>> TWO SUPREME COURT CASES AND A VOTING RIGHTS BILL - WE'LL UNPACK THEM NEXT ON IVORY TOWER.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M BARBARA FOUGHT FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

THE PROFESSORS HERE TO DISCUSS THE NEWS ARE-- KRISTI ANDERSEN, FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY NINA MOORE, FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY RICK FENNER, FROM UTICA COLLEGE, AND TARA ROSS, FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

LET'S START WITH THIS WEEK IN CONGRESS.

THE INITIAL VOTING RIGHTS BILL DIDN'T SNAG ENOUGH VOTES.

NOR DID THE PROPOSAL FROM SENATOR JOE MANCHIN.

AND WHILE WE SAW A BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON AN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL THIS WEEK, PUNDITS SEE LITTLE HOPE FOR ONE ON VOTING RIGHTS.

KRISTI, WHAT'S THE WAY FORWARD HERE?

>> I'M NOT SURE THERE IS A WAY FORWARD.

TWO POSSIBILITIES.

ONE IS THAT MANCHIN, WHO I THINK REALLY DID TRY TO WORK ACROSS THE AISLE AND DEVELOP A COMPROMISE AND THAT DIDN'T GO OVER WITH REPUBLICANS, MAY GET ANNOYED ENOUGH AT THE REPUBLICAN REFUSALS TO EVEN CONSIDER THE STUFF TO AGREE WITH SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES THAT POSSIBLY REFORMING OR GETTING RID OF THE FILIBUSTER IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE.

I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.

AND I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY.

THE OTHER THING I WONDER ABOUT IS WHETHER, THE FOR THE PEOPLE ACT" COULD BE BROKEN UP INTO SMALLER PIECES.

IF WE LOOK AT PUBLIC OPINION ON THE BILL ITSELF, PEOPLE ARE MOSTLY IN FAVOR OF IT.

BUT CERTAINLY ON SPECIFIC PARTS OF IT.

ON, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MOVE TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF BIG MONEY IN POLITICS, INFLUENCE MONEY AND POLITICS, MAKING IT EASY TO VOTE EARLY, NON-PARTISAN REDISTRICTING COMMITTEES IN THE STATES.

I MEAN THOSE THINGS HAVE THE SUPPORT OF BIG MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS BUT EVEN MAJORITIES OF REPUBLICANS.

AND IF THOSE-- UP WITH OR MORE OF THOSE WERE PUT TO THE VOTE, REPUBLICANS SAID NO TO THAT, THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING.

AND IT'S EASY ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SAY THIS WHOLE BIG BILL IS A POWER GRAB BY DEMOCRATS.

IT WOULD BE MORE EASY TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IS GETTING MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.

>> CERTAINLY SOME OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED KRISTI ARE WORTHWHILE BUT THEY'RE THE VERY THINGS THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE INDICATED THEIR OPPOSITION TO; HOWEVER, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS THAT WERE IN THIS BILL THAT I THINK DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE DONE WELL TO FOCUS ON PRECISELY BECAUSE REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THEM; FOR EXAMPLE, THE NATIONAL AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION, BECAUSE IT OPERATES THROUGH THE D.M.V., THROUGH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES SUCH AS THE I.R.S., DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND SO FORDS, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FORM OF VOTER I.D., WHICH REPUBLICANS HAVE PUSHED FOR.

AND I AGREE ALSO THE EARLY OR-- YEAH, THE SETTING 15 DAYS FOR EARLY VOTING WAS SOMETHING THAT MANCHIN HAD SUPPORTED AND A FEW OTHER THINGS.

I ACTUALLY THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE ABANDONED THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND THE ETHICS, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH THOSE THINGS, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE A NON-STARTER.

>> MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS I THINK IT MISSES THE MAJOR ISSUE THAT'S GOING ON AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THAT IS INCREASING THE ABILITY OF STATES TO OVERTURN ELECTIONS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT, AND THAT'S GREAT, MAKING IT EASIER TO VOTE.

BUT IF IT'S EASIER FOR A JUDGE OR AN ELECTION COMMISSIONER TO OVERTURN AND REJECT THE POPULAR VOTE, THEN I THINK THAT'S THE REAL THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.

>> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

AND ONE OF THE THUNKS THAT THUNKS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO AND I AGRU KRISTI, THEY HAVE TO FOCUS ON ONE OR TWO OR EVEN THREE OF THE FOR THE PEOPLE ACT AND LET THE DUST SETTLE FOR A WHILE.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO IS THEY HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB OF THE PUBLIC RELATIONS PART OF THIS BECAUSE THEY CERTAINLY SENT OUT MESSAGES TO PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF "FOR THE PEOPLE ACTED" ANYWAY AND SAID PLEASE WRITE YOUR SENATOR.

BUT THEY DIDN'T FOCUS ON THE AREAS THAT PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AGREE UPON, DIMINISHING THE REPUBLICANS' EFFORTS TO SAYER, THIS IS BIG GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY STATES RIGHTS.

THEY DIDN'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF UNDERMINING THE REPUBLICANS' ARGUMENTS.

IF THEY DON'T DO A BETTER JOB OF THAT, ANYTHING THEY TRY TO DO IS GOING TO SUFT SIMPLY BE IN DANGER.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

>> RICK, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?

>> SURE.

>> WHAT WOULD LEGISLATION LOOK LIKE THAT WOULD PREVENT THE STATES FROM DOING WHAT REPUBLICANS WANT THEM TO DO, REPUBLICAN STATE OFFICE HOLDERS SAY NO, WE DON'T LIKE THIS VOTE?

>> NOT BEING A LAWYER, I WOULD LOOK AND ASK NINA, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

>> I'M NOT A LAWYER EITHER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT ARTICLE 1 SECTION 4 CLAUSE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE ELECTION OF ITS OWN MEMBERS.

AND NO STATE IS GOING TO SET UP A SEPARATE ELECTION PROCESS FOR FEDERAL POLICY MAKERS VERSUS NOT.

SO THAT CERTAINLY IS AN OPPORTUNITY THERE, BUT I THINK THE OTHER PART, KRISTI, IS WE STILL HAVE THE JOHN LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT, RIGHT, WHICH INVOLVES PRECLEARANCE, CHANGING THE CENSUS DATA TO COVER NEW STATES AND ALSO STANDARDIZING HOW VOTES ARE COUNTED.

HOW THEY'RE CERTIFIED BECAUSE RICK IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THOSE THINGS WERE LEFT OUT.

>> TARA, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T PROMOTED IT MUCH AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT SAID HE CAN GO ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

CAN HE BE PERSUASIVE AND CHANGE THIS?

>> I DON'T THINK HE CAN.

UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IF THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO IS PROMOTING THE FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OR COMPONENTS OF IT, IT WILL SIMPLY BE SEEN AS A DEMOCRATIC POWER GRAB.

REALLY WHAT YOU NEED TO GET DEMOCRATS ON THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL TO BE THE ONES TO PROMOTE THIS.

PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE.

THEY'LL HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF HOW TO PROMOTE IT AND THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE IN THE POSITION OF JUST GENERALLY TALKING WITH PEOPLE ABOUT IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S TOP DOWN, WHICH I THINK IS WHERE THE DEMOCRATS TEND TO LOSE PEOPLE.

>> WELL, LET'S MOVE TO THE SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK.

COLLEGE ATHLETES AND FANS TOOK NOTICE OF THIS ANTITRUST CASE THAT WAS BROUGHT BY PLAYERS.

THEY ASKED TO CHANGE THE NCAA RULES THAT PROHIBITED ATHLETES FROM GETTING MORE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS FOR EXAMPLE, PAID INTERNSHIP, SCHOLARSHIPS TO GRAD SCHOOL OR FREE LAPTOPS.

THE COURT SIDED WITH THE ATHLETES WRITING, "THE NCAA BUSINESS MODEL WOULD BE FLATLY ILLEGAL IN ALMOST ANY OTHER INDUSTRY IN AMERICA."

BUT RICK, YOU ARE THE ECONOMIST ON THE PAM, IS HIGHER EDUCATION REALLY AN INDUSTRY?

>> WELL, LET'S BE CLEAR COLLEGES ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING MINOR LEAGUE SPORTS TEAMS.

S.U.

BASKETBALL AND S.U.

FOOTBALL IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE SYRACUSE CRUNCH AND THE SYRACUSE METS.

AND IT'S INTERESTING THAT THEY ARE USING WORDS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BUSINESS.

ATHLETES ARE TALKING ABOUT WANTING FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW, TALKED ABOUT BUSINESS MODELS.

