War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise

[donbosco]

Wait until these folks find out that the NC General Assembly has been part of a mandate to require all UNC System Students to read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter From Birmingham Jail."

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Not that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution aren't damning enough of modern MAGA ideology.

 

[donbosco]

From "The Letter" -- just for example...

"I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare."

"We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "******," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

University of Virginia Makes Deal With White House to Halt Investigations​

The Justice Department had been scrutinizing one of the nation’s premier public universities over accusations of civil rights violations.

University of Virginia Makes Deal With White House to Halt Investigations

The Justice Department had been scrutinizing one of the nation’s premier public universities over accusations of civil rights violations.

www.nytimes.com

“… The deal, which avoids the hefty fines agreed to by some private, Ivy League colleges, was viewed as something of a victory among leaders of the Charlottesville, Va.-based campus. It was signed one week after Paul Mahoney, the school’s interim president, rejected a White House offer of preferential treatment for research funding.

The University of Virginia’s deal was less onerous than other agreements in large part because James E. Ryan had resigned as president of the university in June, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The administration viewed Mr. Ryan as an obstacle in its bid to root out policies focused on diversity, equity and inclusion.

… Under the terms of the agreement, Virginia will adhere to the administration’s interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended explicit consideration of race in admissions to higher education as long as that guidance is “consistent with relevant judicial decisions.” Attorney General Pam Bondi laid out in a memo in July how that ruling, along with federal civil rights law, should be applied to schools receiving federal funding.

Legal experts and higher education officials have argued that schools can still consider race as part of a holistic review of a student’s application. But the Trump administration has adopted a broader view, suggesting that race cannot be considered at all, to justify its attacks on policies and programs that promote racial diversity.

The school will provide quarterly updates to the Justice Department on its compliance with the agreement, avoiding the use of an independent monitor, which some universities have viewed as a potential infringement on academic freedom. In return, the Justice Department will pause investigations into the university’s admissions policies and other civil rights concerns.…”

 

[heelinhell]

University of Virginia Makes Deal With White House to Halt Investigations​

The Justice Department had been scrutinizing one of the nation’s premier public universities over accusations of civil rights violations.

University of Virginia Makes Deal With White House to Halt Investigations

The Justice Department had been scrutinizing one of the nation’s premier public universities over accusations of civil rights violations.

www.nytimes.com

“… The deal, which avoids the hefty fines agreed to by some private, Ivy League colleges, was viewed as something of a victory among leaders of the Charlottesville, Va.-based campus. It was signed one week after Paul Mahoney, the school’s interim president, rejected a White House offer of preferential treatment for research funding.

The University of Virginia’s deal was less onerous than other agreements in large part because James E. Ryan had resigned as president of the university in June, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The administration viewed Mr. Ryan as an obstacle in its bid to root out policies focused on diversity, equity and inclusion.

… Under the terms of the agreement, Virginia will adhere to the administration’s interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended explicit consideration of race in admissions to higher education as long as that guidance is “consistent with relevant judicial decisions.” Attorney General Pam Bondi laid out in a memo in July how that ruling, along with federal civil rights law, should be applied to schools receiving federal funding.

Legal experts and higher education officials have argued that schools can still consider race as part of a holistic review of a student’s application. But the Trump administration has adopted a broader view, suggesting that race cannot be considered at all, to justify its attacks on policies and programs that promote racial diversity.

The school will provide quarterly updates to the Justice Department on its compliance with the agreement, avoiding the use of an independent monitor, which some universities have viewed as a potential infringement on academic freedom. In return, the Justice Department will pause investigations into the university’s admissions policies and other civil rights concerns.…”

the UVA administration can spin it all it wants, but the bottom line is it caved and bent the knee and became one more academic notch in Trump's war on academia.

 

[ZenMode]

Here’s an example from the group responsible for this FOIA request of what they are up to:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see an issue with anything in the syllabus. There's nothing inherently wrong with talking about diversity and acknowledging that people learn differently, come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences.

 

[rodoheel]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see an issue with anything in the syllabus. There's nothing inherently wrong with talking about diversity and acknowledging that people learn differently, come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences.

The official Trump administration position is now that there is something wrong with all of those things.

 

[LeoBloom]

Here’s an example from the group responsible for this FOIA request of what they are up to:

My gosh, the statements on that syllabus about diversity are wonderful. So they are trying to get him into trouble over that? My gosh this is depressing.

