S1: It's time for Midday Edition on Kpbs. Today we are talking about the Scotus decisions on affirmative action and student loan forgiveness. I'm Jade Hindman. Here's to conversations that keep you informed , inspired and make you think. We'll have a legal analysis of the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action.
S2: So the idea of affirmative action is to give those people an edge , to remove the impediment that has incurred by having those shackles for so long.
S1: Then we'll continue the discussion with a look at where Asian Americans fit into the issue of affirmative action. And here , local reaction on student loan forgiveness and the impact of campus diversity. That's ahead on Midday Edition. The Supreme Court has effectively ended race conscious college admissions in a stunning blow to affirmative action. The six three ruling has drawn sharp criticism from the Biden administration and cast uncertainty on what the future of college admissions in the United States will look like. In addition to the ruling on affirmative action , the court also handed down a number of other major rulings. Joining me now to break this down and other rulings is legal analyst Dan Eaton , partner in the San Diego firm of Seltzer , Kaplan , McMahon and Vivek. He also teaches business ethics and employment law at San Diego State University. Dan , welcome back to the program. Thanks.
S2: Good to be with you , Jade.
S1: It's always good to have you. There's a pair of cases involved here , one involving Unk. That's the University of North Carolina and one involving your alma mater , Harvard.
S2: When you're talking about Harvard , which is my law school alma mater. The question is whether Title six , which prohibits racial discrimination by any institution that receives federal funding , bars the consideration of race in college and university admissions. That those were the issues in those two cases. Now , what Chief Justice Roberts did in his analysis was he said , well , the equal protection analysis also applies to the Title six analysis , so we're going to treat them the same , even though Harvard as a private institution is not subject to the restrictions of the constitutional command of the equal protection Clause. But the analysis ends up being the same. So it's a distinction without a difference from his perspective.
S1:
S2: And they said what happens is by the use of race , it violates , according to Chief Justice Roberts , the twin commands of the 14th Amendment. One is that race can never be a negative factor with respect to government action. And two , that race can never operate as a stereotype. And the way race conscious admissions offend that is that it does operate as a negative factor with respect to Asian students in particular , because Chief Justice Roberts said college admissions is a zero sum game , so that if you're favoring someone on the basis of their race , taking affirmative action in their favor , it necessarily means you're taking negative action with respect to a disfavored group who would otherwise get the slot. With respect to the bar. On stereotyping , what Chief Justice Roberts said is that these programs , both at Unk and Harvard , assume that underrepresented minorities all think alike , and that is offensive and incorrect and not allowed by the 14th Amendment. The third issue was that the 14th Amendment requires that any kind of race consciousness have some sort of a time limitation and end point. And he said that conceptually he couldn't see that in either of these two programs. And for all of those reasons , the 6 to 3 majority said race could not be used in college and university admissions , both public and private.
S1: This is an interesting case in that several of the justices have very close connections to the subject being ruled on.
S2: And she wrote a very long dissent. In fact , her dissent was longer than the than the majority opinion itself. And she said , well , look , the closest data point about the effectiveness and usefulness of affirmative action is that the three justices of color , Justice Clarence Thomas , Justice Sotomayor and Justice Brown Jackson all attended elite institutions with race conscious programs. And notwithstanding that , they actually had very successful careers without any kind of a stigma or anything like that. So if there is any question about the usefulness of of race conscious admissions as a pipeline to the highest level of. A wide range of professions. The nearest evidence that the justices have suggests that it is.
S1: You know , let's talk about legacy admissions here for a bit. That admission process was implemented in the 1920s as a way to ensure white Protestant students were given preference in the admission process while diminishing the enrollment of Jews , Catholics and immigrants. Of course , people of color weren't even allowed to go to these institutions at the time. To this day , 70% of legacy admissions are white students.
S2: You are certainly correct in your history about the history of legacy admissions. But on their face , legacy admissions simply say that you have a leg up if your father or grandfather or some relative attended this institution , keeping it all in the family , it does have the effect , as you have put it , of a racial favoritism in a sense. But on the face , it is not racially motivated. That may be a question , though , down the line for the reasons you have just given Jaden your accurate history lesson that the court will have to confront down the line.
S1: So then let's press rewind here for a bit.
