Welcome, what happens next?
My name is Larry Bernstein.
What happens next is a podcast which covers
economics, education, and culture.
Today's topic is, Asians get to attend Harvard.
Our speaker is Rick Banks, who is the Jackson Eli Reynolds
Professor of Law at Stanford Law School,
the co-founder and faculty director
of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice,
and he's also in the faculty of Stanford School of Education.
Rick was previously the co-host for this podcast,
what happens next with me during most of 2020.
I asked Rick to discuss the Supreme Court decision
in the students for fair admissions cases
against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
Rick, let's start with a big picture.
What happened?
The Supreme Court's decision in students for fair admissions
is a monumentally important decision,
but it's not an unsurprising one at all.
It will change college admissions at selective universities
and may also extend far beyond the context of admission
to extend the court's view of the Constitution
as colorblind to other areas of life.
Why isn't the Supreme Court decision shocking?
This case is not shocking because the composition
of the court has changed for one,
and the new justices are less inclined
to support race-conscious policies,
such as affirmative action in college admissions.
It's also not surprising because the issues
that Justice Roberts highlights in the majority opinion
are owner abilities, contradictions,
infirmities of affirmative action, practice, and law
that have existed for a long time.
And the court is simply now taking a much closer look, say,
at issues that have long troubled some of its members
and applying more stringent standards
than it had in prior cases.
What were the highlights of Roberts' opinion?
Affirmative action has always been
beset by some ambiguities or contradictions, right?
That it's very difficult to measure the benefits of diversity.
It's hard to classify people based on race,
especially in our society, which is becoming ever more diverse.
And you know, you have people of mixed race backgrounds,
and you have a bigger mix of people than we've had in the past.
Relatedly, it's difficult to determine which group is in,
which group is out.
Why do we consider Latinos a group that can benefit
from affirmative action within people from Spain or not?
Do you distinguish among Asian Americans
when they're East Asian versus South Asian?
Some relate to this question of the coherence
of the racial categories that are used
to this goal of diversity that universities say
justifies their use of affirmative action.
So you have all of those questions looming.
And a lot of those questions, frankly,
you can be content with the answers
as a court has given in the past.
If you don't think too hard about it
or if you're inclined to support the policy,
but if you're inclined to oppose the policy,
or you really want to look at the policy with a demanding look,
you might think that the answers
that universities are giving don't make a lot of sense.
Universities have long said that they need to have
a critical mass of students from different groups,
but all the way back in 2003, Justice Rinquist said,
well, why does a critical mass of American Indian students
why is that so much less than the critical mass
of black students or Latino students?
And if you're trying to get the educational benefits
of diversity by having a certain mix,
why do you need a lot of some group
and just a few of other groups?
And it's hard to have a really persuasive answer
to that question if you stay within this framework
of diversity, which enriches the educational process.
And so there are all these questions that have been looming
and the court in the past contented itself
with accepting the university's good faith judgment
that it was pursuing these policies for the right reasons
and was really trying to realize
the benefits of diversity.
One of the big moves that Roberts made in this case
was to not grant the university's the sort of difference
that they had relied on previously.
He said, we're not gonna give the universities a pass.
We're not going to, quote, trust them anymore.
We're going to be very demanding and want evidence
that what they're doing is necessary
to realize the benefits of diversity
and we need to know what those benefits are.
When you look at the programs with that stringent
kind of standard, it's gonna be really hard
for them to pass muster.
Those were the two big moves.
He highlighted longstanding issues with affirmative action
and then he declined to indulge
the university's judgment about why the programs are necessary
and given that high standard of proof,
he found the practices wanting.
The Harvard and North Carolina cases,
when they were in front of the district judge,
most of the time was spent on the facts
going over the affirmative action policies,
but in the Supreme Court opinions,
the fact was secondary.
Why was that?
In both the North Carolina and the Harvard case,
the lower courts ruled for the universities.
And usually the lower courts are given great deference
because after all the judges held the trials,
they had witnesses, they took testimony,
there were lots of judgments about credibility,
weighing of evidence and all of that.
That's the prerogative of the trial court.
It would be extraordinary for an appeals court
or the Supreme Court to then revisit the trial record
and kind of second guess what the judges there concluded
based on their direct confrontation with the evidence.
So these rulings rest not on the facts.
Even though the court does talk a little bit about the facts,
but they really rest on the change in the law.
