On today’s episode of the 5 Things podcast: Supreme Court blocks use of affirmative action at Harvard, UNC
USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze looks at the court’s ruling that blocks the use of affirmative action at a pair of American colleges. Plus, a task force recommends reparations for Black Californians, Criminal Justice Reporter Grace Hauck gives a state of the nation report card on gun violence, a new Florida law targets undocumented migrants, and forecasters predict a hot and smoky summer for much of the country.
Podcasts:True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below.This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning. I’m Taylor Wilson and this is 5 Things you need to know Friday, the 30th of June 2023. Today, what the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action means for universities and beyond. Plus, a final report on reparations for Black Californians is released, and where do we stand on gun violence in America?
♦
The Supreme Court yesterday struck down affirmative action policies at two major American colleges, Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The decision scrambles a decades old effort to diversify campuses and it may even have ramifications for the American workforce. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze has more. Welcome back to the program, John.
John Fritze:
Hey, thanks for having me.
Taylor Wilson:
So John, this was a big decision. What exactly did the court decide here?
John Fritze:
Big, but not particularly unexpected. The court has been, I think, heading in this direction for some time. Certainly Chief Justice Roberts has articulated an animosity toward race-based policies for decades, and so in that sense it wasn’t a huge surprise. But it’s interesting because as listeners know, this is a case that looks at admission policies at Harvard University and University of North Carolina that consider race as one of many factors. And the reason why they did it that way was because the Supreme Court told them they could do it that way for many decades and most recently in a 2003 precedent. And so in that sense, it’s always interesting and noteworthy when they are weakening or overturning a precedent depending on your perspective here. But what the court did was, 6-3 in the case of the Harvard suit, saying that look, those policies are out. And what exactly happens next, I think, will be something we’ll be wrestling with probably for years, trying to figure out what exactly this decision means.
Taylor Wilson:
Yeah, getting into that, I mean, this could have massive ramifications for higher education and even the American workplace. How will we see those consequences play out, John?
John Fritze:
Yeah, I mean, so I think what’s clear is that universities can’t check a box on race. They can’t make decisions based explicitly on race. The court left open a window to considering the impacts that race can have on an individual. So if you write an essay that discusses your race and how you overcame say, discrimination because of it, that may be permissible for universities to consider. But, they can’t take that race and say okay, that person’s in a minority, so they get an extra bump in the admissions process. I think the universities and some of the progressive groups are focusing very heavily on this caveat, this idea that schools can consider it a little bit, but I think it’s really uncertain how much wiggle room schools are going to have here.
In terms of beyond the higher education realm, I do think this has impact. Of course, many large American companies were in with a brief at the court saying they were concerned about the workforce of candidates for jobs being diverse. And so I think that’s sort of the immediate impact. And then legal experts do think that there is the potential for this to open up challenges to DEI and other diversity efforts in the workplace in the future. This decision should be clear, it doesn’t address that now, but it may empower challenges down the line.
Taylor Wilson:
And you mentioned this previous 2003 decision from the high court that upheld using race as a factor in admissions. John, what does this week’s decision tell us about differences between the court then and now?
John Fritze:
Right. I mean I think that the main thing that has changed between then and now is the composition of the court. It’s a much more conservative court with three appointees from President Donald Trump, many of whom have, like Roberts for years, signaled a distaste or a concern about any race-based policy. And so I think that for the groups that brought this challenge, it was very smart, their timing, because I think it’s much like the abortion decision last year. It was probably brought as a test to see if this conservative court would bite on ending affirmative action and we have now learned that they will bite on that proposition.
Taylor Wilson:
John Fritze with some great insight for us after a big day on the Supreme Court. Thanks, John.
John Fritze:
Thank you.
Taylor Wilson:
President Joe Biden yesterday slammed the decision, saying, “This is not a normal court.” He later told MSNBC that the court has gone out of its way to overturn precedents, also referencing its decision last year to overturn Roe v. Wade.
♦
Reparations could be coming for Black Californians who are descendants of people enslaved in the US. The California Reparations Task Force publicly released its final report yesterday. It has a number of recommendations for state lawmakers to consider in a plan to compensate eligible Black Americans for financial losses brought on by slavery and decades of institutional racism. Task force member and civil rights attorney Lisa Holder said, “Show me the statute of limitations on the world’s greatest crime against humanity.” The task force’s recommendations include, but also go beyond cash payments for eligible individuals.
The final report lays out possible estimates of reparations owed by the state. They include $13,600 for each year of residency in California based on a 71 year life expectancy for harm caused by healthcare disparities and around $2,300 for each year of residency within the state from 1971 to 2020 to compensate for mass incarceration and over policing of Black communities. The group is also calling for sweeping policy changes to compensate Black Californians for the harms and loss of generational wealth brought on by state policies that have led to housing discrimination, over policing and mass incarceration, devaluation of African-American businesses and unjust property seizures by eminent domain. The state legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom will now be tasked with weighing recommendations and crafting bills to move forward. You can read more with a link in today’s show notes.
♦
As we head into the 4th of July holiday, the reporting team at USA TODAY wanted to give our audience a kind of state of the nation report card. We looked at issues around the economy, race and democracy, and asked how are we doing? In the second of our series, we speak with Criminal Justice Reporter Grace Hauck on gun violence in America. Are things out of control? Welcome back to 5 Things, Grace.