S2: Affirmative action , as its name implies , is positive action to achieve a certain result or advance a particular policy goal. The phrase generally is initially used in the early 1960s by John President John F Kennedy , and then famously used and implemented by Lyndon Johnson , who essentially said of the need for affirmative action , you don't remove the shackles of someone who has been shackled for a long time in a race , remove them and say , all right , now we're going to play fair because obviously there is going to be an impact of having been shackled all this time. So the idea of affirmative action is to give those people an edge , to remove the impediment that has occurred by having those shackles for so long.
S1: Can you walk us through any of the dissenting opinions ? Yes.
S2: The dissenting opinion essentially said in one form or another , race matters. We have to look at that fact that it continues to have an impact. And to talk about some formalistic ideal of colorblindness doesn't make sense given that it continues to matter. And Justice Brown , Jackson wrote a dissent in the USC case because , of course , she wasn't participating in the Harvard case. And she said , quote , Today's decision will undoubtedly extend the duration of our country's need for race consciousness , because the justification for admissions programs that account for race is inseparable from the race linked gaps in health , wealth and well-being that still exist in our society , the closure of which today's decision will forestall. What she was saying was that if we are not going to recognize that the equal protection clause and by extension Title six require the consideration of race , if we use the pink elephant where we try not to think about it , but it's always in our minds anyway. The fact is that these gaps are going to persist , not only the college admissions , but also the effects that flow from that. The interesting thing in Justice Sotomayor's dissent again , was this idea of rejecting the idea of this color blind ideal. When I was a first year Harvard Law student , I attended the Black Law Students Spring Conference , and then Judge Damon Keith of the Sixth Circuit gave a speech. Now , remember , this would have been in 1987. So it was a long time ago. And I still remember what he said. He said that in America , colorblindness is a tradition without a past. That was essentially the point that Justice Sotomayor and Justice Brown Jackson made. Even Justice Thomas , in a very long dissent , conceded that the Constitution is not and never has been at least formally color blind. And what the dissent said was that the unwillingness to look at reality in the face with respect to programs that consider race not a. Dispositive factor , but is one factor is not true to the promise , the full promise of the 14th Amendment , which was enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War.
S1: Given that. Look at Justice Roberts opinion as a bit disingenuous.
S2: Well , I would never say that about a majority opinion of the Supreme Court. As an officer of the bar myself. I will say that the dissenting opinions do take some of his assumptions to task about whether race still appropriately ought to be given consideration with respect to college admissions and not just college admissions , but also think this could have implications down the line with respect to employment and other issues. One of the interesting things about Chief Justice Roberts opinion is that there's an interesting footnote where he says , well , the military says that maybe affirmative action , maybe the need for race consciousness may be necessary when we're talking about service academies , which are very , very selective. But those issues are distinct in that context. And so we're not going to consider whether race may be allowed because of the purposes served by a diverse military in the admissions process in Selective Service Academy. And what was interesting is that then what you had was Justice Jackson saying that , quote , The court has come to rest on the bottom line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker , not the boardroom , close quote.
S1: All right. I want to turn now to some other cases. Let's start with the court's rejection of Biden's student debt relief plan.
S2: Well , the six the same 6 to 3 majority that struck down these affirmative action programs said the Biden administration overstepped its authority by using the Heroes Act of 2003. It went too far. The act , on its face , did not give the Biden administration that kind of authority.
S1: That was legal analyst Dan Eaton with the law firm Seltzer , Kaplan , McMahon and Vitek breaking down the Supreme Court decisions. Coming up , we'll continue the conversation with Dr. Kevin Kumar , Shiro on where Asian Americans fit into the issue of affirmative action.
S3:
S1: You're listening to Kpbs Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. We've been talking about the Supreme Court's recent rulings on student debt and affirmative action and its impact on higher education. Asian Americans have long been at the center of the affirmative action debate. The Students for Fair Admissions , the plaintiffs in the affirmative action case , relied heavily on the stories of Asian Americans in their push to end race conscious college admissions. However , no Asian Americans came forward to testify about experiencing discrimination , and the group is led by activist Ed Blum , who is white. This has fueled concerns over how the community has been used as a wedge in this issue and against race conscious policies in general. Here to talk more about where Asian Americans fit in this debate is Dr. Kevin Kumar Shiro. He is an educational policy expert and former dean of the University of San Francisco School of Education and Dr. Kumar Shiro , welcome.
S3: Thanks so much for having me. Jade It's great to be part of this conversation.
S1: So glad to have you. So first , I want to take a step back.
