In this episode, I talk with Teresa Watanabe, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times who covers the University of California Board of Regents, and Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and a former student regent on the University of California Board of Regents. We discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on race-conscious admissions. We will break down the politics of the decision and the impact on learners and institutions.
In this episode, I talk with Teresa Watanabe, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times who covers the University of California Board of Regents, and Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and a former student regent on the University of California Board of Regents. We discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on race-conscious admissions. We will break down the politics of the decision and the impact on learners and institutions.
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz Oakley, and welcome back to the Rant, the podcast where we pull back the curtain and break down the people, the policies, and the politics of our higher education system. In this episode, I get to talk to two very special guests, guests who have been following the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action very closely. My guests today are Teresa Watanabe, staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and who has been covering the University of California Board of Regions for several years. Also, joining me is Jess Braven Supreme Court correspondent at the Wall Street Journal, and more importantly, at least for me, a former California community college student and a former uc student region. Teresa and Jess, welcome to the rank.
Teresa:Thank you. Glad to be here Eloy.
Jess:Yep. Terrific to
Eloy:Well, it's good to see you both, and I know that you've both had, a busy couple of weeks at the beginning of this month. A lot going on, with the Supreme Court and a lot going on that sort of brings back memories of, 1996 here in California. We'll get into that a little bit more, but. Okay. Before we jump into all of that, let me start with a personal question for each of you so that our listeners get to know you a little bit better. I've had the pleasure of getting to know you both, and I think you have wonderful stories, wonderful backgrounds. So tell us about your higher education journey and what led you to your interests in journalism. Theresa, let's start with you.
Teresa:Yeah, sure. Thanks again for having me, Eloy. I'm actually, a Seattle native, born and raised there, and so I started off at the University of Washington, but. After I finished my sophomore year, I just decided to go, study at a university in Tokyo, Japan for a year. And I was really at that time wanting to become a lawyer, but I didn't want to major in political science or something that wouldn't pay the bills if I somehow did not. Passed the bar exam. And so the, some of the students I met in Japan were from U S C, sorry, uc. But they told me that, they had a really good journalism program and I thought that'd be a good pre-law major. So I transferred to U S C and. I took my first journalism 1 0 1 class and it was love at first sight. I just said, forget law, this is amazing. This is what I wanna do for the rest of my life. And I ended up graduating from USC with a double major in journalism and East Asian languages and Culture. Got my first job, out of, usc, with the La Herald Examiner and. Wrote editorials there as a kid outta college, like trying to opine on the world, knowing really nothing, and then worked for the San Jose Mercury News in various assignments, and then joined the LA Times where I've covered various beats. Most recently higher
Eloy:Wow. hearing the word Harold Examiner brings back a lot of memories, for myself. Jess, how about you tell us a little bit about your, your story.
Jess:thanks. Sure. Oh, well, I'm you know, I was born in, in New York City. both my, my parents were, were immigrants and, attended at one point or another the, the City College of, of New York. We moved to California when I was, 10 where I, attended public school and I really, you know, had a chance to, to, experience, different aspects of higher education in this country. As you said, I, I took classes at west LA College in, in Santa Monica College. I went to, Harvard College, as an undergraduate. I went to uc, Berkeley for law school. So I had Various institutions, But I had experience, in the in the intestines of, of several of them. I was always interested in education policy and what education can do. When I was in high school, I was the first Student member of the Los Angeles City Board of Education. and years later, I, I did that same, type of job when I was on the uc Regents, and I was there at. All times are consequential at the Board of Regents. So I don't know that my time was any more than, than any others, but the mix of issues that we had was I think, very interesting and very important. And as you say continue to, to echo to this day. right now though, I'm not in the policy business. I'm, a journalist, so I really don't take positions on these issues now.
Eloy:Jess, let me ask you. While you were a student at uc, Berkeley School of Law, you became the student member of the University of California Board of Regents. Can you tell us a little bit about that experience and in particular, the conversations that the regions were having about affirmative action and race conscious admissions at that time?