This is a dramatic change in the law
where the court is declining to grant the universities
the sort of deference that they had in prior cases.
Next topic is Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence
where he discussed at length the importance
of the so-called 25 year rule,
expiration of the college admissions affirmative action policies.
Justice O'Connor mentioned in the University of Michigan cases,
grudder and grats that affirmative action
would likely need to disappear in a generation.
Why was this point so important?
I don't think there has been a 25 year rule until now.
This court has created the 25 year rule,
which is really a 20 year rule
because only 20 years have passed since Justice O'Connor
said that in the grudder and grats cases.
She made the comment almost in passing,
almost as if you're having a conversation with someone
and then you just, you know,
mentioned something as an aside.
And her comment was to the effect of just as 25 years have passed
since we first approved affirmative action.
In the Baki case, we expect that in another 25 years,
these policies will no longer be necessary.
So it wasn't a rule.
It was an observation.
It was an aspiration.
It was a hope.
It was a way to communicate to people
that we don't believe these policies should go on forever
and that the ultimate goal should be a race,
blind apparatus of decision making.
It wasn't essential to the holding in any way.
It was just a comment that she made in her opinion.
Would she be surprised that that was hardened into a rule
that now people are using as a basis for a decision?
I think Justice O'Connor may have been surprised
when her opinion was released to the public,
but I doubt she would have been surprised soon thereafter
because it became the most quoted aspect of her argument.
I mean, this court is changing the law, right?
There's a lot of precedent to rely on
that would have permitted affirmative action
to continue even.
So to seize on to the 25-year statement
as kind of the precedent that you need to respect
and need to be obedient to,
that seems one of the outer parts of this set of opinions.
America is much different from 50 years ago
when Baki was decided.
And even 25 years ago,
when the University of Michigan cases came down.
American society has changed a lot since the late 1970s
when Baki was decided.
And one of the big changes is that the relation
between race and inequality or race and disadvantage
is not nearly as tight now as it was then, right?
So at the time when Baki was decided,
Baki was involved in University of California,
Davis School of Medicine.
When students were applying to medical school,
the black students who were applying,
those were students who grew up under Jim Crow.
At a time and in a place where black students oftentimes
should not even have schools,
where the schools were markedly and overtly
and intentionally made inferior to the white schools.
And every way you could imagine from facilities,
to textbooks and on and on.
And so even in Baki, it was ambiguous
whether the program was actually for disadvantaged students
or whether it was for racial minority students.
And that's because there was almost a one-to-one association
between disadvantage and race.
All of the black students she would admit
would have been severely disadvantaged,
discriminated against, oppressed, downtrodden,
and would have been trying to make it to medical school
despite all of that.
But the world in 2023 is very different from that.
I mean, my children, for example,
have a very different life from my parents
who grew up under Jim Crow.
So that's to say that this image of affirmative action
has benefitting these disadvantaged students
who are growing up in single parent families
and isolated inner city areas.
That image is ever more distant from the reality
of affirmative action and elite colleges today.
One measure that distance is that the percentage
of students who even have ancestors
who've been in the United States for a long time,
that's been declining at elite schools.
And ever growing portion of students at places like Harvard
are immigrants or the children of immigrants.
They're not people whose parents were living under Jim Crow.
And it's not an understatement to say
that just as universities now welcome in,
privileged, affluent students from white families,
they welcome in a lot of privilege
and affluent students from black families
and Latino families as well.
And I'm supportive of affirmative action,
but one of the impulses that would have supported it,
which is your extended opportunity
to race is associated with disadvantaged,
the logic of that is not as airtight
as it was in 1977, there in 1975.
Robert's highlights in his discussion
that the court was very divided in the Bucky decision.
And what was very unusual was that the majority opinion
was written by Justice Powell,
but none of the other justice agreed with his analysis.
Bucky was an unusual case because of the non-justices.
We had four justices that would have struck down
the policy and would have implemented a form of color blindness
under the federal statute,
Title VI of 1964, Civil Rights Act.
They wouldn't have even reached a constitutional question.
We had another four justices
who would have upheld the practice in Bucky
and upheld affirmative action and said,
hey, you know, this policy easily passes muster
because the constitution does not prohibit actions
that are meant to undo racial hierarchy.
And then in the middle, we had Justice Powell.
