 those history support affirmative action. Here on history is here to help. We're talking about history. If we're talking about history, we're talking to Dr. Peter Hoffenberg, a history professor at UH Manoa, and we're gonna talk about affirmative action because it's all through higher education and even lower education with these affirmative action programs that were adopted by many schools years ago and are now in question within the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, which is an exclusively conservative or worse, seemed to indicate at the oral argument two weeks ago that they favored striking affirmative action programs. And that is probably a good indicator. They probably will strike affirmative action programs. And we should talk about what that means to us. I think too many people will say, oh, oh, there's striking affirmative action. Me no care, but we do care. Or do we, Peter? What is the history of affirmative action? Where does it fit in our educational approach? Sure. First of all, I think you're right. The best that affirmative action could hope for is five to four with Roberts sort of covering himself. But quite clearly, if you look at, if you read, not just the comments, but also the questions, I think affirmative action as we know it is dead at the university level. And it's a Trojan horse for it to be dead at other levels as well. I mean, the individual who brought the suit also brought the suit in Shelby B. Holder, which dismantled and gutted the key aspect of the Voting Rights Act. So yeah, this is a Trojan horse. What is the history? Well, there's a history that's international. There's a history that's American, but I think the key sort of hit points are there regardless. Abortion as either preventing fertilization or preventing the birth of a child is as old as humanity. So are you saying that there's a parallel process here historically between abortion and affirmative action? I personally think yes, in the sense of what we're talking about is what can the government or state do? So I do think there is that overlap most certainly. It's once again, an attack on the poor and attack particularly disproportionately on people of color. I think it's also an attack as we've talked about before and I apologize to our listeners, one of the bricks of the great society. I mean, whether or not you like affirmative action as a specific policy, I think most people agree with LBJ's famous speech that you can't talk about equality if somebody comes to the race and I'll paraphrase an expensive Nike's, right, and a Bloomingdale suit and the other person comes to the race dragging change from the past. That's just not a fair race. And that he launched affirmative action essentially with that analogy at Howard University. That may also be the case with abortion. Women who need to either prevent pregnancy or end a pregnancy in order to proceed with their lives, whether that means a job, whether it means mental health, whatever. Again, you're saying that there are rights greater than that. So I think particularly it comes to people who need to make these decisions in a really a life or death matter for them as well. And is it the right of the state to say you cannot make the decision at the same time that the court says it's okay to carry a weapon in public? It just seems to be filled with all of these inconsistencies. You know, when I heard they were gonna have oral argument, when I heard they took the case and there was a certain amount of press on this very point, I thought they're never gonna validate affirmative action, not this court. This court is way over conservative as an understatement of where they are. They're extreme, they're reactionary. I thought to myself, there's no way they're going to validate affirmative action. They're gonna strike it. And then I thought, well, what is the really core issue? This is subjective, but what is the really core issue that makes me feel that they are going to do this? And it's what you were talking about. It's racism. It's creating a social divide. It's dumping on one group as opposed to another group. It's dividing the country on the basis of race, which is a hideous notion. And really out of, you know, it's out of sorts. It's out of time. And I predicted that they would strike affirmative action from the first I heard that they were gonna take this case. And now it's true. And I think we can intellectualize it and rationalize all the reasons they're gonna come up with and the opinion we're gonna see when it comes down to that. It comes down to that, but also it's a perversion of that. You know, it's like two of the Justices, Associate Justice is saying, for example, you know, abortion is genocide against black people, for example, it's a perversion of the race card. It's playing the race card to continue racism rather than playing the race card to try to challenge it. I think Powell and other Justices put it well and it's something maybe this country has difficulty doing. You gotta put the cards on the table, you have to address the problem and then you can overcome the problem. In other words, you need to recognize racial inequality. You need to have public policies to address that. And then maybe as John Roberts says and the Justices have