 

[lawtig02]

My gosh, the statements on that syllabus about diversity are wonderful. So they are trying to get him into trouble over that? My gosh this is depressing.

In Trump's America, empathy is a fireable offense.

 

[nycfan]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see an issue with anything in the syllabus. There's nothing inherently wrong with talking about diversity and acknowledging that people learn differently, come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences.

You aren’t missing anything. The gotcha moment was about a thoughtful statement on diversity and inclusion in a learning environment. The course includes a handful of reading assignments about being a minority in a business setting.

 

[nycfan]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?st=sNRrzy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

——
This is one of those things that I would be fine with in concept but it is worth considering how many minority alums were first generation and the benefit would end just as they are able to leverage it for their own families.

But since we are getting rid of diversity initiatives generally, I see the reasoning for getting rid of legacy admissions as well.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?st=sNRrzy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

——
This is one of those things that I would be fine with in concept but it is worth considering how many minority alums were first generation and the benefit would end just as they are able to leverage it for their own families.

But since we are getting rid of diversity initiatives generally, I see the reasoning for getting rid of legacy admissions as well.

Good luck at getting rid of a practice that has allowed people like the Bushes and Kennedys and Rockefellers and others to send subpar progeny to Ivy League Schools for generations. For example, George W. Bush.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?st=sNRrzy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

——
This is one of those things that I would be fine with in concept but it is worth considering how many minority alums were first generation and the benefit would end just as they are able to leverage it for their own families.

But since we are getting rid of diversity initiatives generally, I see the reasoning for getting rid of legacy admissions as well.

I do think that is a practice that needs to end if they're going to continue to use us tax dollars to subsidize their operations.

I believe it is gone from UNC State schools but still somewhat prevalent in private schools. Maybe someone who knows better could correct me. Not sure what the environment is like in other states.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

I do think that is a practice that needs to end if they're going to continue to use us tax dollars to subsidize their operations.

I believe it is gone from UNC State schools but still somewhat prevalent in private schools. Maybe someone who knows better could correct me. Not sure what the environment is like in other states.

It’s much less common than it used to be and doesn’t offer much of an advantage at the elite private schools, other than many of the LACs. The things that offer real advantages are having mom and dad give 7+ figure donations (8 figure for HYPSM), going to a feeder boarding school, and being an “athlete.”

With that said, I don’t care much either way. I don’t think it’s the big deal it’s cracked up to be, at least at the super selective schools, and I understand the institutional motivations (maintaining alumni relations and donations and higher yield of admitted students) but if we can’t consider some aspects of applicant background then we shouldn’t consider any aspect of their background.

 

[heelinhell]

I do think that is a practice that needs to end if they're going to continue to use us tax dollars to subsidize their operations.

I believe it is gone from UNC State schools but still somewhat prevalent in private schools. Maybe someone who knows better could correct me. Not sure what the environment is like in other states.

At UNC it's "officially" gone, but does anyone think if Mr. got rocks who has been giving thousands and thousands year after year is not going to get preferential consideration when his child applies to UNC ?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

It’s much less common than it used to be and doesn’t offer much of an advantage at the elite private schools, other than many of the LACs. The things that offer real advantages are having mom and dad give 7+ figure donations (8 figure for HYPSM), going to a feeder boarding school, and being an “athlete.”

With that said, I don’t care much either way. I don’t think it’s the big deal it’s cracked up to be, at least at the super selective schools, and I understand the institutional motivations (maintaining alumnae relations and donations and higher yield of admitted students) but if we can’t consider some aspects of applicant background then we shouldn’t consider any aspect of their background.

"if we can’t consider some aspects of applicant background then we shouldn’t consider any aspect of their background."

Can you expand on that? My gut would still be to consider some aspects of an applicant's background such as their economic disadvantages growing up and in some cases geography such as all counties from a state getting representation even at the expense of better qualified candidates from over represented areas. Are higher education officials moving away from that?

 

[heelinhell]

It’s much less common than it used to be and doesn’t offer much of an advantage at the elite private schools, other than many of the LACs. The things that offer real advantages are having mom and dad give 7+ figure donations (8 figure for HYPSM), going to a feeder boarding school, and being an “athlete.”

With that said, I don’t care much either way. I don’t think it’s the big deal it’s cracked up to be, at least at the super selective schools, and I understand the institutional motivations (maintaining alumnae relations and donations and higher yield of admitted students) but if we can’t consider some aspects of applicant background then we shouldn’t consider any aspect of their background.

