♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY, WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER."

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

I'M NINA MOORE OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

THE PROFESSORS AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT ARE TARA ROSS OF ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ANIRBAN ACHARYA OF LEMOYNE COLLEGE, AND MICHAEL TILLOTSON OF SUNY-CORTLAND.

AS OF THIS WEEK, THE SUPREME COURT IS PERMITTING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT ORDER DIRECTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO A CREATE LIST OF U.S.

CITIZENS, AND IT PROHIBITS THE U.S.

POSTAL SERVICE FROM MAILING BALLOTS TO VOTERS, WHO ARE NOT ON THE CITIZEN LIST.

TONIGHT WE DIG INTO THE DETAILS OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING.

WILL THE DECISION CREATE CHAOS FOR THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS?

OR WILL IT HELP TO PROTECT THE BALLOT BOX FROM NON-CITIZENS, AS THE PRESIDENT MAINTAINS?

ANIRBAN >> YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, AS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MADE OUT TO BE THAT IT WAS A HUGE VICTORY FOR TRUMP AND I BEG TO DISAGREE HERE.

IT WAS A VICTORY TO SOME EXTENT BUT IT'S NOT THE VICTORY THAT HE WANTED.

WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE, THE SUPREME COURT FOUND OUT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CASE THAT CAME OUT, THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE RIPENESS IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE SUING BECAUSE OF THE HYPOTHETICAL U.S.P.S.

RULING THAT DIDN'T COME OUT YET SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.

SO THAT IS WHY THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS TOO EARLY.

THE CASE IS NOT TOO RIPE.

BUT NOW,-- AND THERE IS ANOTHER CASE WITH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS VS.

TRUMP AND THEY CAME OUT AND PROVIDED ANOTHER INJUNCTION AND NOW IT MIGHT GO TO THE SUPREME COURT.

AS OF NOW, AS IT STANDS, THE U.S.P.S.

RULE IS OPERATIVE.

IT CANNOT BE IMMEDIATELY USED.

THERE IS A BLOCK ON THIS RULE AND THE EXECUTIVE ORDER STILL REMAINS BLOCKED.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THEN, WHEN IT GOES TO THE SUPREME COURT, ONE THING WILL BE IMPORTANT, WHICH IS THE PURCHILL PRINCIPLE WHEN IS A PRINCIPLE THAT SAYS THAT LOWER COURTS ESPECIALLY CANNOT REALLY MAKE LAWS THAT CHANGE STATE AND LOCAL ELECTION TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION SO IT DOESN'T MAKE CHAOS.

WE WILL SEE WHERE THAT GOES.

AND I IMAGINE WITH KETANJI BOUND JACKSON KIND OF, THEY MIGHT THINK IT IS TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION.

THEY SAY SAY IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION.

LET TRUMP STAND OR THEY MAY SAY IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION, WE'LL RECONSIDER THE RULE LATER ON.

>> ONE THING WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE COURT, TARA, WAS VERY CLEAR, THE SUPREME COURT WAS VERY CLEAR IN POINTING OUT THAT THIS IS PURELY A PROCEDURAL RULING ABOUT JUDICIALBILITY.

IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE MERITS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER ITSELF IS PERMISSIBLE.

YOUR THOUGHTS.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING WAS THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TRUMP'S ACTIONS WERE LEGAL.

BASICALLY THE RESPONSE WAS, AND I'M QUOTING, TIME WILL TELL IF THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER WILL BASICALLY STAND.

>> THAT WAS IN THE OPINION.

>> AND YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHAT WAS THE POINT OF ADDING THAT STATEMENT IF YOU WERE NOT GOING TO DECIDE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

SO, WAS THIS A FORESHADOWING AND MAYBE AND HELPFUL HINT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BACK OFF, OR WAS THIS A WAY OF SAYING, THERE IS ANOTHER CASE COMING FORTH, WE HAVEN'T STOPPED THAT CASE.