S3: So we know , for example , that as a federal initiative during the Kennedy administration , affirmative action was pushed , but it was pushed as a remedy for historic and systemic injustices , particularly racial injustices. And why that's important to remember is because when affirmative action then hits the Supreme Court regarding college admissions , the first time in 1978 that understanding of affirmative action shifted , You know , in its ruling in 1978 , the Supreme Court said that colleges cannot have racial quotas. In other words , race cannot override all other factors. But race can be considered if it's part of a bigger picture of what sometimes is called a whole person or holistic review of students. If you look at a number of things and race is one of those factors. And furthermore , race can be considered if the university argues that racial diversity is necessary for a high quality educational experience. This is sometimes called the diversity rationale for affirmative action. So if diversity is important to you and affirmative action or the consideration of race helps to build that diverse class , then affirmative action is allowable. And for three cases , 1978 , 2003 , 2016 , the Supreme Court continued to make that particular argument.
S1: Also , can you talk about how affirmative action works ? I think there's this thought that it is a handout to people of color who are trying to enter into college.
S3: And so they try to come up with ways to build a more racially and racially diverse and diverse in other ways. Classes , their processes are very similar to many other competitive universities. So this is why this Supreme Court is going to have reverberating effects around the country. And what these universities do is they come up with a list. Unk is a good example. They have 40 things that they look at when they try to evaluate students. And race is one of those things that they look at. And the argument that both Harvard and Unk put forward is that we're not simply trying to cream off the the sort of highest performing students using narrow measures of achievement like standardized test scores or GPA , that we want to look at the whole child , the whole student look at all that they bring. And we want to intentionally create a class that reflects the diversity of the world. And just to add to this mix , there are other ways that students can get in to universities that in some ways bypass or maybe is part of holistic review , but certain criteria raise up their chances of getting in. And this is sometimes called the in Harvard's language , the LDC category , which includes athletic recruits , a legacy admits , which is children or relatives of alum , children of donors and children of faculty and staff. And these students are also getting into universities without necessarily going to the same review that others is not based on merit. And unfortunately , these students , especially legacy , admits children of faculty , children of wealthy donors. To far and away be more likely to be white.
S1: The Asian American community is often considered a wedge in this battle over affirmative action.
S3: They're the model for all other minority groups. Why ? Because through their hard work and perseverance , they've made it. They've achieved the American dream. Now , there was a lot of evidence even at the time , that Asian Americans were not making it in all these ways. But that story persisted. It hit the media , and it has persisted even till today. Why ? Many of us would argue because of its political significance. Right here , really , we see the beginning of the kind of ideological groundwork being laid for how you challenge claims of systemic racism. You hold up one group that you say not only is evidence that there isn't racism , but you also hold up this group as a way to say when you come up with a race conscious intervention , it might actually harm this group. It might actually harm Asian Americans. This is how Asian Americans serve as a wedge against cross racial solidarity building. And it's also why in the 1960s , in the 1980s in California and even right now , you're seeing a flare up of it's one of the contributors to anti-Asian bias and sentiment. Right. Asian Americans , because we're held up as the mascots or the victims.
S1:
S3: And one of the common reasons people bring up is because they themselves have experienced discrimination and bias in their K-12 schools. I remember a student who said , I remember people teasing me because of my accent or teachers never calling on me or not paying much attention to me. And , you know , like I want to be evaluated on something more objective. And for some people , we've you know , we seem to buy into this story that grade , but even more so , standardized test scores are an objective measure of achievement. I think another reason , though , is like this bigger picture that I'm I find myself wanting to talk more and more about when I'm in conversations with affirmative action , which is we , we , Asian-Americans and otherwise often believe that education should be about individual success , like who should get into the top colleges , those who have been most successful so far ? And what's the role of colleges ? It's to prepare you to succeed even more when you finish college. It's all about sort of the individual output and individual success. And I would say I want us to rethink what we think higher education and education in general should be about. Should it be about the individual competitiveness and success , or should it be about the collective common good ? Should it be about something bigger ? Yeah.
S4:
S1: You know , a poll by the Pew Research Center found that more than half of Asian Americans support affirmative action.