Jess:the, the affirmative action question was was brewing before I was on the board. And it was particularly driven by, by one of the regents at the time, ward Connerly, a very interesting character. And actually before he, brought up his proposal to end race conscious admissions, he was very popular with students because he was one of the few reasons who took fee increases very seriously, and opposed almost all of them. He was one of the few regents who, took very seriously free speech issues and giving opportunities for the public to, speak to the regents and, and get involved in regional policy. So he was actually somebody who was relatively popular. If, if any, regent is popular with the, with the students who write checks to something called uc Regents. once he decided that abolishing affirmative action was. His number one objective and quickly, attained, allegiance from governor Pete Wilson, who had appointed ward Connerly to the board. things changed and this became his, His most important issue. It was something that became extraordinarily divisive on the board. When I was on the board, nearly all the political appointees were chosen by our Republican governors. In fact, I think all of them were, and yet they were divided on affirmative action themselves. The board was, I think, It was like a 14th, 10 vote or something like that. It was a, a, a relatively close vote on the board where most issues are decided unanimously. So it divided the, the Republicans on the Board of Regents the, student member at the time, ed Gomez from uc, Riverside. alumni Regents were certainly opposed to ending affirmative action. So was the, the president of the university Dick Atkinson, and the university administration and faculty as well. And it really was something that was. Being imposed or the end, or this interference in the admissions process was being imposed by the Regents on the university. And it was a very, it was very, it was a very difficult experience for the university where academic freedom had been really taken for granted for, for, for many, many years. And, Uh, 95 when the board passed, SP one and SP two, the two motions that re and Connerly brought up, they were, they were in incredibly raucous events. There were protests. The board room was evacuated several times by the u c police. There were protests outside the building that were massive. It was a huge wrenching experience for the University of California system. ward Conley continued beyond. Just ending. racially conscious admissions. he also wanted to end any kind of statistical, research into the, backgrounds of students he wanted to eliminate. whether you counted you know, black, Hispanic, what have you, you know, different racial or ethnic characteristics. And that I believe didn't pass later on, but that took, that occurred during, during my my tenure. he had a, a very, I would say, I don't wanna be pejorative, but he had a, he had a very extreme view of of colorblindness that he thought the university should pursue. And it was the dominant social issue affecting the university during my term,
Eloy:Yeah, I, I imagine they had, Quite a, quite an impact on you as a member of the University of California Student Association then as, as a student regent. I imagine when SCOTUS recently acted on race conscious admissions some of those members came back to you.
Jess:Well, they never left. And and I, I certainly recall that, that whole episode, and of course, as, as you know, and as you suggested, Conley went, went on past our board after it passed the, the, the uc Regents, he then promoted this voter initiative, prop two a nine, which passed. In 1996 and really sort of superseded whatever the regents were doing and the regents, rescinded conley's motions, in 2000 or 2001. But that was really a symbolic move because the, the voter initiative was still in the state constitution and voters, reaffirmed it as you said, in in 2020 by even greater margins than they approved 2 0 9 in first place.
Eloy:that moment in time I was, in Los Angeles and it was certainly an event that stuck in my mind and. When I had the privilege of being appointed by governor Jerry Brown to the Board of Regents, that is the first memory that I had walking into a meeting of the Board of Regents was Ward Conley. And that stuck with me my entire time on the Board of Regents. Theresa, let me turn to you. You've been covering the Regents for some time now. what kind of conversations have you witnessed about affirmative action with regards to California's Proposition 2 0 9, which is just mentioned band race conscious admissions in California in 1996. And, and what do you think has been the impact of Prop 2 0 9 on diversity at the University of California?
Teresa:Well one thing that, I did want to add to what Jess was talking about was the enormous. Influence that governor Pete Wilson had on this whole issue. He was in the middle of a presidential campaign. He was not gaining traction. And he decided that affirmative action would be one of the major issues that he was going to run on, which is why in some ways he was, I don't wanna say the power behind the throne, but he was really pushing ward Connerly to do this, both at the uc Regents, and later on with, proposition 2 0 9. And as Jess also pointed out, The majority, if not all, of the members of the Board of Regents at the time were Republican. Now, fast forward to 2020 when proposition 16 was in play, which would've reversed 2 0 9, and the political climate had changed. Almost 180 degrees. You now have Democrats in control of the governor's mansion in control, a super majority in the legislature. definitely super majority of the Board of Regents. And so the political sensibilities are completely different where there is such a a, a focus on access and equity and inclusion. And I think all of that led to. The support of the Board of Regions for Proposition 16, which was introduced in order to reverse 2 0 9, because as you know, there is a feeling that for all the work that you see has done over 25 years to try and diversify its students and faculty without the use of race. And there has been a lot of progress. but they just feel that without being able to consider race, it's not going to be completely effective. And so I think at that time, the uc president, all 10 chancellors, the Board of Regents all supported Prop 16. but as just noted, it, it failed again. And interestingly, it, it was, opposed by. White voters and Latino and Asian voters split, and it was overwhelmingly supported only among black voters in terms of demographics. So, You know, I just think that uc has done really great work. and it, you know, I often think Eloy, that uc doesn't give itself enough credit for all the work it's done. Because, you know, if you look at the data, and I've looked at the data so much and I've written about the data there is progress. There are. More students of color and higher percentages of students of color being admitted to the University of California today than in 1995 before Prop 2 0 9 passed. And granted, it doesn't not yet reflect the percentages in our California population, especially with Latinos, you know? But they've come a long way. They've spent over half a billion dollars trying to diversify. The population, the enrollment, and they've done so many different programs, much of which you were part of, you know, they moved to comprehensive review, which helped diversify. They moved to. Eligibility in the local context, which means that any student who qualifies in the top 9% statewide or at your local high school is guaranteed admission. They've done so much outreach recruiting. They've, they've worked on, you know, getting those K-12 pipelines. ready for students in high school or even younger middle school to try to become competitive college applicants. So I think there's a lot to be learned from uc, especially for institutions who are now facing college admissions without being able to use race. And, you know, there is, much that uc has done.
