The Daily Folgen

Two weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, declaring that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful.Today, three people whose lives were changed by affirmative action discuss the complicated feelings they have about the policy.Guest: Sabrina Tavernise, a co-host of The Daily.Background reading: For many of the Black, Hispanic and Native Americans whose lives were shaped by affirmative action, the moment has prompted a personal reckoning with its legacy.In earlier decisions, the court had endorsed taking account of race as one factor among many to promote educational diversity.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

 Tens of millions of Americans changed jobs over the past two years, a rare moment of worker power as employees demanded higher pay, and as employers, short on staff, often gave it to them.The tidal wave of quitting became known as the “great resignation.” Now, as the phenomenon seems to have fizzled out, the Times economic writer Ben Casselman discusses whether there have been any lasting benefits for American workers.Guest: Ben Casselman, an economy correspondent for The New York Times.Background reading: The furious pace of job-switching in recent years has led to big gains for low-wage workers. But the pendulum could be swinging back toward employers.Last year, the Times opinion writer Paul Krugman questioned the great resignation narrative.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

For months, President Biden has been wrestling with one of the most vexing questions in the war in Ukraine: whether to risk letting Ukrainian forces run out of the artillery rounds they desperately need to fight Russia, or agree to ship them cluster munitions — widely banned weapons known to cause grievous injury to civilians, especially children. On Friday, the Biden administration announced that it would send the weapons, which have been outlawed by many of Washington's closest allies.David E. Sanger, a White House and national security correspondent for The New York Times, tells the story behind the president’s contentious decision.Guest: David E. Sanger, a White House and national security correspondent for The New York Times.Background reading: With Ukraine burning through stockpiles of conventional artillery, Mr. Biden concluded that he had little choice but to provide the weapons.Read The New York Times Editorial Board’s piece on “the flawed moral logic of sending cluster munitions to Ukraine.”For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.