WE HAVEN'T PREVENTED IT IN ANY WAY AND WE HAVEN'T SAID IT WASN'T RIPE YET.

WAS THIS THE COURT BASICALLY TRYING TO SORT OF SEND THE MESSAGE WITHOUT SENDING THE MESSAGE.

FOLKS, DON'T GET ALL UPSET ABOUT THIS.

WE ARE NOT REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING.

>> YEAH, WELL, THE COURT JUST SEEMS TO BE ALL OVER THE PLACE ON THIS BECAUSE IT HEARD THE CASE ON ITS EMERGENCY DOCKET AFTER RECESSING AND THEN, AS TARA SAID, MICHAEL, THE COURT IS SAYING, BUT WE REALLY ARE NOT DECIDING ANYTHING YET, RIGHT?

AND HAVE YOU TO MAKE CHANGES WITHIN 60 DAYS.

WE ARE AT 70 NOW OF THE ELECTION.

>> YOU GUYS MENTIONED CHAOS BUT THE HALLMARK OF THIS PRESIDENCY IS CHAOS, INTIMIDATION AND CONFUSION.

THAT'S THE HALLMARK OF THE PRESIDENCY.

I HEAR PEOPLE SAY I CAN'T BELIEVE HE'S IS GOING TO DO THIS AND DOES IT.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO MOVE PAST HE CAN'T DO THIS.

HE DOES IT.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY HE IS FOCUSED ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS.

FRAUD IS HARD TO PROVE AND DOESN'T NECESSARILY BENEFIT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CATEGORICALLY.

SO I THINK HE IS OFF THE MARK WITH THIS OTHER THAN CHAOS, INTIMIDATION AND CONFUSION.

>> OTHER THAN THE QUESTION OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WHICH WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON, THE COURT HAS REALLY STEPPED BACK FROM THAT, RIGHT?

WE HAVE SEEN OTHER PLACES WHERE THE COURT HAS LIMITED VOTING RIGHTS AND COULD HAVE DONE SO HERE BUT STOPPED SHORT OF DOING SO.

WHY DO YOU IMAGINE THE COURT HEDGED ITS BETS HERE?

>> I DON'T THINK THE COURT WANTS TO MAKE A DECISION TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION IN SUCH A WAY THAT WHEN THE PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY STARTED VOTING AND ACTUALLY THE MAIL-IN BALLOTS IN SOME STATES ARE GROWING OUT NEXT WEEK.

SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PURCHILL PRINCIPLE WHERE IT SAYS, THE COURT MIGHT SAY THE IDEA IS TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.

THE STATUS QUO IS THAT STATES RUN THEIR ELECTIONS.

THERE IS NO INTERVENTION IN TERMS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT.

SO IF THAT IS THE STATUS QUO, THEY WILL TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MIGHT ALSO SAY THE RULING SHOULD GO ON.

WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

LET THE RULING GO ON AND WE WILL FIGURE OUT-- WE ARE NOT SAYING THIS IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT.

>> YOU MEAN THE LOWER COURT RULING OR THE COURT'S PROCEDURAL RULING.

>> THE COURT'S-- THE SUPREME COURT SAYING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS FINE, IT CAN GO ON BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.

THAT'S THE OTHER PART, RIGHT?

WE ARE NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE MERIT OF THE CASE.

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS ADMINISTRATION WILL SUFFER IRREPPABLE HARM AND THAT MIGHT CONTINUE EVEN WITH THE PROBLEM.

I DOUBT THAT.

WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS BUT THE SUPREME COURT WILL TAKE UP THIS CASE.

>> WELL, HOPEFULLY, MAYBE, POSSIBLY.

LET ME PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT AND SAY THIS.

THAT WE COULD ARGUE THAT THERE IS SOME JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE WHO IS SENDING THIS CASE BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT OR IT'S BEING APPEALED FROM HER COURT.

JUST YESTERDAY SHE ISSUED ANOTHER RULING AND SHE HAS ISSUED A TOTAL OF THREE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS.

