Dem on SCOTUS Affirmative Action Decision: We Need an ‘Equal Playing Field’

SUSSMAN: "We will see more once we see the actual decision and opinions. But I would disagree with David on the fact this is a massive ruling on the substance of the issue. Even though it was 6-2 but the judges said there were different reasons for upholding the law. And let's look at what the actual challenge was. This is not the substance on whether affirmative action is legal or not legal for the states to be using. The voters in Michigan had gone to the ballot. So it's a matter of whether it is OK for the voters to strip away the state's ability to use this in state universities on the ballot. Right? So this is similar to the way the Prop 8 decision was in California -- is it OK for the voters to go to the ballot on the issue. And the court ruled it is OK for the voters to go to the ballot on this issue."
[CROSSTALK]
HEMMER: "Wow. One at a time now. We have three microphones, one of them is being used by me now."
WEBB: "Sorry about that."
HEMMER: "What the court said, you are right about that, Emily, that voters could change the constitution if they wanted. They said the lower court was wrong, David, when they set aside the case as discriminatory, as discrimination. How do you add that into the equation as you evaluate it?"
WEBB: "Well it goes along with the comment that, about the voters. The voters get to chose because our society is advanced. And even Sandra Day O'Connor said there was a time limit on this, other justices have said this, that there's a time when affirmative action needs to go away, our society has advanced, there is access for all, and we need to get back to a point of true fairness which is true fairness. Again, back to the voters, back to the American people and our right to choose."
HEMMER: "All right. Emily I cut you off, go."
SUSSMAN: "It's quite all right. I think our argument goes to the fact that this is a very live debate in this country. The court didn't decide if it is discrimination to still use race as factor helping or basically, you know, helping minorities get in. This is based on a long history that we've had in this country of not providing the same opportunities for all people and all races. Specifically, it isn't that far in our future to get the same opportunities to go to college. And also the ruling case on this issue is also in Michigan. Michigan is apparently hot ground for all of this. But it is saying it's not just benefiting the minority students. It is benefit to the university, it is a benefit to everybody to have diversity in the classroom."
[CROSSTALK]
WEBB: "But it is history, Emily. It is history and it is past. America is not not the America it was in the '60s. We're in 2014, we've changed. A woman was the focal point in this case initially. So we have to look at this where we are as a country. Again, the justice said it needed to go."
HEMMER: "David, do you expect voters in Michigan to go after changing the state constitution? Do we know that answer yet?"
WEBB: "I don't think we know the answer but I expect there will be a significant effort to make the constitution reflect the societal changes. Where we are is a very, very progressive -- let's use that term -- and a modern society in America."
HEMMER: "All right. Emily, I'll give you the last word."
SUSSMAN: "I do love David calling it a progressive society but I think that also means we need to be honest about where people are starting compared to the opportunities they have and what those opportunities mean for them and creating an equal playing field."
WEBB: "Well, equal outcome doesn't exist but equal opportunity does exist in America. That is the reality."
HEMMER: "Thanks to both of you, David Webb and Emily Tisch Sussman. Thanks for the debate today, appreciate it."
SUSSMAN: "Thank you."
WEBB: "Thank you Bill."