Grace Hauck:
Thanks for having me.
Taylor Wilson:
So starting here, where do US firearm homicide and suicide rates stand in recent years?
Grace Hauck:
Yeah, it has been pretty bad the past few years. In 2020 and then again in 2021, the US saw the highest number of gun deaths ever. That’s according to CDC data. In 2021, 49,000 people died by firearm, and it was in 2020 that firearms became the leading cause of death for children and teens. So early 2020, especially that spring, as the COVID pandemic started to set in, we just saw these rates really start to spike. In 2021, about 80% of all homicides involved a gun and about 55% of all suicides involved a gun, which are the highest percentages in the past two decades, but not all time highs. So firearm homicide rates, we saw those surge in the ’70s, then again in the ’90s, and then reach almost comparable levels in 2021, but not quite historic levels.
Now, early data suggests overall firearm homicides might be finally starting to decline again, which is some semblance of good news. That’s based on partial and preliminary info from the CDC that shows declining rates in 2022. Now, CDC data is always a bit delayed, so we don’t have final data for that year yet. We don’t have data for 2023, but a nonprofit that tracks this, the Gun Violence Archive, shows declining firearm homicide rates so far this year, too. So that suggested a better trend as we’re coming out of this pandemic. Now, the story with suicides is a bit different. They account for about half of all firearm deaths every year, and have been increasing for the last 15 years. And suicide rates involving a firearm are now at a higher level than we have seen in more than 50 years. And while we have some of those indications that all firearm homicides are declining, we’re not seeing that same indication for deaths by suicide. That early CDC data for 2022 suggests that rates are still going up.
Taylor Wilson:
And a lot of the gun violence that folks hear about in the news, centers around these mass shootings. Can you remind us how a mass shooting is defined, Grace, and what direction are these incidents trending in?
Grace Hauck:
The way that we and some other outlets define a mass shooting is an incident in which four or more victims, not including the perpetrator, are hit by gunfire. They’d be injured, could be fatal, but at least four people are hit by gunfire who are not the shooter. And so there have been more than 300 mass shootings so far this year. That’s up 14% year over year, according to that nonprofit, Gun Violence Archive. So we really are seeing an increasing number of these incidents even as we’re seeing reports of firearm homicides decreasing. Mass shootings are typically… and gun violence generally is typically more over the summer, and so the fact that we’re already seeing a 14% increase in mass shootings at this point in the year as we head into what is typically the worst period has been alarming for some researchers.
Mass killings are when four or more victims are killed. Those are always mass shootings and halfway through 2023, we’ve seen more mass killings at this point in the year than in any other year since at least 2006, according to this mass killing database that we at USA TODAY run with the Associated Press and Northeastern University. What is particularly troubling about this is the number of mass killings that we are seeing in public places – places like movie theaters, grocery stores, schools – the most that we’ve ever seen in a year was 10. This year there have already been 7. We are headed into July 4th, and that is a particularly deadly time for gun violence. There have been 52 mass shootings on the 4th of July over the past decade. If you average that out, that’s an average of five mass shootings each Independence Day, which is more than on any other day. That is according to a recent analysis by James Allen Fox of Northeastern University using Gun Violence Archive data.
Taylor Wilson:
When it comes to solutions, there are a lot of proposals out there. What do these researchers say?
Grace Hauck:
Yeah, you have some who back proposals like flag laws, more waiting periods, background checks, minimum age requirements. You have others who support programs like community violence intervention. Some say secured firearm storage is key to reducing unintentional firearm deaths and suicides in particular. Some say the US needs to reinstate a federal assault weapons ban that we had between 1994 and 2004. Actually, this year is about one year since Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was the largest gun safety deal in decades. And we’re still seeing these really historic rates of gun violence.
Taylor Wilson:
Grace Hauck covers criminal justice for USA TODAY. Thanks so much, Grace.
Grace Hauck:
Thank you.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
A Florida law will go into effect tomorrow with some of the nation’s toughest penalties and new restrictions on undocumented immigrants. The law includes third degree felony charges for knowingly transporting people illegally across state lines into Florida. New employment requirements will include random audits of businesses suspected of hiring undocumented workers and hospitals will be required to ask patients about whether they’re in the country legally. That means many families are preparing to make tough decisions, including possibly leaving Florida altogether. Critics of the new law also worry it’ll lead to a labor shortage, potentially hurting crop harvests and the tourism industry.
♦
Americans should expect a hot and smoky summer in much of the country. Forecasters expect a stuck weather pattern that made abnormally hot and dry conditions for Canada to continue. That’s bad news for the 235 out of control wildfires burning there and for US cities south of the border, which are expected to see more smoke this summer, especially in the Midwest and East. The pattern has also made it so that the only relief comes when low pressure systems roll in. That means areas on one side gets smoky air from the north and the other gets hot air from the south. National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center Chief Greg Carbin said that when it comes to smoke or heat this summer, “Pick your poison.”
Thanks for listening to 5 Things. We’re produced by Shannon Rae Green and our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Special thanks to Cherie Saunders, Alexis Gustin and Mark Sovel. I’m Taylor Wilson back tomorrow with another episode of 5 Things.