DOESN'T THAT SOUND LIKE ACTIVISM?

>> I MEAN.

>> DEFINE ACTIVISM.

>> ACTIVISM IS OVERSTEPPING YOUR BOUNDARIES AND TRYING TO IMPACT POLICY AND POLITICS WHEN THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB.

TARA, COULD I HEAR FROM TARA?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD CALL IT ACTIVISM IF THERE IS NO TRUE BASIS FOR MAKING, ISSUING THE INJUNCTIONS.

AND ONE COULD ARGUE THAT, IN A SENSE, EVEN THOUGH SHE IS NOT PART OF THE SUPREME COURT, SHE IS USING SORT OF THE SAME IDEOLOGY OF THE PURCHILL PROCEDURE IN SAYING THAT WE ARE TOO CLOSE TO THIS ELECTION TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER TO GO FORWARD.

I'M ISSUING AN INJUNCTION SO THERE IS NOT MASSIVE CHAOS IN THIS UPCOMING ELECTION.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL AND THE CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON ITS MERITS AND THEN THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD.

>> SURE, BUT THE QUESTION STILL STANDS, MICHAEL, THERE ARE 678 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES.

WHY IS THIS JUDGE ALL IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS?

>> I THINK SHE HAS AN AGENDA ON SOME LEVELS THAT I THINK WILL BECOME CLEARER.

>> I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT FROM THE LEFT YET.

SHE HAS AN AGENDA AND GO AHEAD.

>> AND I THINK SHE HAS-- HOW CAN I PUT THIS?

A BONE TO PICK.

YEAH.

>> AND A BONE INDEED SHE IS PICKING.

WE WILL SEE WHO WINS THAT FIGHT.

RIGHT NOW, CANADA IS FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE 50% TARIFFS IMPOSED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

ONE OF OUR CLOSEST ECONOMIC PARTNERS WILL IMPOSE RETALIATORY TARIFFS ON AMERICAN GOODS DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR.

PRIME MINISTER MARK CARNEY SAYS THE MOVE IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT CANADIAN WORKERS, PRODUCERS, AND MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE HARMED BY TRUMP'S PUNITIVE TARIFFS.

MICHAEL, WHY ARE WE IN A TRADE WAR WITH OUR LONG STANDING TRADE PARTNER AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

>> PICKING FIGHTS WITH YOUR FRIENDS.

THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT, RIGHT?

CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES HAVE HAD A RELATIVELY BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP FOR QUITE SOMETIME.

WE GO BACK TO THE MID 19th CENTURY.

1854, THE ELGIN MARCY TREATY, NO TAXES ON NATURAL RESOURCES, THE POST DEPRESSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN I THINK IT WAS ROOSEVELT AND PRIME MINISTER McKENZIE.

IN 1965, THE AUTO PACT SAYING THERE WILL NOT BE TARIFFS ON CARS OR TRUCKS OR AUTO PARTS COMING ACROSS THE BORDER.

198 THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT, 1994, NAFTA, THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT.

JUST SIX YEARS AGO THE UNITED STATES, MEXICO AND CANADA AGREEMENT.

SO WE HAVE HAD A RELATIVELY HUMAN-- STABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH CANADA.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF NOT CARING ABOUT AMERICAN REALITY.

DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.

DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE WELFARE OR WILL OF THE AMERICAN.

IN THIS MOMENT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT, JUST ASK THE FARMERS, ASK THE SAILORS, JUST ASK THE CATTLE RANCHERS, PARADOXICALLY, MARK CARNEY IS AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE HE DOES CARE ABOUT CANADA AND HE CARES ABOUT CANADIANS AND THE WILL OF LAW AND THE RULE OF LAW AND ECONOMIC STABILITY.

IF HE KEEPS THIS TIT FOR TAT, IT COULD TURN OUT TO BE PROBLEMATIC FOR CANADA.

IT'S VERY STRANGE MOMENT THAT WE ARE IN.