S3: And also the way that you opened up our conversation by pointing to the fact that Asian Americans there were not a single there is not a single Asian-American individual plaintiff in this case. Asian Americans do not lead the organization leading the charge. Asian Americans didn't testify in this case. I was just a few days ago in an interview where someone was like , okay , so why are Asian Americans leading the charge on this ? And I'm like , actually , Asian Americans weren't leading the charge on this , were held up , however , as the face of those who are most targeted. So I do think that , you know , there are some Asian Americans. Absolutely. Who are anti affirmative action. But our job is to do two things. A , we have a lot of work among Asian Americans to build our own capacity to organize and to speak out and push back. But we also have the work in the larger society to clear up misconceptions and misinformation about who's. Leading these charges and why. You know , you mentioned Students for Fair Admission , Edward Blum. Edward Blum was also one of the organizers around voter disenfranchisement , court cases and legislation and the interconnections among groups that are attacking the democratizing role of education is far and widespread. Seeing the bigger picture , making the connections is one of the ways I think , that we clarify the role that Asian Americans are also playing to uphold race conscious interventions.
S1:
S3: What it wanted to know was if you get rid of affirmative action and even more so , you get rid of holistic review and you only look at standardized test scores. What happens to admissions of the people who have been admitted ? Would would they have been admitted or not ? And what the Georgetown study found was that there would be a small increase in the number of Asian American students that would be admitted. However , those students who would be far less likely to get in would be the low income Asian American students. And that should not be surprising , right , Given how closely tied standardized test scores are to family wealth and social economic status. So it is a reminder that Asian American students benefit from affirmative action , too , that it might block in so-called block some Asian Americans from getting in. But a lot of Asian Americans benefit from a holistic review that considers other aspects of who they are that are typically underrepresented or underserved in our educational institutions , like being low income , like being first generation , like being an English language learner , like being a recent immigrant or refugee and so on. And if we want to think about what's happening with Asian Americans , we cannot we should never paint this kind of one stroke picture of who Asian Americans are. It's a very diverse class , and I think that's what we need to keep in mind as we think about or as we dismantle the notion that there is this monolithic Asian American group.
S1: You know , despite its original intent , some advocates say affirmative action actually just hasn't gone far enough in fighting systemic discrimination and systemic racism on college campuses.
S3: It wasn't Harvard , but it was something comparable that was wanting to know how it can diversify its student population and in particular how it can increase its racial diversity. And I began by saying , Can you tell me what you're doing so far ? And they talked about their recruitment and their admissions practices. And I said , you know , those all sound great. But to me , if you want to increase the racial diversity of your student population , you can't only look at your recruitment and admissions processes , even if it's a really robust affirmative action admissions process. Why ? Because to me , impacting the experiences of students and impacting the capacity of a university to recruit and retain and successfully graduate its students is pretty much everything that happens in that university. Like what influences a student , not just to want to come here , but to stay and persist and succeed. Are things like what's being taught in the curriculum ? What kind of connections are there to the community ? What do the demographics of your faculty , staff and leadership look like ? How involved are students in governance and decision making ? How do you spend your money ? What do the student support services look like ? What is the climate like on this campus ? All of those things impact your ability to recruit and retain and graduate of racially diverse and any in any way diverse student population. And those are really , really hard things to change. So transforming universities to be able to serve a more diverse population and more importantly , to be able to serve a more democratizing function in society requires that we examine many aspects of that university. And I think this is one of the reasons why I would join those who say affirmative action was never a panacea. It was never the solution to all of our problems. Affirmative action needs to be thought of as one slice of a really big pie or a picture or whatever it needs to be one of a number of interconnected strategies that are about transforming that university and transforming how we think about our staffing and our curriculum. And all of that is a larger project that. Many people don't want to tackle. It's much easier to imagine just bringing people here. But one final thing I'll say about this is what I said to this university is if all you do is change your recruitment and admissions processes , you might want to think about how you're recruiting a more diverse student population into a university that was never designed to serve them. You actually have to change the university , and that's where I think our larger project lies next.
S1: I've been speaking with Dr. Kevin Kumar Shiro. He is an educational policy expert and former dean of the University of San Francisco's School of Education. Dr. Kumar Shiro , it has been such a pleasure talking to you and thank you for your time and insight.
S3: Thanks so much for having me and for covering these really important issues.
S1: We'd love to hear your thoughts on the Supreme Court's rulings. Give us a call at (619) 452-0228. You can leave a message or you can email us at midday at pbs.org. You may hear yourself on the radio. Still ahead , Kpbs education reporter MJ Perez joined us to talk about how students are responding to decisions on student loan forgiveness and affirmative action.