said, look at maybe at some point affirmative action will not be needed, but it's certainly still needed. And all the statistics show that once this goes, the number of, and remember talking about particular ethnic or racial groups, right? We're talking about African-Americans, talking about Native Americans very much, right? The opportunity for Native Americans to go to all preservation educational institutions has always been very limited. They've been sent, right? We know they've been sent to school, so not including those in which their culture has bled out of them. And to a certain degree, the Latin community or the Latin community is so diverse, right? I mean, Cubans are not the same as Dominicans, et cetera, but it is an effort particularly against those groups as racial ethnic groups. And the arguments, I think I agree with you, we shouldn't over-intellectualize, but as a public figure and a professor, that's sort of what I'm paid to do. And I did- You go right ahead, Peter, and I apologize. Let me say when they said in Dobbs that, you know, the world has changed and we don't need- Right. We don't need Roe v. Wade anymore because the world has changed. I said to myself, that is the example of a Supreme Court that's going over the edge and that is spouting poppycock. If that's what they do here in affirmative action, we don't need affirmative action anymore. It's played its course. It's done. We have resolved these problems so as we don't need those whole spate of laws and rules. I say to myself, there it is again, it's poppycock. Right, I think it's poppycock, but for a different reason. I don't see, I mean, they keep citing Justice O'Connor saying, you know, in 25 or 28 years, this won't be necessary, but they can't really say it's not necessary because when you still look at college admissions, African-Americans and I guess the term is Latinx or Hispanic culture people are still underrepresented and Native Americans are less than a cent. So your argument has to be a little different. It's still poppycock, but it's slightly different. And let me bore you for a couple of minutes to just tell you at least what I read and heard in the argument. One is that affirmative action pits one race against another. And so we're again at that sort of my rights versus your rights argument, right? Like a right to walk safely across the street is less important than the right to carry a gun. And we've talked about almost every week how somehow we got to get out of this right my rights versus your rights and understand there is a compelling public interest, right? And that's the scrutiny test was what got affirmative action approved. There is a compelling public interest, all right? So one of the ways to say that it isn't is that ironically affirmative action has promoted racial division. Okay, that's sort of one argument. Secondly, there's the argument is not quite that it's no longer needed, but that it doesn't work. And it's really interesting all of these graduates of elite universities, all of them, right? Almost all of them have gone to elite graduate law schools, many elite undergraduate, you know, Brown is the only public defender. So I mean, we're talking about generally powerful. They're critiquing their universities as being as using affirmative action for increasing their elite status, which I find really it's like elites making a populist argument against an elite university. Okay, what they're doing also is ignoring those out in the public who actually are gangbusters about affirmative action. The institution that's gangbusters about affirmative action is the armed forces. And the armed forces makes the argument that the justices made when they approved it. We need to create leaders and we need people participating in social experiences, which reflect the diversity of our society. And if we can only get that by affirmative action, then we're going to do it. And they're different. They're military. Well, they argue, and their argument actually is not just the better military, but I think also potentially better veterans in society. I mean, you're seeing part of this problem with white extremists from the military. They did not get the message, right? That you're supposed to train. We hope not go to war, so let's at least train. And if you have to go to war, go to war alongside people from cities and countryside, black, white, et cetera. And they for some reason didn't get that message. And they're actually an example of our needing more affirmative action. Yes, you say that and it reminds me of the whole notion of the greatest generation in World War II. You had people in the hinterland, shoulder to shoulder in the war, meeting people, working with them, biting with them, dying with them from the cities. So two completely different groups that had been divided by geography up to that point. And that's still a thing divide in our country, major divide in our country. Right, but it's urban world, urban, non-urban. Yeah. But World War II and the greatest generation brought them together. And it was a very positive thing that they could meet each other and they could learn to trust each other and all that. And so, and that's affirmative action, I think, in its own way during World War II. But now to strike it