- Just ahead on "Black Issues Forum", the US Supreme Court will review a UNC case, as they examine the constitutionality of affirmative action, for college admissions.

And a look at how mistrust and misinformation, could impact voters, poll workers, and election officials, this midterm.

Stay with us.

[upbeat music] ♪ Welcome to "Black Issues Forum".

I'm Deborah Holt Noel.

For centuries, institutions of higher education in America, did not admit black students, while the country's oldest university, Harvard University, was founded in 1636, it wasn't until 1799, 163 years later, that the first black student graduated, from an American university.

And it was John Chavis, a North Carolina native, who held that distinction with a degree, from an academy that eventually became, Washington and Lee University.

Fast forward to the 1960s and enter affirmative action.

A practice used by some college admissions boards, to proactively diversify their campuses, and a practice that has been under attack ever since.

This fall, two major cases will be heard separately, by the US Supreme Court, who will decide whether or not, race based affirmative action in college admissions, is constitutional.

One of those cases, involves the University of North Carolina.

The plaintiff is a nonprofit, called Students for Fair Admissions, and they are appealing a lower court's ruling, that found UNC's affirmative action program to be legal.

What lens will this current court use, in their decision making, and how could the outcome affect black students, seeking college admission?

I'd like to welcome to the program, April Dawson.

A professor at North Carolina Central University, School of Law, political analyst Steve Rao, and professor LaMeisha Wittington, with Advanced Carolina.

A lot of background for that, but I wanted our audience to know.

And Professor Dawson, can you share or explain, what are some of the main questions that this Supreme Court, should be answering this fall, as they examine the constitutionality of affirmative action?

- Yes, I'm happy to.

And thank you for having me.

So the first question that the court, is going to need to decide, is what is the weight of the precedent, and how the court is going to weigh that?

And so when we think about affirmative action, race based affirmative action, the court has addressed this issue before.

So the first case was the Bakke case in 1978.

And even though the court struck down the use of quotas, the court did say that the consideration of race, in a holistic review of an application was permissible.

And the court most recently upheld, the consideration of race in a holistic review, in the Fisher case, which was decided in 2016.

So it's curious in some ways, that the court is addressing this issue again.

Now we know that this particular Supreme Court, does not give a lot of weight to precedent.

So it doesn't bode well for those of us, that are supportive of affirmative action, that the court has accepted review of these two cases.

Another question that the court is going to have to address, is whether diversity is a compelling interest.

So, in determining whether affirmative action programs, violate the equal protection clause, and this is the challenge that's being brought, by the plaintiffs.

The court employs strict scrutiny.

And that means that the court will ask, whether the consideration of race is necessary to compel, and necessary to promote a compelling interest.

And the interest in this case would be diversity.

And so the court will have to decide in the first instance, whether diversity is a compelling interest, such that race can be used in reaching diversity.

Now it's... We don't know if the court will reach a conclusion, that diversity is a compelling interest, but if the court does, then the next question that the court will have to address, is whether the use of race in these situations, is narrowly tailored.

So in looking at race and looking at this holistic review, are the schools overlying up on race.

Are there other ways in which the admissions offices, can diversify the student body, without taking race into account?

So those are some of the big questions, that the court will answer, and based on their answers to those questions, we'll know what the outcome is.

- That is some very helpful exposition.

Thank you so much for explaining it, and breaking it down in that way.

Steve, you know, what can you share about the effectiveness, of affirmative action in college admissions, for North Carolina schools?

Has it been working?

Who has it benefited most?

- Well, I think, I want to thank the professor for that really, really great summary, and I think that, in my opinion, as an analyst, I think that in the Universities that we have in North Carolina, I think there's been a number, seven or eight, that use Affirmative Action.

I do believe that it's worked quite well, It's worked well to help recruit minorities into our universities, to train Admissions officers on the importance of diversity, and I want to go to this issue of a compelling interest, because I think we often forget that diversity, not only diversity of race and gender, but also socioeconomic diversity, has been proven to be a key driver of success in universities, in schools, in terms of academic performance, and even our top leading companies in the world, even startup companies that have grown to become multi-billion dollar empires, they've all valued diversity, so I think it's really important for us to look at the fact that if we rolled back Affirmative Action, we would actually be taking a significant step back on many of the DEI efforts we're seeing today.

I'm seeing universities hire DEI officers, journalists, publications like The Daily Tar Heel, UNC's paper, they're hiring a DEI officer, companies, and so if we get away from Affirmative Action, we're gonna be rolling back the very things that we're focusing on, in terms of having and promoting diversity.

We can tweak Affirmative Action, at the end of the day, my final two things I'll say is that I believe this is a perfect example of the court abandoning what's worked well in America, which is stare decisis, upholding precedent to expand rights.