>> THAT'S SOME PRETTY STRONG STUFF, MICHAEL, THAT HE DOESN'T CARE.

ANIRBAN, WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID IS THAT HE DOES CARE AND LOOKING AT THE FAILED NEGOTIATIONS, WHICH IS WHAT BROUGHT US HERE.

HE SAID CANADA TARIFFS, QUOTAS AND BARRIERS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST U.S.

COMMERCE.

WE KNOW THAT THE U.S.

HAS A TRADE IMBALANCE AND THAT'S A REAL THING.

>> SURE.

I MEAN LOOK, THE PRESIDENT IS LOOKING AT THE TRADE IMBALANCE.

BACK UP A LITTLE BITS.

WE TALK ABOUT NAFTA AS AN AGREEMENT BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT NAFTA CREATED A HUGE LEVEL IMMEASURIZATION AMONG AMERICAN WORKERS AND IT WAS THE REASON THAT CLINTON, THE WRITING ON THE WALL, THE NAFTA PEOPLE THAT CREATE GENERATIONS OF WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE NO JOBS BECAUSE THEY JUST MOVED TO MEXICO.

SO TO MANY, IT WAS A TERRIBLE AGREEMENT WHERE THE U.S.

WORKERS LOST OUT.

BECAUSE YOU ARE FLOODING THE MARKET WITH GOODS PRODUCED BY UNSKILLED WORKERS FROM OTHER-- >> FROM MEXICO AND CANADA.

BUT HERE IS THE THING.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WENT AND NEGOTIATED THE USMCA.

I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE WAS LIVING WITH AND IT WAS FINE.

SO I'M NOT SURE ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW THIS EXTRA 50%, LIKE THE LOGIC BEHIND IT.

I'M NOT VERY SURE ABOUT, BUT THE RESULTS CAN BE QUITE, YOU KNOW, BAD FOR BOTH PEOPLE, AND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT WORSE FOR CANADA, AND ESPECIALLY FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, IMMEDIATE EFFECT YOU WILL SEE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PRICE OF PAPER HYGIENE PRODUCTS, TOILET PAPER, FACE TISSUES WILL GO UP TREMENDOUSLY BECAUSE 90% OF THAT PULP COMES FROM CANADA.

WE WILL SEE IN THE LONG RUN WHAT HAPPENS.

CANADA INTERESTINGLY IS TARGETING THOSE GOODS THAT ARE MAINLY FROM RED STATES.

SO THEY'RE ALSO TRYING TO PLAY A GAME IN WHICH THEY'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, REDUCE HEGEMONY OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

>> RED STATES BUT ALSO STATES WHERE THE MID TERM ELECTIONS ARE CLOSE.

AND SO SOON WILL PROBABLY HEAR ELECTION INTERFERENCE AT SOME POINT.

BUT TARA, CANADA ISN'T PLANNING TO IMPOSE THESE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 8.

SO IS THERE STILL A CHANCE THAT SOMETHING CAN BE WORKED OUT?

>> I CERTAINLY THINK THERE IS SIMPLY IF YOU FOLLOW HOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NEGOTIATES, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE AN AGREEMENT, IT WILL FALL APART.

WE ARE BACK TO NEGOTIATING.

WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT SO I THINK THERE IS TIME BEFORE THERE IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE TARIFFS.

AND CERTAINLY I THINK PRIME MINISTER CARNEY WOULD, HE HAS THE INCENTIVE FOR EXACTLY THE REASON MICHAEL SAYS.

HE CARES ABOUT HIS PEOPLE.

HE KNOWS WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE.

BUT HE IS ALWAYS MAKING A POINT WHEN HE POINTS OUT, THAT THE UNITED STATES IN A SENSE, HAS GONE BACK ON AN AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD ALREADY AGREED UPON.

WE CLAIM THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THESE TARIFFS IS BECAUSE CANADA DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CHEESE BUT YET ONE OF THE THINGS THE TARIFFS ISN'T ON IS CHEESE, FOR EXAMPLE.

IMPORTED CHEESE.

YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ARGUED IN TERMS -OF- WHY WE NEED THESE TARIFFS.

THEY REALLY ARE NOT AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM.

SO I THINK THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY.

I THINK PRIME MINISTER CARNEY WANTS THE OPPORTUNITY.

BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE CLARITY WITHIN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THAT HAS BEEN ANOTHER PROBLEM.

THAT THE HEAD OF THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT AND THE CHIEF U.S.

TRADE NEGOTIATOR DON'T SEEM TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THIS ISSUE OF THE TRADE IMBALANCE.

>> RIGHT.

WELL SPEAKING OF MARK CARNEY, MICHAEL, HIS THING SEEMS TO BE A LOT BIGGER THAN JUST THIS BECAUSE BACK IN DAVOS, HE SAID WE ARE ENTERING A NEW GLOBAL ORDER.

HE CAME FOR TRUMP IN A BIG WAY.

SO IS THIS PART OF THAT?

IS THIS PART OF CARNEY HAVING BIGGER ISSUES THAN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

>> EVERYTHING WITH THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, ALL OF HIS POLITICS ARE PERSONAL.

WHEN CARNEY HAD THE NERVE THE CHUTZPAH TO SAY THAT AT DAVOS, IT TOUCHED A NERVE.

I THINK HE IS GOING TO OPERATE-- HE IS ONE OF THE FEW PRESIDENTS WHO UNDOES THINGS THAT OTHER PRESIDENTS DID THAT WERE OKAY.

HE IS UNDOING SOMETHING THAT HE THOUGHT WAS OKAY.

>> AND IN THIS CASE, ANIRBAN, WHAT REPUBLICANS SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OUT OF MAINE HAS SAID IS THAT THESE ARE PROBLEMATIC.

SHE TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY COULD POTENTIALLY RAISE THE PRICE OF THINGS IN HER STATE PRODUCES, BLUEBERRIES, POTATOES, LOBSTER AND OTHER STUFF, BACK AND FORTH FIVE OR SEVEN TIMES AND EACH TIME IF I HAVE TO PAY A TARIFF-- >> WHEN THEY COME BACK,.

>> YOU GUYS INCENTIVIZED US TO BRING THE PLANT HERE.

WE BUILT THIS HUGE HONDA PLANT IN THE U.S.

AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS AND SO THE CAR PRICES WILL INCREASE.

HONDA HAS ALREADY SAID THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR REALLY BIG INCREASES IN CAR PRICES BECAUSE IF EVERY TIME LITTLE PARTS GO BACK AND FORTH AND YOU ARE PUTTING 50% TARIFF ON IT, THAT'S JUST THINGS BLOW UP.

>> THAT'S THE SAME FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT SUSAN COLLINS WAS TALKING ABOUT, ALSO.

SHE SAID THEY GO THERE, GET PROCESSED, AND THEY COME BACK HERE.

AND SO, BUT HERE IS THE ISSUE FOLKS, THE ISSUE IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP-- AND I'M PROBABLY REPEATING THIS QUESTION MORE BROADLY, HE IS TRYING TO RIGHT A WRONG.

AMERICA IS AT A DISADVANTAGE WHEN IT COMES TO TRADE IMBALANCES, NOT JUST WITH CANADA, BUT GLOBALLY.

SO, YEAH, CANADA IS OUR FRIEND BUT IF YOU START WITH YOUR FRIEND AND TELL YOUR FRIEND YOU CAN'T SCREW US EITHER, ISN'T THAT A WAY OF PUSHING OTHER COUNTRIES TO BE MORE EVEN HANDED WHEN IT COMES TO THE U.S.?

TAR ARKSZ?

>>-- TARA.

>> MY RESPONSE WOULD BE WAS IT A WRONG OR WAS IT WHAT WAS BENEFICIAL FOR US AT THE TIME?