would, especially with an all volunteer force, would revert back. I can't, I agree with you. I'm not quite, I haven't thought through exactly what would happen, but certainly, well, I think the Pentagon would push back. I don't think, I think the Pentagon would ignore it. Just as, I'm sorry, I can't remember the head of the armed services, but several congressmen went after him for being woke, et cetera, and all of the military brass have resisted that. They basically told the Congress members to go sit down. Woke has nothing to do with this, right? We want a diverse, qualified field, which represents what we hope would be a diverse, qualified citizenship. So I think the other arguments are interesting on both sides, okay? But among the other arguments opposing affirmative action is that somehow it violates the colorblind nature of the Constitution. And that goes back to Harlan, right? He said late 19th century, that the Constitution is colorblind, to which Associate Justice Brown made the very important argument that not only can you not find the word colorblind in the Constitution, okay? And you know how a lot of folks oppose abortion because they say you can't find the word, but she points to the Civil War and post-Civil War amendments, which were clearly intended, right? To make reparations and to protect freedmen. So they would not only not be rejected from white colleges, but only go to historically black colleges. In other words, this could lead to more segregation, right? Qualified African-Americans will go more often to historically black colleges, which is great for those colleges, right? I'm not criticizing those as well. But what we are into is a separate and equal higher education environment in that way. And then in addition to the colorblind argument and her suggestion that it was not colorblind, we continue to go back to this debate about the purpose of affirmative action. And I think we have to, as historians, you've asked me as a historian to talk about the history. So part of the history is there's always, I've always had been abortions. The idea after, I'm sorry, I apologize. No, I'm getting mixed up, I apologize, affirmative action. So let's get to the debate about affirmative action. I apologize. Firmative action initially was promoted as part of the reparations idea. That historically there are certain groups, particularly African-Americans, who the balance is just unfair and it has always been unfair, housing, employment, et cetera. If we believe the colleges are important for leadership, for knowledge, for socialization, then we should do our best to try to address that discrimination through affirmative action. And that was really the idea. And that was Johnson's idea, right? When the great society is born and civil rights legislation comes through, it's the idea that in order for us to be equal at some point, we do have to make amends for the inequalities of the past. And I think for many people, that's still a compelling argument. And also the inequalities of the future. Right, right, to try to prevent. So the argument would be, we address the inequalities of the past so that as John Roberts has said, without any evidence at all, let's get rid of racism by getting rid of racism. Okay, fine. You get rid of it when it doesn't exist, right? But what had happened? I shouldn't say, but and what happened is that along the way, and the Bakke and Post's decisions are in part responsible for this, the idea of reparations got replaced by the idea of diversity. And so when it got replaced with the idea of diversity, critics could make the argument that, for example, and you hear this in the plaintiff's case at the Supreme Court, that wealthy sons of African businessmen are treated the same way as relatively poor great-grandchildren of Georgia sharecroppers. Right, so their argument is in diversity is actually undermining reparations. That's one of their arguments. And then- Reverse, reverse. Well, what it is, is it enables in their mind certain people to take advantage of a category which was not really intended for them, right? So in 1964, when Johnson gets up, right? He's talking very specifically, right? About the descendants of sharecroppers and descendants of slaves who are still not allowed to be at the lunch table and are beaten up as they try to vote, that a college education is one of the ways to address that. Okay, I think in a way what they're also arguing besides the diversity has replaced reparations is that diversity only according to race does not produce a diverse workplace or diverse educational experience. And the problem is that that is tilting at a windmill. There's no admissions officer, right? Who says race is the only category, nobody. So what's really an issue is can race be included? Can race be included in the holistic as the Harvard guys say, holistic admissions process along with geography and... Any number of things, sure. Classes are expected to look at any number of things. Right, so I think the difficulty where Harvard got tripped up and it's kind of its own fault is the emails which said that race was not being used to add to the applicant's total number of points but being used to reduce it. So in other words, there were some emails that refer to Asian personalities. Now, if