Eloy:I certainly agree with you, Theresa. I mean, there has been quite a bit done, and I think it is an, an interesting lesson for the rest of the country. I think in, in the immediate years after Prop 2 0 9, we saw. A measurable decline in black enrollment in the University of California. So I think that is a word of warning to, to the rest of the country. I think it's had the greatest impact on, on the black community. I think, I think 1994 uc was about 4% African-American. 2000 dropped to 3%. It bounced back in 2022 to 4.5%, but that's been the most stubborn. Area of enrollment. And, and I do think that the university has done quite a bit. and so I'm hopeful that the rest of the country can take, take some lessons from that. and also the lessons of the deja vu all over again. We have going on here with Republican candidates using this as an issue to run for president. we'll see if it has the same effect on the Republican party that it had on California.
Teresa:One thing I wanted to add, Eloy was if you look at. Who the University of California admits, I mean, uc admits I. Nearly enough black and Latino applicants to fill the entire freshman class of Berkeley and ucla. So the real challenge is getting those students who are admitted to choose uc, and that is the real struggle. And I think a lot of that has to do with maybe cost. You know, they, they maybe have unmet. Financial aid and California is a leader in offering financial aid. but I know ucla, which has been. Incredibly successful in their yield of black students. Part of it is just the work that Yolanda Copeland Morgan has done with her team to get out in the community. But a lot of it is the fact that they've been able to raise more money for scholarships. And I think that is the area that you, that you see is gonna have to do more work on is trying to increase those yields of the applicants that they
Eloy:No, that's right. And it's a great point, Jess let me turn to you. You've had a ringside seat for this Supreme Court. What do you feel were the primary motivating factors for this ruling and. You may have seen the recent legal action taken against Harvard University over legacy admissions, cuz that comes up quite a bit. How do you think this would play out if this reaches this court,
Jess:Well, I don't, I think that, I don't think the, the, the question has to do really with, with with protected classes of people. the, the default rule in American law is that anyone can discriminate against anyone except where they specifically can't. And disc discrim obviously is, you know, sounds bad, and, and it, it is bad. But really, maybe we should use the word choose. Okay. They can have different priorities about who they want to admit It is. You know, you could say that a Harvard College discriminates. You know, in favor of saxophone players because if you are a fantastic musician, your odds of getting admitted to, to Harvard College are much higher than if you are similar in your credentials, but do not have that kind of skill. And if you are a exceptional hockey player, your odds of getting admission to Harvard College are, I would say, 1000000% at least based based on my freshman dorm experience. And the, the gentleman scholars who who occupied my floor, so I do not believe that there is a tradition of discrimination for or against, you know, legacy admins or people whose parents went to the same college. There's just no legal. Structure involved in that. So Harvard and any college, I don't believe has any legal restraint right now on giving a priority to if your parents also went there. the, you know, there's not a, you know, it does, it doesn't fit into any of the specific boxes. I mean, the law is concerned about, about equal treatment based on race. And race is a third rail for. The Supreme Court, it's a third rail for many, many Americans, although it functions in different ways for, for the majority on the Supreme Court, it's any government. Effort to advantage a race, even one that historically has suffered tremendous discrimination and setbacks. That's just a terrible concept in and of itself. And, and whatever, what, you know, whatever benign or beneficial out outcomes might be or outweighed. By the conceptual harm to democracy of any kind of racial prep, that's their view. All right. And you know, it's not an indefensible view by any means. It is their view. in fact, it's interesting. I was speaking to, president of, for just a recently retired president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, who was the The defendant in the prior precedents that were overruled last month you know Gruer and Gratz versus Bollinger. And I asked him what he made of the other arguments and he said, if that's of view, that the, the dangers of any kind of racial classification are so great and, and the risks are so high of going in the wrong direction, that we simply, as a matter of principle, can't have it. He felt that was the defensible argument. What he did not feel was a defensible argument was there's no racial discrimination and there are no impacts from the history of racial discrimination, and therefore there's nothing to be solved. In other words, that was, that was his view that he felt was not a legitimate argument. The, the US Supreme Court and the, you know, the, the writings of Chief Justice Roberts and the history of other justices like justice, Alito from his days in, concerned alumni of Princeton organization, which was formed after Princeton University began admitting women and recruiting minority students. their views go back many, many years, and there's no dispute that they're sincerely held and that this is where they were going, and this is how they viewed the requirements of the Constitution when it comes to admitting legacies. You know, people whose parents also went to those colleges, I think they don't think it's a legal matter. I think they would not be for or against it. One point that Chris