And Justice Powell sided with one four
and striking down the policy at issue in Bucky,
which provided a quota for students
from underrepresented backgrounds.
But then he sided with the liberal four
and holding out the possibility
that universities could engage in affirmative action.
The irony, though, of course, is that he proposed
the diversity framework, which no one else
on the court agreed with.
So neither the conservative four
who would have struck down affirmative action,
nor the liberal four who would have upheld it,
none of them agreed with this diversity framework
that Powell put forth.
Yet after Bucky, schools quickly rewrote
their affirmative action policies to comply with Powell
because Powell seemed to show the way forward, right?
In 2003, when the University of Michigan cases
were decided, the undergraduate case
and the law school case, the big question there
was what is the court going to do with Bucky?
Is the court going to affirm with Justice Powell
one justice said, or is the court going to do something different?
And the court decided, and the opinions
were Justice O'Connor was then the pivotal justice
to affirm and embrace Bucky and say, yes,
diversity is a sufficient justification,
and for the most part, with a couple of tweaks,
we're going to embrace the framework
that Powell articulated.
The Harvard and UNC cases were brought
by Asian Americans.
Why was this important?
The architect of these cases, Edward Bloom,
he chose Asian Americans as the plaintiffs in the case.
This is actually the first case
where we've had Asian American plaintiffs,
most all of the other cases that have gone
to merit decisions have involved white plaintiffs, right?
And that change in the plaintiff kind of changes
an underlying moral calculus of the case,
and it enables certain inferences from the facts
that would be less likely if you had a white plaintiff.
Historically, it's a white person,
and white people are assumed to be privileged and advantaged.
And then on the other side, you have the African Americans
and the Latinos who are presumed to be disadvantaged,
and they're the ones on whose behalf
the school is undertaking the special program.
With this case, though, Edward Bloom decided
to make Asian Americans as plaintiffs,
and not just one person, but he created an organization
which had standing because it represented
many, many Asian American applicants
who were denied admission.
And that change is the underlying calculus of the case,
because now you have one minority against another minority.
And it also might make us think differently
about what the university is up to, right?
In the past, we would say, well, the university
is simply trying to increase the representation
of underrepresented students,
and going back to the 80s when we were in college,
the university has been accused of trying
to limit the number of Asian Americans
because they, quote, didn't want too many Asian Americans.
And you can see this sort of anti-immigrant pro-white bias
there to keep Asians out.
And that fits into a whole history
where Asians have been excluded from immigrating
to the United States.
Asians have been excluded from certain occupations.
Asians have been excluded from owning property
in certain areas.
We have a whole history of trying to exclude Asian Americans.
And then in the university context,
it's also the case that the experience of Asians
resonates with the experiences of Jews
about a century ago, where you had universities
who said, oh, we want to keep Jews out
because they would change the character of the institution.
So then the question is, are Asians experiencing something
like what Jews experienced?
And that's the form of racism.
If the university is trying to limit the number of Asians
because Harvard, we're 40% of the students of Asians
sort of makes people uncomfortable.
That's just racist.
Just the specter of that possibility
changes the calculus of the cases.
This reminds me of the Yik Wu case from 1886
when the Supreme Court applied the eco-production clause
of the 14th Amendment to protect Asians
from state-sponsored discrimination in San Francisco,
where the city tried to stop Chinese immigrants
from competing with whites in the laundromat business.
The city leaders didn't want them competing with white people.
And so they excluded them from operating laundromats,
but they didn't do it directly by say, no Asians permitted.
They did it by saying, if you operate a brick laundromat,
you're okay, if you have a wooden laundromat,
you're not okay, we're worried about fire
and fires more likely than a wooden thing.
But then when you look at it in the aggregate,
it turned out that they were somehow or other approving
all these white people to operate laundromats,
but virtually none of the Asian people to operate laundromats.
And this was the same logic for the student
for fair admissions case.
The plaintiffs kind of framed this case
to promote the same sort of inquiry.
What does the university really up to?
It's not an unreasonable conclusion, frankly,
to think that there are universities
that might want to limit Asian-American representation
based on the concerns of alums
and different constituencies.
They might feel that at some point,
we could have quote too many Asians.
Robert's opinion says that you can no longer use race
explicitly in the application process,
but it is perfectly fine for an individual
to discuss his race in the application's essay,
and then apply the role of race
to the applicant's personal experience.