I don't know how it is today at dook** but back in 2007 I worked with a client in endowment who was under stress processing checks for 500k to get their kids admitted even though they did not meet the academic expectations of other applicants. I asked her how many of those were admitted, and she said all of them.

 

[rodoheel]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/legacy-college-admissions-preferences-backlash-772c88be?st=sNRrzy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

——
This is one of those things that I would be fine with in concept but it is worth considering how many minority alums were first generation and the benefit would end just as they are able to leverage it for their own families.

But since we are getting rid of diversity initiatives generally, I see the reasoning for getting rid of legacy admissions as well.

Yeah one of the thing I've always said about removing race from admission criteria is that it ignores that there are ostensibly race-blind criteria that in fact tend to, in practice, discriminate against people of color, and "legacy admissions" has always been the most obvious one; considering that 40 years ago there was basically no one of color who could be a "legacy" candidate elsewhere, and even now white students are much more likely to be a "legacy" candidate somewhere than black students in particular, it was clearly problematic.

But (and this is without reading the linked article, which might address this) I fail to see what the legal basis is going to be for getting rid of legacy as an admissions criteria. Short of having the federal government mandate that only certain criteria can be used - almost certainly unconstitutional - what's the supposed legal violation going to be? I can maybe see some argument for certain public schools that they violate some state law or constitutional requirement that everyone have equal access to the schools. But that still seems pretty weak.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

"if we can’t consider some aspects of applicant background then we shouldn’t consider any aspect of their background."

Can you expand on that? My gut would still be to consider some aspects of an applicant's background such as their economic disadvantages growing up and in some cases geography such as all counties from a state getting representation even at the expense of better qualified candidates from over represented areas. Are higher education officials moving away from that?

Although SCOTUS left open the possibility of using economic and family hardship in admission decisions in SFFA v. Harvard, the Trump administration has signaled that it may go after schools that use proxies of race.

From the WH extortion letter sent to MIT, Vandy, Brown, etc…

Therefore, no factor such as sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations, or proxies for any of those factors shall be considered, explicitly or implicitly, in any decision related to undergraduate or graduate student admissions or financial support, with due exceptions for institutions that are solely or primarily comprised of students of a specific sex or religious denomination.
University admissions decisions shall be based upon and evaluated against objective criteria published on the University’s website and available to all prospective applicants and members of the public.

They also clearly want to go after test-optional admissions.

Institutions shall have all undergraduate applicants take a widely-used standardized test (i.e. SAT, ACT, or CLT) or program-specific measures of accomplishment in the case of music, art, and other specialized programs of study. Universities shall publicly report anonymized data for admitted and rejected students, including GPA, standardized test score, or other program-specific measures of accomplishments, by race, national origin, and sex.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Although SCOTUS left open the possibility of using economic and family hardship in admission decisions in SFFA v. Harvard, the Trump administration has signaled that it may go after schools that use proxies of race.

From the WH extortion letter sent to MIT, Vandy, Brown, etc…

Therefore, no factor such as sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations, or proxies for any of those factors shall be considered, explicitly or implicitly, in any decision related to undergraduate or graduate student admissions or financial support, with due exceptions for institutions that are solely or primarily comprised of students of a specific sex or religious denomination.
University admissions decisions shall be based upon and evaluated against objective criteria published on the University’s website and available to all prospective applicants and members of the public.

They also clearly want to go after test-optional admissions.

Institutions shall have all undergraduate applicants take a widely-used standardized test (i.e. SAT, ACT, or CLT) or program-specific measures of accomplishment in the case of music, art, and other specialized programs of study. Universities shall publicly report anonymized data for admitted and rejected students, including GPA, standardized test score, or other program-specific measures of accomplishments, by race, national origin, and sex.

Sure, but there are plenty of poor white people out there. And more than a few wealthy minorities. Certainly minorities are over represented in the poorer cohorts, but I think you could make an economic criteria and not run afoul of the law. Maybe I'm wrong.

Geography will probably be tougher. If you're going to all of a sudden start over representing inner cities or maybe in bizzaro land, rural areas, that could be a proxy. Probably not though unless you went to specific zip codes.

I think at one point you were working in admissions? Do you still work at a state school or private school? If so, what is Compliance's current thinking on economic or geographic criteria?