IN TERMS OF MANY OF THESE RELATIONSHIPS, TRADE RELATIONSHIPS, AMERICA, LIKE THE TRADE RELATIONSHIP, LIKED THE FACT THAT WE WERE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS AN IMBALANCE BECAUSE IT BENEFITED US.

IT GAVE US A CERTAIN LEVEL OF POWER.

THE WORLD RELATIONSHIPS HAVE CHANGED.

AND NOW WE WANT THERE TO BE MORE EQUITY AND THESE SAME NATIONS THAT UNDERSTAND WE BENEFITED FROM THAT POWER, WE BENEFITED FROM THE TRADE IMBALANCES ARE NOW SAYING HEY, YOU CAN'T SUGGESTLY COME IN AND SAY WE DON'T NEED THAT TRADE IMBALANCE ANYMORE.

WE DON'T NEED THAT INFLUENCE OVER YOU ANY ANYMORE SO NOW PAY UP.

>> THAT IS A FASCINATING PERSPECTIVE THAT IT IS A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL POWER.

MOVING ON TO A DIFFERENT FRONT.

TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY AND NOW, OTHER HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HAVE ADOPTED A DRESS CODE.

STUDENTS MUST WEAR A BUSINESS SUIT AND SHOES TO BUSINESS MEETINGS.

NO BONNETS, DU RAGS, OR SAGGING PANTS IN THE CLASSROOM OR CAFETERIA EITHER.

ADMINISTRATORS SAY THE DRESS CODE HELPS TO ENSURE STUDENT SUCCESS IN THE PROFESSIONAL WORLD.

OTHERS SAY IT BUYS INTO A EUROPEAN-CENTRIC CONCEPT OF PROFESSIONALISM.

TARA, WHAT DO YOU SAY IT IS?

>> I COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF A MORE PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE AND A BETTER ATTITUDE.

PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT WHEN YOU ARE DRESSED UP, YOU TEND TO SIT UP MORE, YOU TEND TO PAY ATTENTION MORE.

EXACTLY WHAT WE DO.

YOU TEND TO-- IT AFFECTS HOW YOU CARRY YOURSELF, HOW YOU THINK, HOW YOU PAY ATTENTION.

AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT TUSKEGEE, SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, HOWARD, FOR VARYING PROGRAMS, HAS THE SAME DRESS CODE.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

>> FOR A LONG TIME.

>> EXACTLY.

THIS IS NOT NEW.

YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ENHANCED AND REVISED BUT THIS IS NOT NEW.

THAT'S THE REASON THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE THEY WANT THE STUDENTS FROM DAY ONE COMING INTO COLLEGE TO UNDERSTAND AND REMEMBER, YOU ARE HERE, YOU HAVE A GOAL.

AND PART OF THAT GOAL IS TO MAKE YOU BE THE BEST THAT YOU CAN BE AND TO HELP YOU BECOME A PROFESSIONAL.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> YEAH, I MEAN I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS PRECISELY FOR THE REASON YOU TOLD ME.

LOOK, YOU SHOULD BE DECENTLY WELL DRESSED WHEN YOU ARE COMING TO SCHOOL.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

THE BUSINESS ATTIRE, WHAT IF I JUST WEAR JEANS AND A TEE SHIFTER OR WHAT IF I WEAR A SALWAR QAMIZ.

THERE ARE OTHER FORMAL DRESSES AND CLOTHING AROUND THE WORLD THAT PEOPLE WEAR.

SO JUST WESTERN BUSINESS ATTIRE MAY BE TOO RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT SFORMAL COULD BE.

BUT I AGREE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT SHOW UP WITH A WIFE BEATER AND PAJAMA TO YOUR CLASS FOR SURE.

>> OKAY.

MICHAEL.

>> I THINK IT IS A BIT OUT OF PROPORTION.

I WAS AT HOWARD A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IN THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND THERE WERE LITTLE BROTHERS IN THERE WITH DU RAGS STUDYING CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SO IT'S A BIT OVERBLOWN BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.

THE PRIVATE COLLEGE LIKE HAMPTON OR OHIO, THEY HAVE MORE LATITUDE.