I'M HOPING THIS GETS US TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN STOP TALKING ABOUT STUDENT ATHLETES AND WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYEE ATHLETES.

PERHAPS WE GO AWAY FROM REQUIRING THAT PARTICIPANTS BE STUDENTS.

IF THE COLLEGES WANT TO RUN SPORTS TEAMS, THEN THEY SHOULD, WITHOUT THE PRETENSE THAT'S THERE IS SOMETHING TIED TO OUR ACADEMIC MISSION ON THIS.

THE OTHER THING THAT'S INTERESTING IS IF THE CHALLENGES ARE GOING TO START PAYING THE PLAYERS, WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM?

WE HEAR ABOUT THE HUGE AMOUNTS OF REVENUE, BUT IF YOU GO TO THE NCAA INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC FINANCE DATABASE, YOU FIND OUT THAT THE TOP 65 PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY, ONLY 20 OF THEM ARE MAKING MONEY.

45 OF THEM ARE LOSING MONEY.

MY FEAR IS THAT IF WE MOVE TO PROVIDING STUDENTS WITH CASH, IT'S GOING TO COME AT THE EXPENSE OF MINOR SPORTS.

STANFORD RECENTLY TRIED TO CUT ONE THIRD OF THEIR VARSITY INTERCOLLEGIATE SPORTS, SAYING THEY NEEDED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET DEFICIT FOR THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT.

NOW FORTUNATELY, THEY BACKTRACKED ON THIS.

BUT MY FEAR IS THAT IF ATHLETES ARE GOING TO START DEMANDING, YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, THIS IS GOING TO COME AT THE EXPENSE OF SPORTS LIKE SWIMMING, TRACK AND FIELD, TENNIS AND THE LIKE.

>> LET ME GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST POINT.

ARE YOU SAYING THE COLLEGES WOULD HIRE ATHLETES AND THEY WOULDN'T BE STUDENTS?

>> SURE.

WHY NOT?

THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

I WILL TELL YOU AS A PROFESSOR, TO HAVE STUDENTS IN MY OR PARTICIPANTS IN MY CLASS THAT ARE THERE ONLY TO PLAY SPORTS AND I'M AN IMPEDIMENT TO THEM DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, I MEAN I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT HELPS.

IT DOESN'T HELP ME.

IT DOESN'T HELP THE STUDENTS IN MY CLASS THAT WANT TO LEARN.

AND IT DOESN'T HELP THOSE PARTICIPANTS THAT REALLY ARE THERE JUST TO PLAY SPORTS.

>> BUT FRANKLY, I NEVER THOUGHT, WHEN I WAS TEACHING, OF THE STUDENTS, EVEN BASKETBALL PLAYERS AND FOOTBALL PLAYERS IN MY CLASS, AS ONLY WANTING TO PLAY BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL.

I MEAN IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION, BUT THEY WERE-- THEY WANTED TO BE STUDENTS IN ADDITION TO WANTING TO EVENTUALLY PLAY POTENTIALLY PRO-FOOTBALL OR PRO-BASKETBALL ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

SO I THINK THERE IS A NOTION THAT WHATEVER YOU LEARN AT SYRACUSE IN THE CLASSES YOU ARE TAKING IS GOING TO HELP YOU NOT PLAY FOOTBALL BETTER BUT HAVE, YOU KNOW, OTHER OPTIONS.

>> YEAH, I MEAN PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT COLLEGE ATHLETES GET A DEGREE.

THEY REALLY DON'T GET A COLLEGE EXPERIENCE.

AND SO I THINK-- WELL, THEY DON'T GET A COLLEGE EXPERIENCE BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET TO GO ON STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS.

THEY HAVE TO WORK 40 HOURS IN ADDITION TO JUST GOING TO CLASSES AND STUDYING AND A LOT OF WHAT THEY DO IS NOT COUNTED AGAINST THE 20-HOUR LIMIT BY THE NCAA.

BUT TO YOUR QUESTION, RICK, WHERE WOULD THE MONIES COME FROM?

I'D SAY SOME OF THE COACHES THAT ARE MAKING $8 MILLION A YEAR FOR STANDING ON THE SIDELINES AND SCREAMING AT THE PLAYERS WHO ARE TAKING A BEATING ON THE FIELD WOULD BE ONE PLACE.