Grober, who's the president of Princeton University, and I talked about was this, is that, Highly selective institutions now have had forms of affirmative action going back a couple generations already, and those programs have admitted a number, a significant number of black and Latino, Asian, other, other members of other groups that historically were excluded. And they have children too, and they benefit from those legacy admissions. So if you, if you abolish legacy admissions, sure. Most of the beneficiaries of it are, are white. But not all. And that would also affect, it would in effect it would in some way undermine the, you know, the, the built-in progress, I guess, or the, or the grandfathered in progress that they made during the decades of affirmative action when they did admit or did or permitted to consider considerate in admissions. So now the complaint, you know, going to Harvard, it really. It is gonna be a policy question for Harvard and these other schools about what they're, what they're going to do. Probably they would win any legal challenge. I think they have to decide in their commitment to diversity where Fostering donations or loyalty or whatever sense of community, they believe legacy admissions, helps, is, is worth it or not. And it will in a sense force their force them to make some, you know, a harder choice because, you know, the Harvard, Alumni are, are much in favor of affirmative action. That's, that's quite clear. They've elected members to their board of overseers who are in favor of it. But what if it means some, you know, marginal unquantifiable reduction in the chance that their own kids are gonna get in? How much do you care about diversity then? Okay. If the diversity involves excluding you, you know, what about that? We'll see if they announce any
Eloy:Right. Well, it's interesting to see, Larry Summers out recently talking about, his call to and legacy admissions. Of course, Larry's a former president of Harvard himself. so we'll see where that all goes. But I certainly do think that given all the commotion about the SCOTUS decision, there is so much. Institutions of learning can do themselves to improve the outcomes of people of color and low income people who are trying to get access to these highly, what we call rejective colleges and universities. so I'm hopeful that this conversation does spur a lot of thinking not just on the legal issues, but on the practices that many, many colleges and universities.
Jess:Eli, can I, raise a point that, from what I could tell, this is what I was, this is what I thought about a little bit. When, when I came onto the board and was looking at this issue and it was, an analysis that absolutely no one else agreed with. So, and I don't even know if I agree with it, and you and Theresa have more recent data and you can update it with, with facts, but during the, the, the two polls of the affirmative action debate, during my, my, my time around there were kind of went these ways. These you know, minority applicants, black Hispanic applicants who are the principal beneficiaries of affirmative action. They are all uc qualified. So there's not a, a damage, you know, to the academic quality of the institution. And simultaneously, the argument was, everyone who was admitted to affirmative action was also uc qualified. Right? principal document when I was on board was a master plan for higher education in 1960 under Governor Pat Brown's administration, and it stepped forth at the top 12.5% of the uc, or the California high school class was entitled to admission to the University of California. The only people who benefit from affirmative action at uc, were already in that group. They're already in the top eighth of the high school graduating class. Where is it? That affirmative action played a role. It played a role in admission only to UCLA and uc, Berkeley, the other campuses, all, all that, all those people would all be entitled to a seat in one of the other campuses already. the, on the one hand we believed and we asserted that all our uc campuses are all equal. They're all good. They're all equal. They all provide a absolutely world class education that no one could possibly fault. And at the same time, two of these campuses are a million times better than all the other ones. And if you go to, if you end up sent to one of the other ones, boy man, you're doomed. Right? So, well, which is it? You know? It's not like you're, you know, you still are getting one of the most fantastic educations available to anyone in the world at a great sub, a great, great price. And guess what? If you're one of the white students or Asian students who is redirected to Santa Cruz or Riverside instead of Berkeley or ucla, you also have a fantastic education being provided to you at tremendous subsidy. So the consequences, whether it is. White legacy student from Cal, you know, or the immigrant student from Mexico who has to go to Davis instead of Berkeley. I just don't think that person is educationally disadvantaged either way, and in and in the point of the state of California's interest in providing these people in education. Mission accomplished to me. The problem was, and you point out that uc has taken many more steps in this direction, were the many, many people who were not qualified in the first place to even be in the mix to go to one of these schools. And that's the problem. this may be heretical. I even felt, gee, you go to community college or Cal State. Maybe your life isn't over either. You know, maybe you also have an opportunity for a really, really good education and doing something with your life and being a fulfilled person. So I thought, you know, the symbolic message that we were sending about educational opportunity was at least as important as the consequences for any student who has the tremendous horror of going to uc, Santa Barbara instead of ucla. whether that is a white student or or Hispanic or, or black student.
