[ad_1]
Two weeks ago, UCLA was optimistic.
University leaders have been avoiding clashes with President Trump for months as they refused to publicly criticize him in his fight to remodel American higher education.
On the morning of July 29, UCLA announced it had settled a federal lawsuit with a student who accused it of discrimination, paying more than $2 million for legal costs for Jewish civil rights groups and millions. University leaders welcomed the action as “real progress” in combating anti-Semitism. Personally, they pointed out the agreement to the Trump administration and were eager to convince them the Jewish community and the federal officials who have become better.
The highs lasted only a few hours. It also mentioned an extraordinary 14-day rapid charge of UCLA’s research funding, findings and a massive federal freeze. It reached its peak Friday afternoon when Gavin Newsom responded to the federal government’s demand for UC to pay $100 million fines for many allegations against UCLA, unleashing furious comments and paying policies that would allow anti-Semitism on campus, illegal use of races during enrollment, and transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity.
“He threatened us through a terror with a $1 billion fine unless we bid,” Newsmom added that California sues. “We will not conspire in this kind of attack on academic freedom in this extraordinary public institution.”
A Justice Department spokesman did not respond to Newsom’s comments and questions about legal threats on Sunday.
The escalating event begins with an emergency meeting of the UC Regent Committee on Monday afternoon, leading to a critical moment of the week. On Tuesday, a federal court hearing could unfold in existing cases and restore UC grants, but not all.
The development brings the fight over America’s most powerful and acclaimed public university system for America’s institutions of higher education, which have been rocking elite private East Coast universities for months.
“We’re in unknown territory,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, representing more than 1,700 universities. “We’ve seen governments come after Columbia, Brown, Harvard, etc. But this is a test now. Will UCLA become a public university advocate? Will it attack the deal?
California is in his view a liberal fortress that, in his view, does not do too much to protect Jewish students, facing a president who seeks to restrain what he calls a “Marxist” university that is so soft in pro-Palestinian protests that it relies heavily on the dollars of international students.
His administration has accused many elite universities across the country (Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Stanford and three UC campuses) of illegally considering enrollment and programming races at the disadvantage of white and Asian students. In response to the protests of Palestinian parents, Trump said the university made “jihadists” possible for “jihadists” and that the protesters were “pro-hadists” terrorists.
“UCLA is not a random choice,” Mitchell said. “The administration has been having problems with the governor of California for a while, which is part of the bigger battle between the administration and California.”
What is in danger?
When UCLA Prime Minister Julio Frenk began receiving notifications from the federal government that announced the suspension of grants, UCLA leaders are rushing to assess the impact on what they describe as life-saving, landscape-telling research. The dean and department are told to prepare for layoffs if the cut continues.
Science and medical professors would not have a lab without federal funding, and would be seeking private donations. PhD and post-doctral students, where tuition and living expenses are often funded by grants in exchange for lab work, are rushing to accelerate their graduation plans before the scholarships run dry.
“The federal government has argued on the grounds of anti-Semitism and prejudice. This widespread penalty in life-saving research does nothing to address suspicious discrimination,” Frenk said of a message from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.
UC as a system and UCLA in particular have been under multiple federal investigations for several months.
An allegation of employment discrimination against Jewish employees and job seekers. Rights complaints from Israeli and Jewish students. There are also suspicions of race consideration in admission practices.
The ongoing investigation was launched by the Department of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services.
UCLA leaders shared internal records with government lawyers for months and proceeded with quiet negotiations on the charges, and thought they were cooperative, a senior UC official said.
They hoped the government paid attention to efforts that could soothe the president: new campus initiatives to combat anti-Semitism, banning students for justice in Palestinian groups, banning the entire UC of boycotting Israeli student government, prompt closure of Palestinian protests, and narrowing down due to the conflict of Palestinian students among the deceased students.
However, the federal government’s stance has become clear. UCLA believes it is guilty of all allegations.