BUT THE GRAVITAS OF THIS DECISION BARBARA IS THAT THE COURT SAID IT IS ANTITRUST BECAUSE YOU WERE LIMITING THE ABILITY OF OTHER COLLEGES TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE FOR THESE ATHLETES AND COMPETE IN WAYS THAT ARE USEFUL SUCH AS PAYING FOR INTERNSHIPS, PAY PAYING FOR STUDY ABROAD AND EVEN AWARDING ATHLETES FOR GOOD GRADES SO I REALLY DON'T SEE A DOWNSIDE AND IN FACT ONE OF THE CO-COUNSEL IN THIS CASE IS PUSHING IT FURTHER TO NEXT ARGUE THAT THEY SHOULD REMOVE ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON COMPENSATION.

>> TARA, EXPLOSIVE ALL THOSE RESTRICTIONS?

>> IN THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW, WOULD I DISAGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A KEY COMPONENT THAT GETS MISSED IN THIS DECISION AND THAT WAS THE COURT SAID THAT THIS PREVENTS SCHOOLS FROM EXTENDING RELATED COMPENSATION TO NON-PLAYING ATHLETES AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS FOR ME IN THIS DECISION BECAUSE OKAY I'M ASSUMING WHEN YOU SAY NON-PLAYING ATHLETES, WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE ATHLETES WHO, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE PERHAPS BEING RED SHIRTED FOR SOME REASON OR HAVE BEEN INJURED AND CAN'T PLAY FOR A TIME PERIOD.

AND WHILE I'LL BE THE FIRST TO SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW EVERY LITTLE DETAIL OF HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS FOR ME IS OKAY, IF YOU ARE NOT PLAYING AND YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ACADEMIC YEAR, OKAY, OF COURSE, YOU SHOULDN'T LOSE YOUR ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIP, OF COURSE YOU SHOULDN'T.

BUT IF YOU ARE BEING RED SHIRTED FOR A SEMESTER, WHY SHOULD YOU CONTINUE TO GET AN ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIP WHEN YOU ARE NOT PLAYING?

AND SO FOR ME THAT WAS ONE OF THE KEYS IN TERMS OF THIS SYSTEM.

BUT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, I ALSO AGREE WITH RICK.

LET'S JUST ELIMINATE THE NOTION OF THESE BEING STUDENT ATHLETES.

LET'S SIMPLY TAKE THEM TO BE ATHLETE EMPLOYEES AND THEN IF THEY WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL OUT OF THE SALARY THAT THEY GET, YOU PAY FOR SCHOOL JUST AS YOU HAVE STUDENTS WHO ARE WORKING TWO JOBS, WHO WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL.

YOU ARRANGE YOUR CLASSES AROUND YOUR PROFESSIONAL PLAYING.

AND DO IT THAT WAY.

I THINK THIS IS A SYSTEM EITHER YOU HAVE TO GO ONE WAY OR YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THE OTHER WAY.

WE CAN'T KEEP THIS MIDDLE GROUND.

>> KRISTI, QUICKLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT IDEA?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

[LAUGHTER] I'LL SAY WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT.

WHICH IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF, ESPECIALLY FOOTBALL PLAYERS, ARE MINORITY PLAYERS WHO WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO COLLEGE BUT BY WAY OF ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S TRUE OF ALL OF THEM BUT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER SO THERE WILL BE SOME FALLOUT FOR THIS ALONG DEMOGRAPHIC LINES.

>> WELL, IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS DECISION TURNS OUT TO BE.

LET'S TURN TO THE COURT'S DECISION THIS WEEK ON FREE SPEECH.

TRUE CONFESSIONS - I CAN IDENTIFY WITH THE PLAINTIFF HERE - TEENAGER BRANDY LEVY -- BECAUSE I TOO DIDN'T MAKE VARSITY CHEERLEADER.

I WAS HEART-BROKEN.

MS. LEVY TOOK HER ANGST OUT BY POSTING A PROFANE RANT ON SNAPCHAT.

HER SCHOOL SUSPENDED HER FROM THE JUNIOR VARSITY CHEER TEAM FOR A YEAR.

SHE SUED, SAYING THE SCHOOL VIOLATED HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

THE SUPREME COURT SIDED WITH HER AND TRIED TO DELINEATE WHAT AUTHORITY SCHOOLS HAVE OVER A STUDENT'S SPEECH OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.

TARA, DID THEY THE COURT MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION AND WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS NOW?

