War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 187
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
nycfan

nycfan

Curator/Moderator
ZZL Supporter
Messages
17,808


🎁 🔗—> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/educati...90?st=GZusri&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“The Trump administration is planning to pursue a legal arrangement that would put Columbia Universityinto a consent decree, according to people familiar with the matter, an extraordinary step that could significantly escalate the pressure on the school as it battles for federal funding.

A consent decree, which can last for years, would give a federal judge responsibility for ensuring Columbia changes its practices along lines laid out by the federal government. If such a decree is in place, Columbia would have to comply with it. If a judge determines the school is out of compliance, it could be held in contempt of court—punishable by penalties including fines.

Columbia is negotiating with the Trump administration to reinstate federal funding. Last month, the government canceled $400 million in grants and contracts over antisemitism concerns. Columbia agreed to an initial set of demands and is in negotiations about the future of its federal funding.

A consent decree would be a major escalation of how the federal government normally resolves education-related civil-rights issues. Typically after federal lawyers investigate and find evidence that civil rights were violated, schools enter voluntary agreements to change their practices. The federal government has little ability to enforce such agreements.

The Biden administration entered into such voluntary agreements over antisemitism concerns with Brown University and Rutgers. …”
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:


🎁 🔗—> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/educati...90?st=GZusri&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“The Trump administration is planning to pursue a legal arrangement that would put Columbia Universityinto a consent decree, according to people familiar with the matter, an extraordinary step that could significantly escalate the pressure on the school as it battles for federal funding.

A consent decree, which can last for years, would give a federal judge responsibility for ensuring Columbia changes its practices along lines laid out by the federal government. If such a decree is in place, Columbia would have to comply with it. If a judge determines the school is out of compliance, it could be held in contempt of court—punishable by penalties including fines.

Columbia is negotiating with the Trump administration to reinstate federal funding. Last month, the government canceled $400 million in grants and contracts over antisemitism concerns. Columbia agreed to an initial set of demands and is in negotiations about the future of its federal funding.

A consent decree would be a major escalation of how the federal government normally resolves education-related civil-rights issues. Typically after federal lawyers investigate and find evidence that civil rights were violated, schools enter voluntary agreements to change their practices. The federal government has little ability to enforce such agreements.

The Biden administration entered into such voluntary agreements over antisemitism concerns with Brown University and Rutgers. …”
Click to expand...

“… For a consent decree to take effect, Columbia would have to agree to enter it. It is unclear whether the university board has discussed the possibility.

Columbia could fight the move in court; the Justice Department would need to prove that the arrangement is warranted. But a court case could take years, and Columbia would likely lose federal funding in the interim—and might ultimately lose. Opposing the move would also open the school up to required depositions and legal fact-finding, which could keep the school’s campus politics in the spotlight. …”
 

Trump administration freezes $1B for Cornell, $790M for Northwestern​

Cornell is the sixth Ivy League institution to face a federal funding freeze.


“… The freeze is the latest in a series of federal funding attacks against the Ivy League, but Northwestern would be the first institution to face a funding cut outside of that group. University officials from Northwestern have said they have not yet received official notice of the funding freezes.

A Northwestern spokesperson emphasized that at stake is potential funding for research on things like the world’s smallest pacemaker and Alzheimer’s disease.
Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff told his campus community the institution has not received information that would confirm a loss of $1 billion. On Tuesday Cornell received more than 75 stop work orders from the Department of Defense related to research on national defense, cybersecurity and health.

“We are actively seeking information from federal officials to learn more about the basis for these decisions,” Kotlikoff said.

Cornell is the sixth Ivy League institution to face a federal funding freeze. The Trump administration has frozen or is reviewing grants and contracts with Brown University, Columbia University, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University.

Yale University and Dartmouth College are the only two Ivies that have yet to receive a similar notice. …”
 

Trump Administration Sends Harvard a List of Demands to Protect Federal Funds​

The list was similar to one sent to Columbia University last month after the government canceled $400 million to the school. Harvard may have $9 billion on the line.

www.nytimes.com

Trump Administration Sends Harvard a List of Demands to Protect Federal Funds

The list was similar to one sent to Columbia University last month after the government canceled $400 million to the school. Harvard may have $9 billion on the line.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“
The Trump administration sent Harvard a list of demands on Thursday that would have to be met to end a government review of $9 billion the school receives in federal funding.

The government announced the review earlier this week, which threatened to cancel all or some of the money as part of its campaign against what it views as unchecked antisemitism on campuses.

The conditions largely follow the playbook the Trump administration used to force Columbia University to comply with its demands last month, after canceling $400 million of that school’s federal grants and contracts. In both instances, the government asked Harvard and Columbia to impose bans, with few exemptions, on masking. …”

When they can’t find obvious issues with antisemitism, they just shift and make claims about DEI programs.
 
Why don't they sue? To get an injunction preventing the government from withholding funds as pressure for the consent. Then the litigation can play out however fucking long it needs to -- the government will have to prove its case.

If they let themselves be extorted into compliance, then the First Amendment means nothing.
 
Can they sue as a single collective action? Is there an advantage to doing that? I'd hate to see the government change directions and go after smaller schools of lesser means.
 
Huh? said:
Can they sue as a single collective action? Is there an advantage to doing that? I'd hate to see the government change directions and go after smaller schools of lesser means.
Click to expand...
1. Class actions might be available, but I'm not sure it would be needed;
2. Harvard merely needs a court ruling stating that what the administration is doing is patently unlawful.
3. Then other universities can cite that court ruling and go.

The idea that this case would end up with complex legal discovery strikes me as wrong. Let's say Harvard did everything Trump says it did. It still doesn't mean that Trump can hold all federal funding as a cudgel. It could hold federal funding specifically related to anti-semitism, but not all of it.
 
superrific said:
2. Harvard merely needs a court ruling stating that what the administration is doing is patently unlawful.
Click to expand...
As a legal idiot I would guess any Court order would be put on "pause" for months by the Boys on SCOTUS
 
mpaer said:
As a legal idiot I would guess any Court order would be put on "pause" for months by the Boys on SCOTUS
Click to expand...
Maybe, but the reasons they have given so far would not apply.

By the way, I'm not sure if you used Boys on purpose, but we're seeing a boys versus girls dynamic on the court developing. All three libs are women, and ACB seems the most likely to vote with them (and has on a few occasions). So 5-4 opinions are going to increasingly be XY vs XX.
 
The Constitution of the United States exists only as a forgotten piece of parchment to which politicians take a fake oath and then pervert to be whatever they want it to be. Looking to the Constitution for answers or protections is absolutely foolish in this version of America.
 
superrific said:
Maybe, but the reasons they have given so far would not apply.

By the way, I'm not sure if you used Boys on purpose, but we're seeing a boys versus girls dynamic on the court developing. All three libs are women, and ACB seems the most likely to vote with them (and has on a few occasions). So 5-4 opinions are going to increasingly be XY vs XX.
Click to expand...
Boys on purpose..............!
 
UNCatTech said:
What happened to the party of less government, less regulations, and freedom?
Click to expand...
that was always a load of horseshit.

lawlessness for in-groups (whites, males, christians, conservatives, etc.) while out-groups (women, minorities, the lgbtq community, progressives, etc.) will be subjected to more and more rules and oversight and prejudice.

rules for thee, not for me - the right's mantra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top