that's the case, that is wrong, absolutely wrong. Just as there were quotas against Jews, et cetera. But that's again being used kind of as a wedge issue. All right, that is a problem and Harvard should address that. But does that mean the entire algorithm and calculus which includes the grandson of a Pullman train porter? All right, so again, it's kind of a wedge issue and you're a lawyer, you know how this works, right? You go for that little opening, but just that little opening and the media says makes a big deal out of this but without realizing, there are 50 different criteria on an admissions application. The end result would be though, as you said that race cannot be included. If that's the result, the admissions committees will find other ways. Yeah, at the end there's a subjective element in choosing who gets to go to school. Right, and as Associate Justice Brown said, you can't dissect race out of an individual or community. You may decide it's not the most important thing but there's plenty of numerical correlation between race and wealth, for example. So if you turn to wealth, okay? You also should end up with a significant number of African-Americans, whose families have not been able to purchase a home. So I think her point was well taken. You guys might not like using race and I think we know why they don't like using race. Okay, and she would probably agree that race is not the only factor but identities, and not even using the clever use of identities now, just the way in which an individual integrates in society and integrates with others is so multifaceted. Right, ethnicity, religion, personal interests, size of family, where are you, I mean, they're all factors at college. On and on, if an algorithm is what it is. Exactly, and it continues to change and grow. And I think her point is if you take, if it's an algorithm or a molecule, you can't just take out the atom of race and say the molecule can function effectively. So one of the arguments has been, I mean, it's kind of the go-to argument is to use class or wealth as a determinant. But again, how are you gonna separate that from race or ethnicity, et cetera? So it sounds good, right? David Brooks makes a big deal out of turning to class. But again, you can't separate out. What are you gonna do, family wealth? How would you even determine class? You know, one thing just hearing you on this is it strikes me that if you took race out of the algorithm, it would be in anyway, right? It would still be there. I think that was that's Justice Brown's point, right. But the problem that I see is something that preceded affirmative action. And that is, so if you have a somebody making the choice and they know that this individual is black, they might rule against him or her. Very much, very much. Okay, we got his number now. We don't want him in our school. And so what you have is a reversal of the Johnsonian principle in a de facto kind of way. And that's very problematic. What affirmative action does is, yes, you can consider race, but as a positive, not as a negative, we're not gonna use it to discriminate negatively against people. And I think that's where Harvard's admissions participants made the mistake. And it's a moral mistake. It's not just a political mistake of subtracting points or allegedly subtracting points. So doing what you said towards African-Americans, towards Asian-Americans, all right. And look, again, as I said, I think we can all agree that's wrong for a thousand reasons. That's not the issue they're gonna decide on though. Exactly, and so I think you're right. And those who are able and capable of going to college, in this case, we'll go to community colleges or historically black colleges. Others may not go to college as well. Now, one possible opportunity here is to recognize that the elite universities, at least, set aside admissions or give positive points for legacy cases, positive points for athletes, et cetera. So I think if there's any sort of silver lining in this discussion, it's seeing how the sausage works. And the sausage works, if your grandfather went to Harvard, you get a much better chance of going to Harvard. That's just a reality, Stanford, et cetera. It's a reality, but it doesn't make me feel good about those schools, I'm sorry. No, no, and I'm not intending it to make you feel good. I'm intending it that the scorching light of this decision at least has put some light on the various advantage groups, right? And without a relative true has gone to the college. And again, that's not the only thing, but it's one thing. So maybe that will change in the algorithm or molecule or maybe not. And as you say, if it doesn't change and we reduce the number of Native Americans and African Americans to Harvard, obviously the legacy cases are reduced, right? And it's a Malthusian dilemma that continues. Well, it strikes me to take it to a high policy level is these schools are recognized. If a young lawyer walks into a law firm, is that just got out of Harvard or Yale, he's got a tremendous advantage, or she. And that goes across the board. Those schools have a special cachet about them. So that means that the graduates of those schools get into executive high-level positions. They are hired quicker and for