>> THE COURT DID MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION BECAUSE MISS LEVY'S RESISTANT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONLINE, IT WAS ON SNAPCHAT.

IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO GO PUBLIC.

IT WAS JUST TO HER SNAPCHAT FRIENDS.

SHE DIDN'T THREATEN ANYONE.

SHE DIDN'T THREATEN, YOU KNOW, SHE WAS ANGRY ABOUT THE DECISION BUT SHE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGE THE SCHOOL IN ANY WAY.

IT WAS JUST SIMPLY A TEENAGER HAVING A RANT.

SO IN THIS CASE I REALLY DO THINK THE COURTS DID GET IT RIGHT.

THE SCHOOL WENT TOO FAR IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT ONE OF MY CONCERNS HERE IS THAT MISS LEVY AND MANY CHEERLEADERS ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT AND THEIR PARENTS HAVE TO CO-SIGN ON IT IN WHICH THEY TALK ABOUT THEIR BEHAVIOR AS CHEERLEADERS AND MANY OF THESE AGREEMENTS HAVE A CLAUSE THAT DEALS WITH BOTH ON CAMPUS BEHAVIOR AND OFF CAMPUS BEHAVIOR.

SOME EVEN SPECIFY ISSUES OR AROUND PROFANE LANGUAGE.

SO IN THIS CASE WHILE THE DECISION IS CORRECT, I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS GIVES LEEWAY TO STUDENTS WHO ARE CONSIDERED SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES BECAUSE THEY'RE CHEERLEADERS AND IN THE PUBLIC EYE, TO NOT HAVE TO UPHOLD THE AGREEMENTS THAT THEY SIGNED AND THE AGREEMENTS QUITE FRANKLY, THAT THEIR PARENTS SIGN.

>> I KIND OF AGREE WITH TARA'S POINT ON THIS.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE WAS ONLY-- SHE WASN'T SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL.

I THINK BACK TO, YOU KNOW, A LONG TIME AGO, TINKER VS. DES MOINES DECISION IN 1968, WHICH SUPPORTED STUDENTS RIGHTS TO WHERE WEAR ANTI-VIETNAM ARM BANDS.

THAT'S A POLITICAL STATEMENT THAT THE SCHOOL SUSPENDED THESE STUDENTS.

SHE WASN'T SUSPENDED.

SHE WAS SIMPLY QUICK KICKED OFF THE CHEERLEADING TEAM FOR A WHILE BECAUSE SHE VIOLATED THEIR PARTICULAR RULES.

NONETHELESS, I AGREE THE SUPREME COURT SEEMED TO HAVE MADE THEIR DECISION IN LARGE PART ON THE BASIS OF HER NOT BEING ON CAMPUS.

THAT THE SCHOOLS DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER HER SPEECH RIGHTS BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT DOING THIS ON CAMPUS, WHICH WAS AN EASY OUT, IN A SENSE, FOR THE COURT, I THINK.

>> WHAT STRUCK ME IS THAT THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY GUIDANCE AS TO WHEN COULD THE SCHOOLS DISCIPLINE STUDENTS FOR OFF CAMPUS STEVEN SPEECH, BECAUSE I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE APPEALS COURT HAD BASICALLY SIDED WITH THE STUDENT MADE A VERY BROAD CASE THAT SHE COULDN'T BE DISCIPLINED BECAUSE IT WAS OFF CAMPUS SPEECH.

EVEN THOUGH THE VOTE WAS 8-1, THE MAJORITY VIEW DID SAY THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, WHERE THE SCHOOL DID HAVE A RIGHT TO STEP IN AND DISCIPLINE, BUT DIDN'T GO BEYOND THAT.

SO I THINK THEY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION IN THE VERY NARROWEST OF SENSES BUT DIDN'T REALLY HELP IN TERMS OF ANY GUIDANCE ON THE BROADER ISSUE OF WHERE'S THE DIVIDING LINE?

>> YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, RICK, THAT THERE WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF SPECIFIC GUIDANCE PROVIDED HERE.

THE MOST THAT WE CAN GATHER IS THAT THEY USED THE STANDARD OF DISRUPTIVENESS.

WAS HER BEHAVIOR DISRUPTIVE AND ALL BREYER REALLY WROTE WAS THIS ISN'T REALLY DISRUPTIVE BUT WHAT WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE AND HE ALLUDED TO THE IDEA THAT IF YOU TARGET AN INDIVIDUAL, WHICH SHE DID NOT DO, THEN THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC.