Eloy:similar conversations keep happening now and I love to get Teresa's take as well. But I mean, for me, the question of who gets into Berkeley, who gets into UCLA is still in play. their diversity is not quite as, Rich as perhaps a Merced or Riverside. But the fact of the matter is uc, San Diego is in that mix as well. It's become quite difficult. UCI is getting quite difficult, although it's a Hispanic serving institution. But for me, there is one University of California and regardless of which campus you go to, you get an amazing education. But we've put a premium over time on two particular campuses, and today probably three, the big three, what we call'em, but there is still a challenge, particularly for black Californians. having access to University of California is still a challenge and there's a lot of work that needs to be done for Latino students. It, it's getting there. but there's still a challenge in affordability that Therea mentioned. So there's still a lot of work to do, Theresa, I love your, your take on on Jess's point.
Teresa:Well, I, I think the admission counselors that I interview all the time really talk about fit. Don't be blinded by the brand name. Really look at the campus and find out is that the campus that is fits you the best. Berkeley is not for everybody. If you wanna major in data science or computer science, Berkeley is, is like the top school in the nation and they also make a lot of money when they graduate. But if you wanna study environmental science, I know people who've done really well at uc, Santa Barbara, because they've at uc, San Diego as well. Merced has some of the happiest students in the whole uc system because it's smaller, it's more intimate. You know, the professors actually get to know the students. They have amazing experiences with undergraduate research and there's a lot of students of color and so in many cases, students of color who may be leaving their home for the first time ever feel a little more secure at a place like Merced. So I think, as Eloy said, All of the campuses are amazing. They all offer something slightly different and I really think that students or applicants need to look and see what it is they wanna do and then match that interest and fit with the uc campus.
Jess:One thing that, they could be doing at the, at the Regents, the, the organic act of, of the University of California. says that the Regents are directed to, as soon as practicable establish tuition free education for qualified residents. How's that going?
Teresa:most, more than half of uc students don't even pay tuition because of the incredibly generous Cal Grant program. I don't know that making uc free for students who have the ability to pay is necessarily the right answer. I think it's really up the financial aid for students who can't afford to go to uc.
Jess:When I was on the board, I had a completely different idea. Theresa, my view was this means tested. Programs like that, are incredibly damaging to creating popular support. In other words, voters do not like the idea of, Hey, I have a great program. I'll give money that will help somebody else. How about that? That's a great program. The government will take money from me and give it to somebody else. I'm all for that. They programs like social security. Or Medicare that provide universal benefits are popular because people believe there's something in it for them. Even if there's something, even if there may be more in it for somebody else. But if it's just taking money from one person and allowing the financial aid, bureaucracy to set up criteria about who gets the money, that was incredibly damaging to popular support for uc and incredibly damaging for voter support for uc. it's a private education model. Okay. It's the Harvard model. We will have extraordinarily high retail costs for applying, and then we'll kick it back to people who meet our criteria for financial aid. Princeton and Harvard now give free education at certain people who below certain income thresholds. That's the private education model. The public education model. At ccny, at uc, until really. The Reagan and Jerry first, Jerry Brown 1.0 administrations, and then it really accelerated under Duke Ma and Wilson was to go to the private model, which is we'll high tuition and. Reallocate redistribute funds to people who we wanna see get in. And that is, you know, means tested. Programs are not popular politically. They, that's not what they wanna see.