We've started with Roe v. Wade a few weeks ago, and now Affirmative Action, are we gonna go back and look at every decision?

I think that I'm gonna close out with a presentation I attended at the North Carolina League of Municipalities Race and Equity Task Force, where they talked about equality versus equity.

And there was a slide under equality, and it showed two people watching a baseball game, but one view was higher than the other, but when equity was defined, it was like taking into account the circumstances of those individuals, and that they were watching the game from the same level.

- Yes, I've seen that image, I've seen that image too, yes.

- And the point I'm trying to make is that I think that Affirmative Action and the cases before the court have not violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, because it's also taken to a fact the circumstances of minorities, and if you look, the data shows that today, college educated America, 11% black Americans and 15% Latino American in our universities.

At Harvard, in our top universities, we have 5% black Americans and about 11% Latino Americans, so it's not true that if we just level the playing field and let everyone go in on their admissions criteria, that we're going to move that number up at all.

- So much has been said, thank you so much for that, Steve, thank you for all of that, because we've talked about precedent setting, we've talked about the compelling need and value of diversity, and it's been a lot, but necessary.

And LA, I wanna get your thoughts on all of this, specifically about the value of precedent in our Supreme Court.

- Sure, so what we talk about, first, when you bring up the important element that we have to consider is the programs that will be cut, the impact that will actually happen, we know that Affirmative Action programs are responsible for about a reported up to 33% increase in the number of minority applications to higher education institutes, so when we talk about the fact that Affirmative Action, of course, is being considered when we talk about the federal level, the Supreme Court, the same actions that we've seen being gutted, whether it's Voting Rights Act, whether we're talking about Roe V Wade, the same intentionality of claiming that we're in a post-racial society, of course we understand the impact of that, but on a hyper-state local, other states have actually already conducted Affirmative Action bans, and we already see the negative and adverse impact in those states, such as in California, the Proposition 209, that was actually on the ballot and voters voted to ban Affirmative Action back in, believe, by 1996.

And so what we saw is this incredible harm and impact to, of course, the numbers of registration, application and enrollment for black students, native Americans, and highest was the Latino or Latinx community.

And so what we also saw was that actually white students didn't really increase nominally above their high school graduation rates, it was actually Asian Americans that had been able to increase in enrollment in California.

So the impact we're seeing is on various populations, but I don't think it was taken an account by the voters exactly what that would look like from 1996 to now.

But what we saw is this catalyst was a movement that was led by a US Regent Ward Connerly, who was actually a black, Connerly, who was a black American, And he is back talking about, again, is going to be on the ballot, let's go against Affirmative Action, even though he seen the adverse impact.

And so what we're talking about on the federal level is this decision point, Affirmative Action was designed as a response, as an actual policy, right?

It's not a belief system, it's not a "Okay, let's give someone a handout."

It is an actual requirement by the Federal Government that if you receive federal dollars, you have to incorporate a plan, and in that Affirmative Action plan are actually guidelines to say how you are going to defeat discrimination and racism, namely, because of Affirmative Action was designed as a response to proven discrimination and racism.

It isn't a, again, a figment of our imagination, it was in a response, and it goes all the way back to the Reconstruction Era, well, actually we can back it up, it actually goes back to the 13th Amendment, that of course that was created upon Emancipation, but because of that 13th Amendment clause that said that we were actually not free people of color, if we were, of course, in prison, charged with a crime, guess what happened after that 13th amendment, when we were emancipated, Southern states created black codes, laws that, of course, put us back in the prison state.

They got through that loophole to say "Well, sure, we will still do slavery, legally, "we'll make sure imprison folks."

And because of that, Congress responded with the 14th Amendment, and put in that clause to say "Hold on, let's begin to look at the fact "that we emancipated slavery, "we're not going to use this loophole to this degree, "and we need to actually create this Affirmative Action."

Even though it wasn't so named at that point.

So we've seen a, back and forth, a policy of one side is fighting to emancipate, and we're fighting for our own emancipation, and the other side just won't give up, that's where we are.

- It's a big loop, it's all connected, and people have to stay tuned.

Professor April Dawson, I would've loved to get another comment in here from you, but we do have to close out this segment, thank you so much for joining us.

- Absolutely, my pleasure.

- We know that in a few months, North Carolinians will head to the polls for midterm elections.

Poll workers and election officials will also roll up their sleeves, but according to a survey by the Brennan Center for Justice, one in five are likely to quit before the 2024 presidential election.

Why?

Some report that they're concerned about threats and harassment in doing their work.

And in fact, some conservative groups are implementing strategies, such as poll observation that cross the line into intimidation.