BUT I GOT TO TELL YOU, I HAVE SOME STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS, NOT BECAUSE I DIDN'T MAKE CHEERLEADER EITHER, BUT BECAUSE BRIAR SAID, YOU KNOW, BREYER SAID WHERE DOES IT END.

IF A SCHOOL CAN MONITOR OFF CAMPUS BEHAVIOR, THEN THE STUDENT IS SUBJECT TO SCHOOL AUTHORITY CONTROLS 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.

BUT HERE'S KIND OF THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME.

WHERE IN THE HELL DO THE PARENTS COME?

IF SCHOOLS ARE TELLING STUDENTS WHAT THEY CAN DO IN THEIR BEDROOM, WHAT'S THE POINTS OF PARENTS?

>> KRISTI, YOU TALKED ABOUT IT BEING A NARROW ISSUE.

AND I WONDER IF THE COURT DID THAT BECAUSE IT'S TRYING TO GET-- ROBERTS IS TRYING TO GET MORE UNANIMITY.

THIS WAS AN 8-1 DECISION.

THE OTHER COURT CASE WE MENTIONED IS A 9-0 DECISION.

ARE THEY TRYING TO MAKE A STATEMENT?

>> EVERYONE IS RIGHT IN SAYING IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY DIDN'T ISSUE MUCH GUIDANCE.

WEREN'T VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THEIR ARGUMENTS WERE.

>> YOU ARE SHAKING YOUR HEAD, RICK.

>> THIS IS A GUESS.

WHY DID THEY TAKE THIS CASE THEN?

AND I THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD BEEN SO BROAD AND THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT TO BE A PRECEDENT AND SO THEY DECIDED TO ACT ON THIS AND AT LEAST MENTION, IN THEIR VIEW, THERE WERE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SCHOOLS GO HAVE THE RIGHT TO STEP IN, AGAIN WITHOUT DELINEATING WHAT THOSE ARE.

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT THIS IS A PRELUDE TO THE CAMPUS CULTURE WARS AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH SCHOOLS WILL BE ABLE TO SAY YOU VIOLATED OUR DIVERSITY POLICIES, YOU'VE SAID OTHER THINGS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO OUR TITLE IX POLICIES.

SO I THINK THIS SETS THE GROUNDWORK FOR SOMETHING MUCH, MUCH BIGGER.

>> OKAY.

WELL, WE HAVE TO OPEN UP THE GRADEBOOK.

KRISTI, GIVE US YOUR F TODAY.

>> I'M GIVING AN F TO ON RONNY JACKSON, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PHYSICIAN WHO YOU WILL REMEMBER PRAISED TRUMP'S WONDERFUL HEALTH, WHO ALSO HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSING SUBORDINATES AND DRINKING AT WORK.

HE ISSUED A LETTER CALLING ON PRESIDENT BIDEN TO IMMEDIATELY UNDERGO A COGNITIVE TEST, GIVEN WHAT JACKSON CALLED AN EMBARRASSING DECLINE IN COGNITIVE ABILITY.

MIXING UP THE WORD SYRIA AND LIBYA DOES NOT QUALIFY AS COGNITIVE EMBARRASSMENT.

>> NINA YOUR F. >> REAR NAKED CHOKE.

ROMAN CATHOLIC BOIRPS DENIED BIDEN COMMUNION RIGHTS BECAUSE OF ABORTION RIGHTS.

CALLING ON CATHOLIC WHO ARE PAROCHIAL LEADERS.

I WONDER IF THIS NEW POLICY IS GOING TO APPLY TO THE 1700 PRIESTS THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ITSELF CONSIDERS CREDIBLY ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST CHILDREN.

NOT ONLY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE, THEY'VE ALSO NOT BEEN DENIED COMMUNION.

AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

>> RICK.

>> FLORIDA GOVERNOR RON DeSANTIS WHO RECENTLY SIGNED A LAW AIMED AT ENDING WHAT HE CALLS EDUCATIONAL INDOCTRINATION AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

HE HAS CALLED THEM INTELLECTUAL REPRESSIVE ENVIRONMENTS MUCH I FIND IT IRONIC SINCE THE GOVERNOR GOVERNOR HAS GIVEN SO MUCH SUPPORT FOR DICTATING WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE TAUGHT AT THE K-12 LEVEL.