Teresa:I don't know that the voters necessarily object to California's financial aid program and certainly the legislators right now their whole big thing is affordability and they are funding higher education. at pretty high levels. And also the uc tuition is only, what, about$13,000 a year compared to U usc, which is$66,000 a year. So, I mean, the private education model doesn't really compare to a Harvard or Princeton. When you look at the size of their tuition. What do you, do you think
Eloy:Well, this is the topic for a whole episode in and of itself, I've been in those, conversations, mostly arguments for, for years and years and years. I think the University of California certainly has a much richer model than most publics and certainly all of the privates, however, The challenge has been the divestment in public higher education from states, including California, and that has put a lot of pressure on universities, public universities. Some have responded well, some not so well, and there were periods of time that the University of California did not respond so well by trying to pass on the cost to, the student, and then asking the federal government to federalize. The, the cost of, of education through the PE system. That's, that's been a challenge in recent years because the cost of attendance has gone up so high in states like California. It's been hard. Now, this, this California legislature, the last two governors have invested quite a bit more in the University of California. So I, I do think that, that there is a balance that has to be had. the majority of students now are either low, low income or middle income at the University of California. It's tough to fund their education without the support of the state. but it's gonna be increasingly more difficult to to raise tuition at the University of California. This last round of tuition increase came after several years of fights and finally settled on a, on a cohort tuition model. We'll see how the California State University system does here coming up. But, tuition and financial aid are challenging topics in states like California. But let, let me ask both of you as we begin to, to wrap up, if you had any advice based on your experiences in, in your roles in California for other states on how to deal with this recent SCOTUS ruling around. Race conscious emissions. what would that be? Theresa, let's start with you.
Teresa:I talk to admission directors all the time and one thing that really stuck out for me was when Yolanda Copeland Morgan, who recently stepped down as Vice Provost of Enrollment Management at ucla, her big takeaway, which was also mentioned by Sean Harper of U S C, is do not overreact. They said after Proposition 2 0 9, all the legal counsel said, oh my God, we can't use raise. And so they were. Really, really just cut those numbers and she said, don't do that. Take time to look through it. There's still a lot you can do, maybe not consider race, but there's so many different ways that you can add diversity, whether it's socioeconomic diversity, and other things like that. So that, that was her big takeaway. In terms of advice.
Eloy:how about you?
Jess:I, I think that, like Theresa, I'm not gonna give advice, but the things that I've heard I think that the, the, the focus really should be on. On these, on these, pipelines that, that universities if they wanna maintain or increase diversity, they need to increase the number and the breadth of students who are qualified on their own terms to Be admitted to selective colleges and programs. And that may mean that may require universities to focus much more directly on working with K-12 education, on working with community colleges to establish ways to bring in people with, varied backgrounds. When I was speaking to President Ice Grouper of Princeton, he mentioned two things. I know that's been, they've been written about before, but Princeton is has a. Program, a pilot program of working with community colleges to bring transfers to its campus. And he also mentioned that they were going to increase their recruitment of military veterans, which is a more diverse group of people than the public at large. And if they were to increase veteran recruitment and veteran privileges, incidentally are permissible. In fact, I believe the government encourages them that too would promote diversity in enrollment. So I think that they're going to have to find, You know, more creative, perhaps more costly ways to ensure that they have, a wide variety of, of applicants who are who, who aren't, qualified for admission.
Eloy:on that note, I certainly wanna echo the importance of community college transfers. I think that's how I got into the University of California. and as I've said before, there is diversity at your local community college because they serve the top 100% of their community. So I do think that that's great advice. And I, I thank you both for joining me here on The rad. This is a meaty topic. We'll also talk about perhaps we'll, Circle back one of these days and, and talk a little bit more. So Jess and Theresa, thanks for joining me here on the Rent.
Teresa:Thank you.
Jess:Lot of fun.
Eloy:All right, well, this was a great conversation. I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I did. I really appreciate having, Theresa Watanabi and just braven here on the rant. Thanks for joining us, everyone. If you enjoyed this episode, hit the like button and if you're following us on the YouTube channel, hit subscribe. Please leave me your comments, your thoughts on this this interview. Let me know your thoughts on race conscious admissions and continue to follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for joining us here on the rant and take care, everybody