BUT THE SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM HAS LESS LATITUDE.

THIS GENERATION LIKE AUTONOMY AND AGENCY.

THEY DON'T BUY INTO THEIR GRANDPARENTS RESPECTABILITY POLITICS.

THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS WILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

TO SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, THEY'RE OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REALITY.

THESE KIDS COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOCIODEVELOPMENT MODEL THAN THEIR GRAND PARENTS.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO LIKE THEY WERE BACK IN THE DAY.

>> THE ISSUE OF COST, BUT TO YOUR BIGGER POINT ABOUT THE PUSHBRACK AGAINST THIS ALL TOGETHER.

THEY'RE GOING TO MEET REALITY WHEN THEY GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE.

AND DU RAGS ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT.

SO TARA DO THEY JUST HAVE TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM THAT IS THE REAL WORD?

>> IN MY OPINION, YES.

THIS IS THE WORLD THAT THEY'RE GOING INTO.

AND WE TEND TO THINK OF THEM GOING INTO IT AFTER COLLEGE.

BUT THE REALITY IS, MANY OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WILL HAVE JOBS WHILE THEY'RE IN COLLEGE.

AND LET'S FACE IT.

I'M SURE WE HAVE ALL HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF GOING INTO, YOU KNOW, A FAST FOOD PLACE AND SEEING SOMEONE WITH A DU RAG ON OR SEEING SOMEONE WHOSE PANTS ARE BELOW THEIR BELT, WELL BELOW THEIR BELT, AND THINKING, DO I REALLY WANT TO GET MY FOOD HERE?

SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY COMES A LITTLE QUICKER THAN JUST AFTER THEY GRADUATE.

>> YEAH, MICHAEL.

>> THESE SCHOOLS HAVE CAREER DAYS.

THEY HAVE PREPARATION DAYS.

THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T WEAR DU RAG TO A JOB INTERVIEW.

THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT IN THE REAL WORLD BUT WHILE THEY'RE UNDERGRADUATES LET'S GIVE THEM LATITUDE TO BE WHO HERE.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> I SHOULD NOT COMMENT ON ANY OF THIS.

>> WHY NOT?

>> POLICING CLOTHING IS A VERY SENSITIVE THING, RIGHT?

SO IF DONE RIGHT, PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ENCOURAGE STUDENTS THAT HEY, YOU LOOK SO GOOD WHEN YOU WEAR A SUIT TO CLASS, RIGHT?

PEOPLE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.

SO INSTEAD OF FORCING, WE CAN COAX THEM, WE CAN ENCOURAGE THEM AND SLOWLY, SLOWLY, OVER TIME, MAYBE IT WILL CHANGE.

I'M SURE OUR PARENTS GENERATION DRESSED WAY BETTER THAN US.

AND I MISS THAT.

I AM NOT AGAINST THAT BUT THE PROCEDURE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, YOU KNOW, EASIER THAN LIKE AN INJUNCTION FROM THE TOP THAT IT HAS TO HAPPEN FROM TOMORROW.

>> VERY QUICKLY.

THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE KIDS CAN'T TRANSITION FROM THEIR COLLEGE SPLENDOR INTO THE WORKPLACE IS PROBLEMATIC.

THE ACAPTION THAT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO TRANSITION LIKE OTHER KIDS IF YOU WANT TO POLICE STUDENTS DRESS, POLICE THE STUDENTS I TEACH AT SUNY CORTLAND.

SOME OF THESE KIDS WHO HAPPEN TO BE WHITE COME TO SCHOOL IN THINGS THAT YOU WOULD NOT EVEN IMAGINE SO IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO POLICE THIS GROUP, DON'T POLICE THAT GROUP BECAUSE THE BLACK KIDS CAN TRANSITION FROM POINT A TO POINT B LIKE OTHER CHILDREN CAN DO AS WELL.

>> IT BECOMES HOW THE TRANSITION HAPPENS.

