close video FOX Business Flash top headlines for June 29
Check out what’s clicking on FoxBusiness.com
Harvard University responded to the Supreme Court's ruling that the university's admissions system was unconstitutional on Thursday, announcing in a statement that it will "certainly" comply with the decision.
Harvard's leadership declared in the statement that "diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence," and vowed to "preserve" the university's essential values. The statement also highlighted a potential route by which Harvard could continue to account for race in admissions in some form.
"The Court held that Harvard College’s admissions system does not comply with the principles of the equal protection clause embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act," the statement read. "The Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions 'an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.' We will certainly comply with the Court’s decision."
"We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences," the statement continued. "That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. So too are the abiding values that have enabled us—and every great educational institution—to pursue the high calling of educating creative thinkers and bold leaders, of deepening human knowledge, and of promoting progress, justice, and human flourishing."
FOX NEWS POLL: VOTER TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN INSTITUTIONS HITS ROCK-BOTTOM
The U.S. Supreme Court building is shown, May 4, 2022 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File / AP Newsroom)
The statement indicates Harvard's belief that it can still account for race in admissions in some form by asking students how or whether they believe their race has impacted their life.
SUPREME COURT HANDS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WIN TO POSTAL WORKER WHO REFUSED TO WORK ON SUNDAY
Thursday's 6-3 rulings were split along traditional lines. Students for Fair Admissions, a student activist group, brought cases against both Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The group initially sued Harvard College in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance."
Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas read his concurring opinion aloud from the bench in Thursday’s affirmative action ruling. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images / Getty Images)
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
The complaint against Harvard alleged that the school's practices penalized Asian American students, and that they failed to employ race-neutral practices. The University of North Carolina case raised the issue of whether the university could reject the use of non-race-based practices without showing that they would bring down the school's academic quality or negatively impact the benefits gained from campus diversity.
The court ruled for Students for Fair Admissions in both cases.
A terror charge against Kneecap rapper Liam Og O hAnnaidh has been thrown out by a court.
The Irish rapper, who performs under the name Mo Chara, appeared at Woolwich Crown Court on a single terror charge.
Giving his ruling, chief magistrate Paul Goldspring said: “These proceedings against the defendant were instituted unlawfully and are null.”
The 27-year-old had been accused of displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah at a gig at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, on 21 November last year.
He had been on unconditional bail since his first court appearance in June.
After delivering his ruling, the judge said: “Mr O hAnnaidh, you are free to go,” which was met by cheers in the public gallery and applause.
The levity was met with a stern reprimand, with the judge adding: “You can do your celebrating outside, but the court now has other business to attend to”.
Both of O hAnnaidh’s parents were in court to support him.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:19
‘We’re right and you’re wrong’
O hAnnaidh: ‘We’re right and you’re wrong’
Speaking outside court, O hAnnaidhthanked his legal team and interpreter, before addressing his large crowd of supporters.
He said: “This entire process was never about me, never about any threat to the public, never about terrorism. A word used by your government to discredit people you oppress. It was always about Gaza. About what happens if you dare to speak up.
“As people from Ireland, we know oppression, colonialism, famine and genocide. We have suffered and still suffer under your empire.
“Your attempts to silence us have failed, because we’re right and you’re wrong… We will not be silent. We said we’d fight you in your court and we would win, and today we have.
If anyone on this planet is guilty of terrorism, it’s the British state. Free Palestine. Tiocfaidh ar la [Irish for our day will come].”
The audience responded with cheers and chants of “Free, free Palestine”.
Image: O hAnnaidh speaks outside court following the ruling
At the start of the hearing, O hAnnaidh stood to confirm his name, date of birth and current address, speaking in Irish with his words translated by an interpreter. The judge then summarised his judgement for the court.
He made clear the purpose of the hearing was not to determine O hAnnaidh’s innocence or guilt, but about whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
He went on to say he agreed with O hAnnaidh’s lawyers, who argued that the Attorney General had not given permission for the case to be brought against the defendant when police informed him he was to face a terror charge on 21 May.
Criminal proceedings are instituted when a criminal charge is first issued, not when the defendant first appears in court.
Image: Protestors outside court. Pic: PA
Concluding the reasons for his decision, the chief magistrate said: “I find that these proceedings were not instituted in the correct form, lacking the necessary DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and AG (Attorney General) consent within the six-month statutory time limit.
“The time limit requires consent to have been granted at the time or before the issue of the requisition.
“Consequently, the charge is unlawful and null and this court has no jurisdiction to try the charge.”
