Linda McMahon admits that the controversy is about revenge for disfavored speech, not antisemitism
"This is a monumental victory for conservatives who wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time because we had such far left-leaning professors."
with the precedent established at Columbia, Trump is now shaking down other colleges and universities pretextually
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/educatio...ement-d61aa9c6White House Seeks Payments From Other Universities—Including Harvard—After Columbia Deal Sets Precedent
The Trump administration is in talks with several schools about future funding following allegations of antisemitism
For instance, the agreement marks the first time that antisemitism and DEI have been invoked as the basis for a government-enforced restructuring of a private university. The agreement was engineered by a novel collaboration among the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the General Services Administration, and the White House, which pooled their resources to ratchet up the pressure on Columbia (with some help on the side from the Department of Justice). The agreement is also the first to require a university to fork over money to the government as a condition of receiving money from the government, bringing a new brand of pay-to-play into the world of scientific and medical research.https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/07/...higher-ed.htmlIn short, the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme—the first of its kind!—that defies the relevant statutes as well as the cons utional separation of powers and the First Amendment.
There is another unprecedented feature of the situation that is so obvious it is easy to overlook, and that might ultimately prove the most consequential of all: the way in which the federal government is seeking to reshape the internal operations of universities not through generally applicable directives, but rather through a series of bilateral “deals.” The Trump administration has made clear that while Columbia is first in line, it intends to reach comparable agreements with other schools—to scale the Columbia shakedown into a broader model of managing universities deemed too woke. As has already occurred with law firms, tariffs, and trade policy, regulation by deal is coming to higher education.
This emerging model raises profound concerns not just for universities’ budgets and independence but also for the rule of law. By relying on “particular transactions to effectuate government policy,” scholars have observed in other contexts, regulation by deal bypasses all of the “notice, comments, [and] due process standards that we ordinarily expect from public administration.” While guidance do ents may share some of these deficits, they are not actually binding on regulated parties and at least aspire to uphold bedrock legal principles of “generality, clarity, publicity, stability, and prospectivity.” The style of regulation reflected in the Columbia deal is at once far more coercive and far more arbitrary—opaque in development, unpredictable in application, deeply susceptible to personalism and corruption, and only contingently connected to the laws Congress has written. As compared to the familiar fare of public administration, “one-off dealmaking is more about back-door terms, forceful results, and unequal application of standards, to the extent standards exist at all.”
I cannot hope to convince those who are determined to “dismantle” universities like Columbia and Harvard that the ends don’t justify the means here. (Nor can I offer an assessment of the precise terms of the Columbia agreement, which I have not yet had a chance to study.) All I hope to convey is that the means being used to push through these reforms are as unprincipled as they are unprecedented. Higher education policy in the United States is now being developed through ad hoc deals, a mode of regulation that is not only inimical to the ideal of the university as a site of critical thinking but also corrosive to the democratic order and to law itself.
during the last week, Brown and Cornell paid heavy tributes and bent the knee to Trump
now Trump's policing "antisemitism" at UCLA
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...f-funding-ucla
Imagine being this upset when education was already at an all-time low and pushing re s out into the work force who can't even do basic math. the education department and glad it's getting eradicated!
Resegregation is the order of the day
https://www.nafsa.org/fall-2025-inte...conomic-impactScenario modeling based on a potential 30-40 percent decline in new international student enrollment in the United States this fall could result in a 15 percent drop in overall enrollment. This drop would result in nearly $7 billion in lost revenue and more than 60,000 fewer jobs.
Wants to fine UCLA a billion dollars, wants to strip Harvard of its patents to force it to pay tribute money to Trump
How is any of this lawful, needful or proportionate?
Free speech/academic freedom crew, wherre arre you now?
whither goes the reason to register technical innovation and discovery when the government can seize it to extort the holder?
Libs told them to off so they did
oh right, mean talk from libs is the worst thing in the world for tuff guise like you
and must be ruthlessly quashed
no principles, only tactics
free-speech frens, where did you go?
What Trump is doing to higher education is stupendously unpopular
Dems need to start identifying hills they're willing to fight on, this might be a good one, Republicans are wrecking future prosperity and degrading US quality of life
Why would I advocate for rights guaranteed to Americans for you commie bas s? them all!
all Americans?
Really showing your ass here, pedo.
one thing that stands out for me is the extent to which MAGAs are apparently willing to see Trump set their own futures on fire -- so long as an extraordinary example is made of uppity women, minorities and gays
Gleichschaltung -- ideological streamlining
German universities were the best in the world before they did it in the 1930s
more coercion and ideological streamlining
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/educatio...ement-df158493
DEI for conservatives, with enforcement mechanisms
shame on UT-Austin
US states have power to incentivize ins utions too
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-compact“If any California University signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding – including Cal Grants – instantly. California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom,” Newsom said in the statement. Cal Grants is the state’s $2.8bn student financial aid program.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/wh...on-censor-nextThe standard is not what was said, but whether it became the object of political outrage....Faculty and staff must assume that any statement — even one squarely protected by the First Amendment —could lead to dismissal if it attracts the wrong attention.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