I ACTUALLY HAD MY FIRST PROFESSIONAL WARD WARDROBE GIVEN TO ME IN THREE LARGE TRASH BAGS BY MY MATH HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER AND I THANK HER FOR THAT.

NOW IT'S TIME FOR OUR GRADEBOOKS, STARTING WITH F'S.

TARA.

>> F TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AT A PRESENTATION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, THAT WAS THE 2026 AIDS CONFERENCE IN BRAZIL, THE STATE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE USED AN A.I.

GENERATED MAP WHICH BASICALLY PUT EVERY AFRICAN NATION EITHER IN THE BRONC PLACE OR MISLABELED THEM.

IF THEY WERE JUST SIMPLY GO BACK TO THE STAFF THAT THEY HAD IN 2024, PERHAPS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE STAFF WHO COULD HAVE ACTUALLY GONE OUT AND FOUND A REAL MAP OF AFRICA.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> COMING TO MAPS, I GIVE MY F TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NAMING OF THE LAKE ONTARIO TO LAKE AMERICA AFTER CALLING CANADIAN NEGOTIATORS NASTY PEOPLE.

EVEN THOUGH SOME MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THERE IS A PUSH BACK AGAIN, IT IS A HUMAN RESOURCE RON INDIGENOUS WORD MEANING LAKE OF SHINING WATERS.

I HOPE HE DOESN'T NAME NIAGARA FALLS AS THE FALL OF AMERICA.

>> MY F GOES TO SO CALLED DEPARTMENT OF WAR SECRETARY HEGSETH WHO IS DOING CAMPAIGN RALLIES WHEN WE ARE IN A CRISIS.

>> AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH SOME GOOD NEWS AND WE ARE GOING TO TURN AGAIN TO TARA FOR YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO GARY, INDIANA MAYOR ERIC MELTON AND THE PEOPLE OF GARY FOR THEIR POSITIVE AND NEIGHBORLY RESPONSE TO THE TORNADO, HEATWAVE AND LACK OF UTILITY VEGETATION MAINTENANCE THAT CAUSED MOST CITIZENS TO BE WITHOUT POWER FOR TWO TO TWO AND A HALF WEEKS.

NOW I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, WE KNOW THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE WORKED TOGETHER IN NATURAL DISASTERS.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

BUT THE POINT IS THAT I'M GIVING GARY AN A BECAUSE GARY HAS A NEGATIVE IMAGE NATIONWIDE, WORLDWIDE REALLY.

AND THIS IS THE REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENS IN GARY.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A GOES TO THE LIFE AND WORK OF THE CELEBRATED AND VERY WORLD RENOWNED PALESTINIAN ARTIST, SLEMAN MANSOUR HE WAS BEST KNOWN FOR HIS BRIGHT AND POWERFUL PAINTINGS DEPICTING PALESTINIAN LANDSCAPE WITH IDENTITY AND BELONGING.

>> NAACP AND BENJAMIN CRUMP FOR QUIETLY PURSUING JUSTICE IN THE NOLAN WELLS CASE.

>> THEY HAVE WORKED QUITE A BIT ON THAT ALONG WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND SOME CELEBRITIES.

WELL, TARA IS GOING BACK TO GARY WHICH WAS RIGHT OVER FROM CHICAGO WHERE I GREW UP, KUDOS TO GARY, RIGHT FOR DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN QUITE SOMETIME.

THEY HAVE BEEN DOGGED BY ALL SORTS OF THINGS.

>> 17 DAYS WITHOUT POWER BUT STILL A LOT OF RESILIENCE IN THAT COMMUNITY FOR SURE.

>> INCREDIBLE RESILIENCE AND THAT'S WHAT GARY IS ABOUT.

WELL, THAT'S A WRAP FOR US IN THE STUDIO.

PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU THINK.

WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN OR SHARE IT WITH SOMEONE ELSE, GO TO WCNY ORG.

I'M NINA MOORE.

FOR ALL OF US HERE AT "IVORY TOWER," HAVE A GREAT NIGHT!