Joining our panel to talk about it, I'd like to welcome Lynn Bonner, an investigative reporter with "NC Policy Watch."

- Thanks for having me.

- Absolutely.

Lynn, what can you share about this increased concern by poll workers and election officials in any relation to what's actually happening?

- Well, there was some concern during the primaries about poll observers, partisan poll observers, and mostly identified as Republicans who were doing some things that poll observers aren't allowed to do.

Some were trying to look laptops where there's confidential voting information.

Engaging poll workers and voters when they're really supposed to only talk to the chief judge.

Some elections poll workers were tailed as they left the polling site to go back to headquarters.

Some observers tried to follow voters as they walked up to the voting booth to actually vote.

None of these things are allowed.

And some of the poll workers felt intimidated.

There was one local elections director who said that a chief judge felt intimidated and didn't wanna work early voting anymore.

Another reported that workers in that county felt intimidated.

So there is an increase in poll observers being trained in some aggressive tactics to watch not only poll workers, but voters.

- So this is very real.

What you just shared with us are real incidents and it's happening.

And it sounds like it's a known strategy that they know and are implementing...

The people who are implementing these strategies know is working.

Steve, let me bring you in on this.

What are your thoughts about the fact that this is happening and how it might be related to everything that we've witnessed this past year since January 6th?

- Well, I think it just shows you that there's just an absolute disruption in democracy in America, just in terms of we've have already over the last year and a half lack of faith in our institutions from the Congress to the Senate, to the courts.

And now the one place where democracy should be safe, casting our vote is a jeopardy.

And I think that just really my concern is that number one, we're not honoring the outcomes of elections, right?

So what happens is these partisan election observers even Michael Whatley from the Republican party said, "No election in North Carolina is gonna be conducted without a Republican election observer.

So that kind of intimidation where you're looking for fraud even if there's no evidence of fraud.

You don't get the outcome you want, you file a petition in the court, okay.

So number one, it's gonna be affecting the outcomes of the elections, right?

And that's not right.

Two, election workers, this is very stressful because you know people are coming in, these are workers that are coming in to just help the democracy.

And all of a sudden you have these contentious situations like what happened in Wayne County, Red Counties, Blue Counties.

And so it just makes this one area our democracy where we want to make sure that we are respectful of people's right to choose who they vote for.

And the final thing I'll say is- - Do we really wanna be respectful of that right?

I mean, what I'm seeing happen is this erosion.

So just to your point about not believing what actually happened here, we've got a process, we've got a democratic process.

It's implemented, the votes are counted, but someone's decided they don't like the results.

- But it's a political strategy.

That's exactly the point.

I mean, we've seen this time and time again from the insurrection, we've seen the court, basically states changing the powers of the secretary of state in Georgia or in Arizona, moving it to the attorney general to affect the outcomes of elections.

- So we don't like the rules.

"So we don't like what happened, let's change the rules."

- Right, let's change rules, let's change voting rights.

Let's make it harder to count early votes.

Let's not count absentee ballot.

And this is just adding to their playbook, you know?

And so it's about winning and, and that unfortunately democracy shouldn't be about winning.

It should be about governing.

"The campaign is over, vote and honor the results and there's always another election."

So I think that's my take on this situation.

- Thanks Steve.

LA, here's democracy sort of on the line and we're gonna see the outcome in the upcoming elections the impact, and if someone's standing over my shoulder I am actually more apt to possibly make a mistake.

- That's right.

That's right.

To follow the great dialogue here.

We've heard about, just what is actually happening on the ground, the culture that is being embedded by a specific group of folks.

And so when we take it back this has been a concerted effort, a really clear strategic plan that has been underway for years.

In response to the election of former President Obama, the membership of the KKK increased dramatically, a sign of a racist hate that wasn't extinguished, right?

No matter whether the Supreme Court says, I mean we're a post racial society.

Well, that hate and that angst was then galvanized under of course the Trump administration by former President Trump.

And of course that spread like wildfire, that ideology of the alt-right and in then alt-right issue statement campaign platform that they like to use is taking over the government, as Steve was mentioning, that is around targeting in our elections.

And we saw that when we said they're challenging at the highest our highest office of the land making sure that election integrity, we saw this argument and kind of this dog whistling language.

And so what we're now seeing is this embedded culture that's been ingrained for several years.

And the reality is in North Carolina, several rural areas alt-right groups have actually been using specific areas for trainings to understand how to interrupt elections, and training each other based on, again, this ideology, it's a trained strategic, organized effort.

And so what we're looking at is resources from the state budget.

We finally had a state budget approved, right?

But were there resources allocated to support poll worker protection?