Robert's is very concerned about the issue of stereotyping.
The concern is that if we say we are pursuing diversity,
and we mean diversity of perspective and backgrounds
and experiences, and so forth,
once we start to check a box on the basis of race,
and you start to keep tabs in terms of race,
you're stereotyping people of all different races,
and you're assuming that black students
have one particular set of experiences in views
and white students have a different set of experiences
in views, and that is, you know, he would say,
at odds with the primacy of the individual
in the American constitutional and political scheme.
So to my your response, that be real,
race does shape people's experiences and backgrounds.
So what he would see as a stereotype,
she would see as a reality, a generality that in fact
is grounded in the social, economic patterns
of American society.
And Justice Jackson's descent,
she refers to a controversial study
that found that black doctors have better medical results
for black women during childbirth.
Why did she bring this up in her opinion?
Justice Jackson, when she talks about black doctors
and maternal mortality for black women,
she is picking up on an older theme,
which it kind of fallen out of the cases.
This goes all the way back to Bucky,
where one of the rationales that the medical school
that the University of California Davis wanted to have
black doctors, basically,
is because they thought that black doctors
were more likely to provide care
for people in black communities.
And that was probably true.
So, I mean, you can say that's a stereotype,
but stereotypes have different degrees of truth or falsity.
I can also see a reason why black doctors would,
in the aggregate, have better outcomes
with black patients than white doctors would.
And that's about both the attitudes
and the priorities of the doctors
and also the sense of trust
that the patient would have about the relationship
with the doctor.
The big question is, what do we do with that reality?
But I think, Justice Jackson is one to something
that is true in a more general sense as well,
which is that race does continue
to have a lot of salience in American society.
And I feel this, I don't know if my colleagues would know this,
but even when I go out and take walks,
a lot of people don't say hi to me,
but they say hi to me if I'm with my wife.
And if you talk to black people,
they will say most of them
that we are a long way from a colorblind society.
And the big question this case raises is,
how do we respond to that fact
that we are a long way from the colorblind society?
If listeners want to hear more about race
and the medical profession,
check out my podcast with Stanley Goldfarb,
who is the former associate dean of Penn's Medical School,
who now runs the Not for Profit, do no harm.
Stanley does not want medical care
where white doctors take care of white patients
and black doctors take care of black patients.
And opposes the Archie Bunker philosophy
that we should have the same as with the same
and the difference with the difference.
Stanley wants a meritocracy in medical care,
research and teaching.
Next topic is Justice Thomas' Concern Opinion.
He very much wants a colorblind interpretation
of the 14th Amendment.
So Justice Thomas spends a good deal of his concurrent
rehashing the historical arguments
about the Equal Protection Clause.
And in his conclusion now is it has been
in many prior cases is yes.
Equal Protection Clause mandates a norm of colorblindness.
I confess that I personally find that a perplexing conclusion
that the history mandates Thomas' approach.
Thomas believes that affirmative action hurts black students
because he thinks that the public suspects
that minorities get into the best schools
primarily because of their race.
You know, his view on the policy is that
affirmative action is actually disserving black students
because it reinforces stigma
and it puts people in academic environments
where they're not faring as well as if they
were in other environments that were less challenging.
I think there is a bit of truth there.
Defenders of affirmative action
argue that affirmative action is this great equalizer.
But the reality is that an infinitesimal number
of black students go to places like Harvard
or Stanford or Chicago or Northwestern.
That's a really small number.
And the majority of black students go to other schools
that are much less well-funded
that receive many fewer donations.
And another way to put this is that
we have a very stratified educational system
of higher education.
And most black students are in the less prestigious institutions.
But in embracing affirmative action
as the higher education equality measure,
what we're doing is trying to simply integrate
more black students into the top of the hierarchical system,
but we're not doing anything
to make the system less hierarchical.
And just as Thomas has actually highlighted this
in the Michigan cases, the university insists
that the only way it can have this elite law school
and have it be diverse is to use affirmative action.
And then his response was, but why is the university
even justified in having an elite law school?
Maybe the problem is the elite law school
and that we would do better to have less elite institutions
or not have as many elite institutions
in American society, and that would actually expand opportunity.
Rick, you are in the midst of writing a new book
about reducing meritocracy and education.
I am writing about this issue, yes.