>> AND TARA.

>> MY F GOES TO THE U.S. SENATE FOR ITS FAILURE TO PASS A HOUSE BILL THAT WOULD HAVE REIMBURSED THE NATIONAL GUARD FOR THE SIX MONTHS IT HAS BEEN PROTECTING THE CAPITOL.

ALTHOUGH THE SENATE IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON ITS OWN VERSION, IF THERE IS NOT A FIRM COMMITMENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE THE NATIONAL GUARD BY JULY 1, BASICALLY THE NATIONAL GUARD WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY RETAINING, TRAINING AND MAINTAINING ITS MAN POWER-- EXCUSE ME, PERSON POWER AND IT'S VEHICLES.

>> AND As KRISTI.

>> GIVING AN A TO ATTORNEY GENERAL GARLAND'S NEW STRATEGY REGARDING DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

TAKES A BROAD VIEW.

IT WILL INVOLVE PAYING ATTENTION TO MENTAL HEALTH, HE SAYS AND CREATING CIVICS EDUCATION TO PROMOTE TOLERANCE AND RESPECT FOR ALL.

FINALLY AND IMPORTANTLY, THIS IS WHAT I REALLY LIKE, "IT MEANS ESPECIALLY SURING THERE IS SIMPLY NO GOVERNMENTAL TOLERANCE OF VIOLENCE AS AN ACCEPTABLE MODE OF SEEKING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL CHANGE."

>> NINA.

>> RESEARCHERS HAVE COME UP WITH A WAY TO DEAL WITH THE 50 MILLION TONS OF PLASTIC WASTE THAT IS GENERATED EACH YEAR.

THEY'VE DISCOVERED THAT YOU CAN USE THE BACTERIA E-COLI TO TURN PLASTIC INTO VANILLA FLAVORING.

YES, YOU HEARD ME RIGHT.

VANILLA FLAVORING.

SO BASICALLY THEIR SOLUTION TO THE MILLIONS OF PLASTIC BAGS AND PLASTIC BOTTLES IS FOR US TO JUST EAT THEM.

>> YUM, YUM.

>> I'LL NEVER ORDER VANILLA ICE CREAM AGAIN.

>> I'M A VANILLA FAN SO I'M WORRIED NOW.

>> RICK, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE MICHIGAN STATE SENATE COMMITTEE MADE UP MOSTLY OF REPUBLICANS THAT INVESTIGATED MANY OF THE ACCUSATIONS OF VOTER FRAUD RAISED DURING THE PAST ELECTION AND REPORTED THEY FOUND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OF THESE CLAIMS.

I THINK WE ARE SLOWLY MOVING TOWARD BROADER ACCEPTANCE OF THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

>> AND TARA.

>> MY A GOES TO A FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL JEFF REEDS RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE THAT THE HIGH SCHOOL COULD DO TO RESTORE ALL THE PERSONAL MOMENTS OF A SEEN SENIOR YEAR, BASICALLY WHAT THE PRINCIPAL DECIDED TO DO WAS TO WRITE EACH OF THE 459 GRADUATING SENIORS A PERSONAL NOTE INCLUDING A PERSONAL MOMENT WITH THE PRINCIPAL OR AN ACHIEVEMENT AND THAT NOTE WAS SET ON THE SEAT OF EACH GRADUATE INDIVIDUALLY.

>> THAT'S GREAT.

WE HAD RAY LETTER FROM RHONDA HUNGERFORD ABOUT OUR DISCUSSION ON POLICE REFORM A FEW WEEKS BACK AND SHE SAID RESEARCH HAS SHOWN INCREASING POLICE IN A COMMUNITY DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME.

THE PANEL HAD DISAGREEMENTS AND INTERESTING EMAILS SO WE'LL PUT THIS ON FOR ANOTHER SHOW TO DISCUSS.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

WE LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHERS OF YOU ABOUT THESE TOPICS OR OTHERS YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DISCUSS.

YOU CAN WRITE US AT THESE ADDRESSES ON THE SCREEN.

IF YOU MISS THE SHOW ANY FRIDAY NIGHT, IT REPEATS SATURDAY AFTERNOONS AT 5:30 • OR YOU CAN FIND THE SHOW ONLINE ANYTIME AT WCNY.ORG.

GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