No, this is again a new frontier by saying "Now we have to not only protect voters we now have to protect poll workers."

And then we have to distinguish between the poll workers who are actually protesting as a strategic plan, In coalition with the same alt-right group, who are the poll workers who are being intimidated versus the poll workers who are fabricating intimidation so they can increase the voter fraud, election integrity stigma, and so that's what we're also looking at on the ground.

And what's happening is it's become up to groups and individuals.

My organization, we actually had to create a Black legal network in an election protection program with other partner organizations like Southern Coalition for Social Justice and Democracy NC.

The reason I named them is because there's been a hotline for years where folks can call a hotline if they've been intimidated.

But now we've had to actually create an apparatus, a Black legal network of Black and Brown attorneys who are volunteering their time to actually be on the ground so that if folks are intimidated at the polls they could just say, "Hey, I identify you as an attorney.

This is a microaggression that impeded me from being able to cast my ballot.

They're telling me I have to show my voter ID, or they're saying that they can't find my name on the voter rolls or it's misspelled," or the other examples that we've heard.

So it's now up to us as the advocates to now create our own form of protection in the wake of trying to convince our government to do the same for us.

- There's a lot going on.

People are taking action on both sides and what it looks like is congesting the entire process.

Lynn, are there any steps that are being taken by the Board of Elections to your knowledge, to help protect voters, to help protect the election officials to try to break through some of this congestion?

- I don't know of any specifically.

I'm sure there must be some plan that I don't know about because elections directors are talking about getting death threats and the likes, so I can't imagine that there isn't some plan for protection when they feel like they're in danger.

But I do know that there is a national group that is trying to form an alliance between local county elections directors and law enforcement for protection.

And some of the voter advocacy groups are joining together to train people who will go to polls to be deescalation forces.

And they're trying to spread out statewide with some focus on places where they think there might be more challenges to voters.

So, I think the general election in November is gonna be a real test to see how elections are going to be run.

I mean, everybody's kind of gotten used to, well, I just show up and, you know, fill in the bubbles, and put my ballot in the tabulator.

What is that gonna look like in November?

You know, is there going to be a lot of disruption at particular places?

And are there gonna be more challenges to legitimate votes?

- Absolutely, and let me just get your feedback, all three of you very quickly, going down that road.

So you've got possibly deescalation groups showing up.

You've got possibly police showing up.

What do you think that's gonna do to impact voters at the polls?

How are they gonna feel?

What do you anticipate could happen?

- Well, I mean, I think that it's just, I've been through this both as a candidate running for offices and observing working election days, and also as friends of candidates running and it's getting increasingly divisive.

I mean, you look at the polls, people getting scared, people getting frustrated, people making accusations, it just makes the entire election day a very uncomfortable experience.

So it could hinder turn out to vote, which you want this to be a comfortable experience.

The second thing I'll say is that the only good news is the Board of Elections has come up with some new rules where they could eject election observers if they see suspicious or intimidating activity.

And so that's the good news, but the bad news, and I talked about this a few weeks ago, is that in the North Carolina budget, they underfunded about $3 million or so of money that the Board of Elections needed for more staff for automating equipment machines, but even possibly security personnel, right?

And so I think this is a time when our state, particularly North Carolina, needs to make investments in our democracy right here in our home state by expanding workers for polls and things like that.

But Deb, I think it's gonna be a very uncomfortable, turbulent election this November.

- And LA, what are your thoughts on it?

Got about a minute.

- I completely agree with Steve.

What I would say is voter protection, poll worker protection, as voters vote early, and also please visit the websites the aforementioned organizations that I included, including North Carolina Black Alliance, because there will be resources to help you navigate if you decide absentee ballot, voting early, or if you actually wanna go with a group.

Whether it's a church group, whether it's the Divine Nine, there are actually safety in numbers, and making sure that we are supporting you full 100%.

So please look up our website, the website of other organizations, so that we make sure we're in support of our people and each other to actually cast our constitutional right to vote.

- We'll absolutely share that information on the program and mail-in ballot sounds like a great option to me, LA, Steve- - [Steve] That's a good idea.

- La'Meshia Whittington, Steve Rao, Lynn Bonner, thank you so much.

- Thank you, pleasure.

- Thank you.

I wanna thank all of our guests for joining us today and we invite you to engage with us on Twitter or Instagram using the #BlackIssuesForum.

You can also find our full episodes on pbsnc.org/blackissuesforum, or listen at any time on Apple iTunes, Spotify, or Google podcasts.

For "Black Issues Forum" I'm Deborah Holt Noel.

Thanks for watching.

[upbeat music] ♪ ♪ ♪ - [Announcer] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you, who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.