Sweeping aside the prosecution’s previous argument that permission from the DPP and AG was not required until the defendant’s first court appearance, and that permission did not need to be sought in order to bring a criminal charge, the chief magistrate said such arguments “defy logic”.
Following the hearing, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: “We will work with the Crown Prosecution Service to understand the potential implications of this ruling for us and how that might impact on the processing of such cases in the future.”
Kneecap‘s manager Daniel Lambert said the rap trio were on the “right side of history”, and said in a post on X: “We said we would fight them and win. We did (Twice). Kneecap has NO charges OR convictions in ANY country, EVER.”
Irish First Minister: ‘Kneecap used their platform to expose genocide’
Swiftly responding to the court ruling, Northern Ireland’s First Minister Michelle O’Neill said on social media that she welcomed the decision, saying: “These charges were part of a calculated attempt to silence those who stand up and speak out against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
“Kneecap have used their platform on stages across the world to expose this genocide, and it is the responsibility of all of us to continue speaking out and standing against injustice in Palestine.”
Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald wrote on X: “Mo Chara spoke out against Israel’s genocide, for the people of Gaza, for a free Palestine.
“The charges were an attempt to shut him up, to silence protest. It failed. He’s free. Kneecap are not the story. Genocide is the story.”
The venue of the hearing had been changed at short notice, following a burst mains pipe at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
The ECU received four complaints about the performance relating to incitement to violence, terrorism or ethnic cleansing, hate speech and expressions of antisemitism.
Its ruling, which was published on Thursday, was largely made based on frontman Bobby Vylan’s chants, as well as reciting the slogans, “From the river to the sea” and “Free, free Palestine”.
The ruling also referenced when the same group member described the boss of a record company “in the most abusive terms” and referred to “f****** Zionists” – as it breached the guidelines of harm and offence that describe using “unduly intimidating, humiliating, intrusive, aggressive or derogatory remarks aimed at real people”.
But while the investigation found that harm and offence standards had been overstepped, the corporation was cleared of breaching its guidelines relating to material that is likely to encourage or incite crime.
The ECU said: “In the context of a performance at a music festival, the chanting of slogans can be regarded as primarily an invitation to endorse a particular attitude.
“References to ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘From the river to the sea’, while viewed by some as implying the disappearance of the state of Israel, can also be regarded as no more than expressions of support for aspirations to a Palestinian state and do not of themselves threaten violent action.
“‘Death, death to the IDF’ is clearly more problematic, but it is directed at an institution rather than individuals, and one which is not defined by ethnic or religious composition.”
It further characterised the comments made about the record boss as “antisemitic”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The ECU said: “Although Bob Vylan referred to ‘Zionists’ rather than ‘Jews’, that appeared to the ECU to be a distinction with very little difference in this instance.
“The ECU therefore shares the view that the content of this act, taken in the round, can fairly be characterised as antisemitic.”
The ruling cleared the BBC of breaching its standards of impartiality, stating that the coverage of the festival is not in line with coverage of news and current affairs.
The ECU said: “While there may be festivals the BBC would not cover on account of their polemical character, a wide tolerance for expressions of opinion by performers or audiences would be in keeping with audience expectations for events it does cover.
“While recognising there is widespread disagreement with the political views expressed by Bob Vylan on this occasion, the ECU did not consider they represented a breach of the BBC’s standards of impartiality in this context.”
Following the performance the corporation issued an apology to viewers, especially the Jewish community, and promised to take action to “ensure proper accountability”.
A Peterbilt 579 truck equipped with Aurora’s self-driving system is seen at the company’s terminal in Palmer, south of Dallas, Texas, September 23, 2021.
Tina Bellon | Reuters
Shares of Paccar jumped Friday after President Donald Trump announced that he will impose a 25% tariff on imported heavy trucks beginning Oct. 1.
Paccar was last up more than 6% premarket.
Trump said in a social media post Thursday that “large Truck Company Manufacturers, such as Peterbilt, Kenworth, Freightliner, Mack Trucks, and others, will be protected from the onslaught of outside interruptions.”
Stock Chart IconStock chart icon
PCAR 5-day chart
Paccar is the owner of Peterbilt and Kenworth. It manufactures more than 90% of its U.S. trucks domestically but they cost $8,000 to $10,000 more than competitors in Mexico, Bank of America told clients in a Friday note.
Trump’s announcement “likely addresses this issue and places PCAR in the driver seat,” BofA analyst Michael Feniger said.