The NSF letter states that UCLA “encourages racism in the form of illegal affirmative behavior, so UCLA cannot promote an anti-Semitism or a non-biased research environment. UCLA discriminates and puts women at risk by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”
What Trump wants
Federal lawyers hope that UC will pay $1 billion in installments to UCLA and donate $172 million to funds for Jewish students and other individuals suspected of civil rights violations.
Requests for reconciliation include the end of race- and ethnic-focused scholarships, changes to campus protest rules, including the termination of UCLA’s sharing more admission data with the government than has already been made public, and banning night camps.
In addition to the sticker shock issue, the UC system has already reviewed many of the practices outlined by the federal government, which has baffled some of the requests of UCLA leaders.
The use of the “diversity statement” in employment has ended. Last fall, UCLA declared its camp “zero tolerance” policy. The government wants trans women to stay away from the women’s sports teams. However, the National University Athletics Assn. As a member of the university, the university must already follow new association rules banning transgender players on women’s teams.
“It feels like a cut-and-paste job,” a senior UC official said of Trump’s proposal. Officials were not allowed to publicly speak about the negotiations. “It’s like they took some of the letters to the Ivy League and cobbled them together and added the word “UCLA.” ”
What’s coming next
The 24 UC Regent Committees involved in the lawsuit, which must approve a federal settlement or payment, are called the Emergency Closure Meeting Monday afternoon. It is unclear whether Newsom, a former board member, will be present.
Another pivotal moment comes on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. So Judge Rita F. Lynn ordered the Department of Justice to explain why UCLA cuts were not a violation of the June order that blocked the termination of all UC scientific grants.
The case, submitted by researchers in Berkeley, California and San Francisco, California, is being discussed by Irwin Kemelinski, dean of Berkeley Law School, California and constitutional expert. If the judge controls UC in his favour, it could be applied to the NSF cut, which accounts for about half of UCLA’s limbo.
In an interview, Chemerinsky said that his actions against UCLA were “clearly illegal.”
He outlined what is likely to be a California debate in the lawsuit. Government actions violate the Water Storage Management Act of 1974.
“The cutoff of funds didn’t have the due process required by federal law and constitution,” Chemerinsky said. “Fund-blocking agencies such as the NIH and NSF violate the Administrative Procedure Act in that their actions are “arbitrarily, whimsical, and abuse of discretion.” Many of the funding cutoffs are based on perspective and violate the first amendment. ”
Negotiations are still possible
However, California faces risks when filing lawsuits against administration orders.
When Harvard fought back against billions with similar cuts earlier this year, the Trump administration struck the university with an additional costly funding clawback and the end of its ability to host foreign students.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said time and politics were not on the side of UCLA.
“At some point, there’s fall classes and international students coming in and the campus will have to deal with the uncertainty and try to lose all the grants,” Tobias said. He said the lawsuit can take months, if not years. California “may work well in the district court and in the 9th Circuit, but we don’t know what will happen in the Supreme Court.”
After Newsom threatened the lawsuit, UC Regent chair Janet Reilly told The Times that negotiations were still on the table, but not in the current “unacceptable” condition.
“While the University is willing to engage in constructive and sincere dialogue with the federal government, the University of California will always stand firm in protecting the integrity and values of our institution,” Riley said.
Mark Yudoff, former UC president who led the system from 2008 to 2013, thought negotiations were still highly likely.
“While the lawsuit is certainly possible, my sense is that both sides will try to negotiate a settlement first,” Yudoff said. He said the reconciliation that UCLA came with Jewish students in late July “is likely the first framework of those discussions. It’s hard to say where that goes from there. The fact that UC is a public university system adds to the complexity.”
Mitchell, the American Education President and former top administrator at Occidental College, said a swift resolution would benefit both sides. He said the months-long process could be “great harm,” as is the case between Harvard and Trump.
“These things, the longer they last, the worse they get,” he said.
[ad_2]Source link