My view is that there actually is a tension
between our aspirations for racial progress
and also even for learning.
There's a tension between a lot of the goals we have
for education and the hierarchy and stratification
in our system.
And for some reason, even the liberals are content
to accept the hierarchy of the system
and just try to change the people who are in the seats
in the classroom rather than trying to change the system
as a whole.
And my view is that we do need to think about changing the system
and diminishing the hierarchy and the stratification
in that that would be a win for everyone in American society.
Certain members of the admissions committee
and senior decision makers at the university
support affirmative action and oppose
the Supreme Court's color blind vision.
They will likely do their best to continue
the current admissions process by paying lip service
to the ruling but continuing affirmative action policies
by other means.
Do you think that is true?
And if so, how will they do it?
It is certainly the case that universities
who are committed to enrolling racially diverse student body
will continue to want to do so.
For lots of reasons involving the desires of their alums
and employers and their prestige and status,
it would actually be hard to maintain their status
as the institutions that picked the elite for society
if the elite that they're picking
was predominantly Asian American and white, say.
And then the question is, how are they going to do it?
One is to rely on criteria that are related to race
but that are not the same as race.
Your low income, your first generation college,
you grew up in a low income area,
you grew up in a racially segregated area, right?
So you could focus on the racial composition of the area
rather than the racial identity of the student.
You could look at whether English is the first language
spoken in your home.
There are a lot of factors you could rely on
that are not identical to the race of the student per se
but they're certainly closely related to the race of the student.
Texas decided to use an admissions policy
where its top UT Austin Public University
would emit kids from the top 10% of a student's graduating class
and would not discriminate between the good
and the bad high schools.
Texas implemented the Texas top 10% plan in the 1990s
after the court, they are the circuit court
struck down affirmative action
but only in that circuit, that part of the country.
And they said, okay, if we can't rely on the race of individual students,
we'll get the students from every school in the state
and they'll become eligible.
And that had a dramatic racial effect
because the state of Texas was so dramatically segregated
that it diminished the number of students from the suburban high schools
but it increased representation from the majority black
or majority Latino schools.
It also increased representation from rural schools that were mostly white, right?
So in other words, the goal is still a race related goal
but the means does not itself rely on race.
And that's certainly what universities will double down on.
Another thing universities could do,
which has received a lot less attention,
is that they could continue to rely increasingly
on what I think of as middlemen.
There are a lot of organizations now,
nonprofit groups that go out and recruit students
and then they deliver them up to universities.
I think of programs like Quest Bridge or McCriculate or Posse,
these are all programs whose goal is to expand opportunity
and maybe they think it can kind of race, maybe they don't,
but they certainly give you a much more racially diverse group of students
that you would not otherwise have
if you're a big university like Harvard or Stanford.
I don't think that the majority would have a problem with that
if it's a meritocracy independent of race.
Some people would have a problem.
Imagine that you have a university who says to a nonprofit,
we'll guarantee 20 spots every year to your students.
Maybe you'll give us 40 and we'll select 20, right?
And so every year, we'll take 20 of your students.
And this nonprofit, their goal is to go out
and find black and Latino students
who these universities were not otherwise
have been their student population and they recruit them
and maybe they train them and they have summer programs
and they coach them and all of that
and they deliver them up to the universities.
We actually have lots of quotas of American society
and people get upset only when those quotas are based on race, right?
So, you know, we have quotas for road scholars.
We have quotas for national merit scholars.
I mean, all that depends on the geography
and it's not like a national competition
where the top students just become road scholars.
If you're in Mississippi,
you have a completely different pool
that you're competing against
and if you're in Massachusetts.
Do you think that this ruling will affect
affirmative action outside of university settings?
Oh, almost certainly.
The reverberations of this case could be far-reaching
because it's not simply about admissions.
I mean, it's also about the majority's embrace
of an interpretation of the equal protection clause
in which the Constitution mandates
governmental colorblindness.
And governmental colorblindness could really remake society
even more than it already has,
depending on how aggressively or vigorously
or expansively the court interprets colorblindness.
The court could have implemented colorblindness.
It could have simply said,
you can't limit the number of Asian Americans.
Full stop.
It could have said,
you can't have an affirmative action policy
that provides different standards
for African Americans and Latinos and for others.
It could have said,
you can't even know the race of the applicants.
It could have said,
the applicants can't even talk about race.