better jobs. They define the future of the country in many ways. They define the country because those schools are so respected, at least at this point they are. And I'm thinking that we really have to have a system where everybody can get into those schools on an equitable basis. And we have to use those schools to, I don't want to call it to allow the diversity that exists in the country anyway. Nobody gets left, no group gets left behind. They have such power for the country, for the future of the country, that we must have policy that guides them to do the most responsible thing, the most positive thing for the country, especially them, even beyond other schools because there's so much clout in the marketplace. So to take away affirmative action is to take away that diversity. And it's a tremendous loss to higher education, not only in those schools, but the schools which will follow this decision, however misguided it may be. What do you think? I think I agree with you entirely and the record at least for prominent public universities like Michigan and University of California, which were forced to eliminate affirmative action, both report a considerable drop in the number of applicants among African-Americans and Native Americans, including, remember there are a lot of Native Americans in the Midwest. So I agree with you. I think there are a couple of things we could do to address that. First of all, as I mentioned at the start, the admissions committees will find ways, the private ones will find ways. That's not good law. That's what that is, is bad law, and leaving it subjectively up to a bunch of people in the back room, sorry. No, I don't dispute with you. I'm just saying that Harvard and Yale and Stanford and MIT and University of Chicago have a lot to gain by ignoring what the court says. So I'm saying they will find ways to reach out and find. I'm more worried about the large public universities, which are either the only opportunity in a state or really of such high quality that for less money you get a great education. I mean, Berkeley and Michigan, obviously far less than Harvard and Stanford, tremendous. So a lot of what I've been reading is by admissions officers who are worried about the response in public will be among these groups is just to not apply to college. And that, they're talking about how difficult it's gonna be to reach out, to encourage people to apply for college when they hear about this result. Because this result cannot really be read by most people other than a racial decision. Even if to support a particular group, it's still a racial decision. That's my view from the beginning. Yeah, and so the great fear among, UC recruiters and University of Michigan recruiters and even say a place like Oklahoma, where they're not a lot of universities, okay? The other answer is, and this is an equal seismic shift, is that we really decide, we really decide to make public education a top priority. And therefore Harvard still produces what it produces, but people have increasing respect for the non-Harvards. So the state colleges are better, the community colleges are better. And that also makes sense for no other reason than for example, when Harvard graduates, six PhDs in history, they could fill the entire country with their, and their MBA program, while among the top only is a certain number. So another- How do you achieve that equality? How do you raise the other schools up? Money, money, yeah. For example, rethink community colleges, which are based on local property taxes, or rethink public high schools that are based on local property taxes. And I've been reading the educational response to this because I think everybody agrees with you, is it done deal? As I said, even five-fourths of done deal. Okay, it's done. It's over. So the question is, how do you respond? How do you respond? And the two responses are very different. Private elite schools will find a way to get those students to their classrooms. And maybe inconsistently. Right. I press the stamp for Chicago, Harvard to find ways to get the Native Americans and African-Americans who want to go there, that they want to go there. I trust that. But I'm worried, as I said, about the public schools or fewer African-Americans wanting trying to get into Harvard because of this. All right. So the other strategy is, and I mean, it's a lot to increase public education, but money matters tremendously. Well, there was a piece recently about, you know, it's all about this college debt issue with Joe Biden and everything and how, you know, the colleges have gotten really, really expensive. When I went to the city university in New York, it cost me $12 a semester. That was it. And gee whiz, I mean, you couldn't do that now in most of the country. Absolutely not. But even in government schools, you know, in state and, you know, state schools. It's $12 to park. Yeah, one day, one moment, one hour. Right. So the problem is, it's gotten very, very expensive to run higher education. I don't know why, you must know why that has happened over the past few decades. That's another, we could have a long discussion about that. But if you say it's money, money, and you say, you know, let's pour money into the non Ivy League, you're talking about a lot