Letter of March 13
TCinLA reported on a
letter dated March 13 received by Columbia University from the heads of three
government departments. This letter was a follow-up to a March 7 letter informing
the university that the US Government was terminating federal funding because
of failure “to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic
violence and harassment in addition to other alleged violations of Title VI and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” This was all in regard to
peaceful demonstrations on Columbia’s campus protesting the war in Gaza.
The March 13 letter went on to set preconditions for negotiations regarding federal funding. These included:
·
Enforce disciplinary
policies with expulsion [of protesting students]
·
Abolish
the University Judicial Board and place all disciplinary processes under the university
president
·
Implement
time, place and manner rules to prevent disruption of teaching and research
·
Ban the wearing
of masks (with certain exceptions stated)
·
Adopt a
definition of antisemitism
·
Place the
Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department under academic
receivership for a minimum 5 years by March 20
·
Deliver a
plan for comprehensive admissions reform
The letter ended with: “We
expect your immediate compliance with these critical next steps, after which we
hope to open a conversation about immediate and long-term structural reforms
that will return Columbia to its original mission of innovative research and
academic excellence.”
Response Letter March
15
Seven “scholars of constitutional law, administrative law, and antidiscrimination law who teach at Columbia responded with a letter dated March 15 pointing out some of the most glaring legal problems with the March 13 letter. Here is a summary in point form:
·
Title VI Standards
– there is no legal basis for a funding cutoff because there has been no
explanation of the alleged violations, no completed investigation.
·
Title VI
Procedures – before any funding cutoff there must be an express finding after a
hearing of any failure to comply with the statute as well as a full written
report. The letter is imposing preconditions in advance of negotiations which
this statute does not allow.
·
Title VI
Remedies – even if proper notice had been given, a hearing held and a violation
found, Title VI does not permit a blanket funding removal but rather “limited
in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which
noncompliance has been so found. Funding has been cut from programs in which no
violation has been found or even alleged, including urgent medical and
scientific research.
·
“The agencies’
demands [in the March 13 letter] … effectively tell Columbia to rewrite its
policies on free speech, student discipline, public safety, undergraduate
admissions, and more [which] far exceed the power of the agencies under Title
VI and also raise serious constitutional concerns.”
·
Academic
Freedom and the First Amendment – The Supreme Court recognizes academic freedom
as “a special concern of the First Amendment” stating “the
essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost
self-evident”. The Court has made clear that funding conditions may not
impose unconstitutional burdens on First Amendment rights.
·
Unconstitutional
Vagueness – the letter offers no details of the violations made by the current
admissions practices or the “Time, place, and manner, rules nor guidance on
what is expected to change
·
Due
Process – the withdrawal of federal funding without following due process
likely violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as Title
VI.
The writers conclude by
stating that this response is a preliminary analysis, not an exhaustive list of
problems and that “,,, we hope that this analysis helps show how these demands
threaten not only Columbia’s funding for critical academic research but also
fundamental legal principles and the mission of colleges and universities
across the country.”
My Analysis
The cutting of funding and
the demands imposed in the letters of March 7 and 13, are early examples the
Trump regime’s attempts to control the universities. This is one of the stated
goals in Project 2025 and is an essential part of any authoritarian government’s
takeover of a country.
The response letter shows
how ignorant and careless the Trumpians are of the law and constitution. The
courts will undoubtedly declare the cuts invalid and request they be reinstated.
Whether Trump complies or not, the disruption to Columbia is significant. As
pointed out in the final sentence of the response letter, the threat applies to
all American universities to toe the line or else suffer the consequences.
You can read the full
letter and the response here:
No comments:
Post a Comment