And one of the big questions that the case raises
is how far is the court going to go
just to be very clear
while the court imposes a very stringent form
of colorblindness in the context of college admissions.
If we talk about some areas of policing,
for example, law enforcement,
the court hasn't nearly imposed
as stringent of form of colorblindness
in no settings as it imposes here.
Do you think colleges will remove the question
of what is your race in the application?
I think if they want to stay on the right side
of this decision, they probably should.
What I would expect institutions to do
is to take the checkbox off of the application,
but to have essays in which students can talk about
their experiences and their backgrounds
and their struggles and so forth.
And many of those will, of course, rely on race.
What makes you feel optimistic about this case?
My hope is that the restriction of the use of race
in granting access to elite universities
would prompt us to realize
that elite universities representing this hierarchical structure
may in fact be part of the problem in American society.
And to consider whether we would be better off
without a system that privileges elite institutions
and that more democratized opportunity
so that students could have access to good jobs
and a chance to do something in their lives
even if they don't go to those institutions
that are at the top of some hierarchy.
Your institution, Stanford Law School,
hires the best and the brightest law professors
from other law schools.
And we get greater and greater concentration
of the best teachers at these elite institutions.
Is that bad?
There's a great synergistic effect
to concentrating top researchers at particular schools.
And that's probably has something to do with the fact
that America's leading universities
are the most prominent research institutions
in the world actually.
The tension though is that it's not clear
that same logic applies to teaching and learning.
In other words, I don't know that if we concentrate
the best researchers at particular schools
that that means they're the best teachers
or that those schools will have the best teaching.
You can tell a story that's kind of completely the opposite
in fact, where there's kind of a trade off
between research and teaching.
And I also don't know that if we concentrate
the highest achieving students at particular schools
that we are thereby increasing learning in the aggregate.
You can also tell a persuasive story
that we would increase learning in the aggregate
if we actually had more diversity
in terms of academic achievement at our institutions.
Doesn't it seem unfair to ask our best students
to learn less so that weaker students perform better?
My high school had tracking.
In French, for example, the honors courses
there was immersion that required students to speak in French
while the mainstream French classes were taught in English.
I would have felt we wanted the students
to be the best that they can be.
It seems outrageous if you imagine it like a competition
and we give the prize to the highest achieving people, right?
It's like a race and we're gonna give the prize
to the winners of the race.
But if your vision of education is that it's a social process
and we wanna do something that's societally optimal,
then you have a different calculus.
Thanks, Rick, for joining us today.
If you missed last week's show, check it out.
The topic was, hey, hey, ho, ho, AP test I've gotta go.
Our first speaker was Patrick Allatt,
who's Professor of History at Emory.
Patrick is perfectly positioned to help us evaluate
the AP US History Exam as he graded and wrote the AP test.
Patrick has also taught the US History Survey class
that is available from the teaching company's great courses.
Patrick discussed the benefits of taking
a US History Survey class and why the AP exam
properly evaluates mastery of the subject.
Patrick talked about his views of multiple choice exams
and using essays to evaluate students.
Our second speaker was Annie Abrams,
who was the author of the new book entitled,
Short Changed, How Advanced Placement Cheat Students,
Annie teaches AP English at the New York City Magnet
High School Bronx Science.
Annie describes her concerns related to teaching
for the AP tests and how it affects
high school English pedagogy.
I now wanna make a plug for next week's show
that will continue the discussion
about recently decided court decisions.
We will chat with retired federal judge Gary Feynerman,
who will discuss the recent case in North Carolina
related to gerrymandering and rather the Supreme Court
in North Carolina can apply judicial review
to the redistricting proposed
by the North Carolina State legislature.
We will then hear from Renee Flarity,
who was the attorney who successfully argued the case
of Jackson versus Raffinsberger.
This is about the limits of state authority
to regulate professions.
Jackson teaches breastfeeding,
but the state demands that she meet
minimum education requirements
that will prevent her from doing her chosen profession,
which is counseling lactation care.
Renee is an attorney with the Institute for Justice,
a not-for-profit that challenges government
overreach unlicensing and regulation,
as well as infringement on individual property rights.
You can find our previous episodes
and transcripts on our website
with updates next and six minutes.com.
Please subscribe to our weekly emails
and follow us on our podcast or Spotify.
Thank you for joining me.
Goodbye.