of money because higher education has gotten so expensive. Right. It would be good to have a discussion about the role of colleges. So when I say money, I don't mean simply pouring it down the tube, but for example, I think President Obama's idea about free community college education makes plenty of sense. Community colleges are really, to paraphrase the state's rights people, they're laboratories. There are people who work full time who go there. There are older people. There are younger people. There are people getting practical degrees like nursing. They're a wonderful laboratory and the professors there are generally devoted to teaching. That's the goal of community college. And I could see as part of the process, right? Reaching out, getting these underrepresented groups into community colleges, giving them those two years free. And if they do well, like many states, you can matriculate to the local, large, public university. So UCLA, for example. Well, that ought to be a very easy path because at the end of the day, we want these minority groups to be in charge of American industry, in charge of American government industry, all our institutions, we want them to be diverse and we want them to be everywhere. And they're not gonna be everywhere out of a two year college unless we make a path to get them to Harvard and Yale and the Ivy League where they can get the best possible jobs in that community. Well, also, I mean, if they go to UCLA or Berkeley or University of Illinois or University of Michigan, they'll also get excellent jobs. So I agree with you. We can't, the goal is not to stop at two years unless it's appropriate, right? If an individual would like to be a nurse and can get a two year degree in practice nursing, great. And the opportunity to go to the other two years could be held out for the future. But I think inadvertently, maybe you've struck at the two problems and maybe this is way for us to finish up, okay? People, many people argue against the idea of reparations, right? It's not my problem. My family immigrated in the 1930s so I'm not responsible for this. That's not an unheard of response. Again, it is in the public interest the way you describe it. And I think of, I'm probably 49.5% think of is in order to get to where we want to as a country we have to redress what we've done. I mean, we rebuilt Japan, right? We rebuilt Germany. I don't understand why we can't rebuild America. Okay, but you've struck at the fact that the reparations argument is not one everybody will embrace. And secondly, I think with the review of the stream court which lasted between five and six hours. It was a long time and all the journalists were, I mean, usually it's two, three at most. We also found that not everybody agrees with the idea of diversity. So when you say, for example, the country would be better if the board of General Motors as well as the workplace, as well as the stores selling General Motors goods were all as diverse as possible. Again, not everybody agrees with that. And that wraps the two rub up against, you know, the white nationalist replacement theory, right? I remember years ago when salsa replaced ketchup as the item to be dumped on everything that had no taste at the cafeteria, people were in an uproar, right? Somehow America has lost its soul, et cetera. And that sounds trite, the example is trite, but the message is not. So I think a lot is at stake here. And equally with the abortion issue, because abortion is about women's ability to participate fully in society, right? So if you prevent contraception and if you demand the birth of a child, you know. You're sorry, I'm sorry. You're sorry that woman from society. And that's less diverse. So fewer women around the board room, fewer women. And I think at the top, I think what we're really talking about to great degree is the top will probably diversify. I'm worried about the middle because that's where state colleges help people really get a leg up. I mean, the number of people going to Harvard is limited, right? But the number of people potentially walking through even here, University of Hawaii. I mean, the poorer kids who might have a chance to do something. Yeah, and the middle is where those kids you were talking about will say, I'm not going to apply. Yeah. Those in the very poor will just not apply. That's absolutely right. It's devastating. And also, women will have, if things go through the way the court wants to, the trajectory of an individual woman's life. Again, the wealthiest we'll find a way, right? That's why- So yeah, that's really my question to you here, is they're going to strike affirmative action. We know that now. It's a matter of weeks or maybe a couple of months, but it won't be long. And then it's going to be over. It's going to be over for Harvard and North Carolina, what have you. Right. And on all the schools that might have- Well, the North Carolina arguments and the Harvard argument are not just about the institutions, you know, as a lawyer, any institution that gets federal funding. Right. That's the way they're surfing on. That's a lot of institutions. Every institution gets every education. What effect on education? What effect on the body of students? What effect on the management of the