S5: They have used race as one factor in the equation of accepting students into their university. And basically that has now ended. That is not an option for them.
S1: You're listening to Kpbs Midday Edition. Welcome back. You're listening to Kpbs Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. So the Supreme Court's decisions to strike down student loan forgiveness and end affirmative action in higher education will have a big impact on California's 91 private universities , also students and even alumni. Michelle Siqueiros from the Campaign for College Opportunity says the path to college just narrowed for many people.
S6: We know that the future of our country depends on everyone having an opportunity to go to college , and we certainly need to ensure that that opportunity exists at every college and university , including the most selective institutions in our nation.
S1: Kpbs education reporter MKG Perez has been covering the impact of these decisions and joins us now. MG. Welcome back to Midday Edition.
S5: Good to be with you , Jade.
S1: Glad to have you.
S5: It is essential to academic excellence and critical to shaping the next generation of leaders. So that's what Harvard had to say. And we reached out to the University of San Diego here , of course , in San Diego County. And the president put out a very brief written statement that said in part , the exact scope and implications for colleges and universities across the country will need to be carefully assessed in the coming weeks and months. USD has a long standing commitment to inclusiveness , diversity and opportunity for all and will continue to pursue these ideals within the bounds of the law. So , paraphrasing that a bit , the University is not saying much. They are acknowledging what the Supreme Court has done and I think they kind of have to figure it out. We also went to Point Loma Nazarene University , another private university here in San Diego. They are not making any comments , although they did allow us on their campus. And students are basically saying they think diversity is a requirement for a good academic community.
S1:
S5: But what we can tell you is that they have used race as one factor in the equation of accepting students into their university. And basically that has now ended. That is not an option for them. So they will have to look at different ways to attract students from marginalized communities in order to find more of a balance on campus.
S1: Well , as we talked about earlier in the show , the passage of Prop 209 back in 1996 banned affirmative action across public colleges and universities in California.
S5: But it is true that has been in effect since 1996 and it is withheld through several legal challenges. What we found with that is in 1997 , 98 , 99 , in those first years , there was a huge drop in minority students , the number of minority students accepted and also students from other marginalized communities. What ended up happening is that over time and using other programs , they were able to find much more of a balance. But certainly that did not happen overnight. And what's expected here is a similar situation in the first year or so of this decision being put into effect. There no doubt will be a significant drop in the number of minority students being accepted.
S1:
S5: That is what they are almost programmed to say. And the truth is there is diversity , but it's also measured by different factors. So when you talk about diversity , are we talking about ethnic diversity ? Are we talking about men versus women ? Are we talking about other marginalized communities ? So the answer is , at least here in California , those numbers did come back and have balanced out. But again , that's 1996 to present day to. 2023. So it will take time no matter what universities decide they're going to do.
S1:
S5: There are minority communities that don't trust authority figures or don't believe that they deserve to be in these prestigious universities of higher learning. So that's part of the challenge , is getting past that and making campuses more inviting , but more importantly , going out one on one , doing recruitment drives in communities that need to be welcomed , if you will , onto campuses at some of the most prestigious schools in the country. So.
S1: So. MG Like I was reading that the impact here in California of of 2009 is that the numbers significantly dropped on campuses and that they've come up , but they've not reached the point of where they were before. Jade.
S5: Jade. The California ban took effect for the first time with the incoming class of 1998. And what we found back then was that the numbers plummeted that year. Enrollment among black and Latino students at UCLA and UC Berkeley , for instance , fell by a whopping 40% , and universities continued to struggle after that to try to bring students back. What has happened more recently in order to help those numbers is been to get do away with standardized test scores as a requirement for many minority students. Also , there was a point in the last many years where our universities looked at the highest scoring students in certain high schools and guaranteed them admission into a UC school. So it has not been perfect. It has not been consistent. But universities continue to try to find options to equal out or balance diverse campuses.
S1: You know , this decision targeted race conscious admissions practices with the exception of military academies , but somehow legacy admissions practices are still in place.
S5: How they work is very simple. You have somebody who went to the university ahead of you and you basically are accepted because of your legacy , because mom or dad went to that university or a brother. And it's that simple. And so people are getting admitted to universities like Harvard or Princeton or other Ivy League schools just because they were family members of other students in the past. And that's how legacy works. And so there really is , you know , well , where's the balance in that ? Where's the fairness in that ? And that's really the question. Now , they want to ban affirmative action but have done nothing. And when I'm talking about the Supreme Court , I'm talking about the Supreme Court , I should say there's nothing being done about legacy admissions.
