then they were spotted in St. Petersburg in different parts of Russia. It's likely a good thing for his health that we don't know exactly where he is, right?

SANGER: That's right. And it's hard for me to imagine that he would go to Belarus, which is basically a paid-for subsidiary and proxy country for the Russians. Would strike me that if he believed that the deal whatever deal it was, he was putting together with Putin was falling apart, Belarus would be a pretty dangerous place for him.

It did appear that the deal they struck had to do with the uprising over the weekend. But then suddenly, Putin in his speech yesterday was talking about how much money the Russians had actually given to the Wagner group for catering, for other work, and suggested that there may be investigations into whether there was corruption or fraud and all of that. Some people hear and you know read that as an indication that maybe they were looking to get them on other charges that wouldn't be covered by the deal that was put together over the weekend.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Still, difficult to see how that deal might hold in place, at least the details that we've seen so far. David Sanger, in New York, thank you so much.

SANGER: Sure.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: Coming up, more on our top stories. The Supreme Court guts affirmative action, except and this is notable, at military service academies. The military community reacting to what is really a big carve out here. Plus, deadly heat spreading across the South. How hot it could get and when we could get some relief?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)