country? What effect on the level of intellectual acuity, the level of creativity, the level of thoughtful participation in government? What effect will all of that have? It'll have the effect that we're all worried about an increasingly divided society. The best and the brightest quote unquote, we'll get their opportunities. And the rest of us in the middle and below will find our opportunities more segregated and more limited. So as I said near the beginning, I mean, I think that historically black colleges will pick up admissions and those haven't continued to have a very important role, but it now will change, right? It used to be a role where African-Americans could not go anywhere else. All right, then it was a role that they coexisted. And now in a way it's more to the plus CV Ferguson role, right? If you're a young kid and you have a chance to go there and you know that University of Georgia is not gonna include race or cannot include race. So, you know, like all public policy decisions, there are always some beneficiaries, but it just comes at a cost. So the cost is African-American kids getting a good education at those schools, but a segregated education. What about the state of Hawaii? What about UH? So I don't, to be honest, I don't know much about admissions, if anything, but UH would have, if UH includes race or ethnicity, they would have to scratch it from their admissions policy. To be honest with you, I have no idea. I assume- I don't have an idea because we don't think of race. We really are racially blind, which is part of credit. I don't know if, you know, for example, there are relatively few African-Americans in Hawaii and relatively few on campus. I don't know if some of the recruiters maybe go out, et cetera. But certainly I would think it wouldn't serve anybody's purpose in the Hawaiian community. Except, except very importantly, if you allow race and ethnicity, you can have special programs for native Hawaiians. Those are essential, absolutely essential. Waimanalo, Kahuku, go out to Waianae. And those are probably in some way or another determined by race or ethnicity. And those have been win, win, win situations. They're far more native Hawaiians or people have mixed the Hapa than they were in the old days. I used to be sort of athletes. But now, so that does worry me. I mean, now you've got me worried one more reason not to sleep at night. And there were so many of them these days. But you could make an argument, but you could make an argument. Like you could with Native Americans. You could make a political argument. The Native Americans are a tribe. And it's not the Native American in them that is underrepresented. It's the tribe that's underrepresented. I mean, you could kind of waffle around it politically. And I think probably we could find something here to avoid the far right, something about, you could even use a category indigenous, which is not a racial category. So I think if we thought about it, we could find a way. Personally, after being here for 30 years, I'll use a little Yiddish, it would be a Shonda. Be a Shonda if any effort is made to limit native outreach. And because it does take outreach, it does take encouragement, right? To go to Wai'anae where kids don't really think about going to college necessarily to go out there and recruit. And for our state, it's essential. I mean, to try to heal the wounds, to try to address reparations, for all the good reasons, diversity, et cetera. So I would hope, and I'm sure people are thinking about this because they agree with you that the axe is gonna fall. We'll find some way, if not intent, the effect will be multiracial, right? If not the, you know, the leisure expression of it. And I could see finding a different kind of language. I could see finding a political language. Yeah, well, maybe this will wake Hawaii up in some ways and other states, you know, to find a way and to reject the notion of what the Supreme Court is likely to do. I think we'll reject it here. We have to, I mean, to actually go further than that. Yeah, the more outreach, you know? Yeah, I think our most difficult issue as far as the Supreme Court is gonna be guns. That's another show. Yeah, because a number of applications for Kerry have just skyrocketed. That's ridiculous. Yeah, but I think abortion, we will protect. There's no way we're gonna deny same-sex marriage. That's part of Hawaiian law. It's part of Hawaiian history even. Multiple identities, you know, in tradition. Congress, in the next few weeks, Congress may, you know, come up with something on same-sex marriage in the last few weeks. We're trying to, the Senate will pass it, but McCarthy will have, well, he could have a majority of up to nine or 10. So I'm not sure it's gonna be the same with that. You know, I take away from this show the appropriate use of the worst, Shonda. I think everybody should write that down. I think you should put that on the final exam. Okay. And our last show, we talked about Marmalade. And this show, we talked about Salsa. So it's all about, you know, getting ready for Thanksgiving food. Food, exactly. Thank you, Peter. Peter Hopperberg, history professor at New Age. Take care, talk to you. We'll join all the holidays. Okay. Same. All right, bye-bye. Aloha. Mahalo.