S1:
S5: The you know , who has already been on campus are going to encourage their family members to to apply and to be accepted. So if you have a predominantly white campus , then you're going to get the legacy of that , which just means there's not much diversity. How do you get in the door , if you will ? And so some some ways of handling that , as we discussed , is around recruitment going out into those communities. But that doesn't really affect legacy because you had to have already had somebody there in order to be accepted.
S1: All right.
S5: I can tell you that , Jade. What we will be looking for are numbers. So in the next school year , how many minorities are accepted versus the year prior ? And again , you've always got there was before Covid and after Covid. So you've got to factor that into the equation. So we will be looking at the numbers , at the stats , if you will , but we don't expect anything significant anytime soon. So this is really going to be ongoing. So I would say we would have a better indicator probably in two years and three years as to what those numbers look like. But back in 1996 , here in California , within a year or so , those numbers did plunge. So. We'll have to wait to see.
S1: You're listening to Midday Edition on Kpbs. I'm joined by Kpbs education reporter MKG Perez. Now MKG. Another ruling the Supreme Court announced last week took aim at President Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan.
S5: There are a lot of people who have debt , as much as 80,000 , $100,000. And so in some regards , it was considered a drop in the bucket and it was also considered a step in the right direction. So those who would benefit the most were those who had , say , 10,000 or $20,000 in debt. And the hope was that that would be erased. What the Supreme Court basically said is that is not something the president can facilitate through an executive order. And it should have been decided by Congress. And of course , we know what Congress is like these days. It is hard to find any kind of agreement with both sides of the aisle. So that's where we are now. It is no longer an option , although the president has said he's going to come up with a different way to do it. So whether that goes against what the Supreme Court decided or whether it's a new option , we'll have to wait to see.
S1:
S5: That's trillions with a T. That's a big number. And it's no secret if you know , our listeners out there are saying , oh yeah , I've got debt. And if they don't , they've got a relative or a friend and they're very aware of what it can do. And it is so against the idea that we go and get educated so that we can get jobs. The problem with that is it costs us so much money to get educated that we then , you know , have to find jobs that we can't that would try to pay that debt off. And then the interest , that's really what kills people , the interest that continues to build with every month , every year that passes on that debt.
S1: You spoke to a UC San Diego graduate named Isabella Noel , and here was her reaction to the decision.
S7: I mean , even in high school , I know that my teachers still were paying off their debt. And so I just think that it's heartbreaking. It's something that I think everyone should be able to graduate and not have that stress of debt because it puts it relieves the pressure , but it also gives you a sense of freedom.
S1:
S5: But here is kind of how it worked for her. Number one , she's first generation college , so that's significant because of the opportunities that are open to her. A lot of people , she suggest , don't spend the time to research those grants , those scholarships that are available , especially to first generation students attending college. And so that was a really big part of it. And then she also lived with her parents for a while. That's a familiar story. A lot of people have to do that. But it was a conscious effort that she made to a research and be really budget and save. And it helped that at UCSD there are scholarships available to first generation students. And in her case , she got $20,000. That's a lot of money that can be applied to her tuition , to her books , to whatever in order to get her to graduate. And it worked for her.
S1: In his reaction to last week's ruling , President Biden called the court's decision a mistake and said he is , quote , not going to stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need , particularly those at the bottom end of the economic scale.
S5: But what we know is that he has said just that , that this is not the end of it. It certainly is the end of the plan as he presented that would offer up to $20,000 relief to a lot of , you know , students who have student loan debt. But we will have to wait to see because at this point , we don't know what that might look like. But the Supreme Court made it very clear they voted it down because they said the president does not have the authority to do this through executive order and it has to be handled through the Congress.
S1: I've been speaking with Kpbs education reporter MG Perez. MG Thank you. Thank you. We'd love to hear your thoughts on the Supreme Court's recent decisions. Give us a call at (619) 452-0228 and leave a message. You may just hear yourself on the radio or you can email us at midday at pbs.org. And if you ever miss a show , you can find the Midday Edition podcast wherever you listen. I'm Jade Hindman. Thanks for joining the conversation.
