Tag: donald-trump

Northwestern University AAUP endorses suing Trump administration

NU faculty recently voted overwhelmingly against “any capitulation on the part of Northwestern University” to the Trump Administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” by a 595 – 4 margin with eight abstentions. A related resolution from the spring, sponsored by the local AAUP chapter, called on NU to sue the Trump administration. That passed 338 to 83.

NU is in a similar position as Cornell, insofar as we have not received any official demands or allegations of Title VI violations. Cornell President Kotlikoff has explained that this has made it harder for Cornell to sue.

NU law professor Heidi Kitrosser has written a nice rebuttal of this argument in the Daily Northwestern. Everything they say is equally relevant on our campus.

NU reportedly has never received any official “demands or requests from the Trump administration, including the Justice Department, the Education Department and the White House,” as President Henry Bienen explained in his recent interview with The Daily. The absence of an official demand letter poses two related challenges.

First, there is no formal statement to which NU can point to demonstrate that the government froze its funding for viewpoint-based reasons or for alleged Title VI violations. Thus, the defendants might argue that NU can, at most, make out a claim for breach of funding contracts.

Second, if NU were left only with such a contract claim, its ability to sue in federal court would be impacted by the Tucker Act, which directs contract disputes with the federal government to the Court of Federal Claims. In contrast, as Judge Burroughs explained, “First Amendment and Title VI claims do not ordinarily fall within the ambit of the Tucker Act, which is very specifically contract-focused.”

Even without an official demand letter, however, NU has a strong case that the funding freeze is viewpoint-based and that it violates Title VI. First, courts ought not to reward government actors for refusing to explain themselves through one particular channel when they take consequential actions  — financially devastating ones, in this case — and when ample evidence of their motivations is available elsewhere.

Second, one can find such evidence in multiple public statements and actions by federal officials. With respect to Title VI, the Trump Administration has announced investigations into alleged violations by NU. Indeed, when The Daily first reported on the funding freeze in April, it noted that the White House had referred it “to a tweet by Fox News senior producer Patrick Ward. Senior administration officials told Ward the funding freeze was a result of ‘ongoing, credible and concerning Title VI investigations,’ according to the tweet.”

With respect to the First Amendment, administration officials, including Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, have publicly described their attacks on universities as attacks on left-wing ideologies. Judge Burroughs, as well as the federal district court judge overseeing the UC cases, cited such statements by Trump and McMahon — statements made in multiple forums ranging from executive orders to social media posts — to support their findings of viewpoint discrimination.

NU, in short, has a very solid case to make to a federal court. Doing so won’t be easy, but it strikes me as the only reasonable response to the federal government’s onslaught against academic freedom in the United States.

AAUP v. Rubio

https://www.aaup.org/news/aaup-briefs-defend-independent-legal-system-reject-ideological-deportations

The national as well as several chapters are suing Rubio.

This week, the AAUP and allies filed two separate friend-of-the-court briefs.

With the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, the AAUP submitted a brief supporting the law firm Perkins Coie in its battle against the Trump administration. Perkins Coie was the subject of an executive order which limited the law firm’s ability to represent government contractors and access federal buildings. Unlike some of the biggest US law firms, who have struck deals with the Trump administration, Perkins Coie sued the Trump administration. The court temporarily blocked the order and is now considering a motion for summary judgment that would permanently enjoin the enforcement of the order. More than 500 law firms have submitted another friend-of-the-court brief, as has the American Civil LIberties Union and a number of other parties, arguing in favor of blocking the order. The AAUP’s brief focuses on the harms that will be caused if lawyers are afraid to take on cases or make certain arguments for fear of retaliation by the government, and discusses the dangerous position taken by the administration through its casual invocation of national security to justify all manner of actions and to push back against robust judicial review. Read the brief here.

To fortify our lawsuit AAUP v. Rubio, thirty faculty groups, including seventeen AAUP chapters, organized to join an amicus brief urging a preliminary injunction against ideological deportations of students and scholars. AAUP members from public and private institutions, from community colleges and research universities, from Texas to Minnesota, California to New Hampshire, and points in between are exercising solidarity to protect students and co-workers. Read the amicus brief here.

Here’s a statement from the MIT AAUP, one of the chapters that joined the amicus brief.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRr5lcMp9axltMvx1tyh-9rUkafFum4j5zu2yRauAlRCDsmgi_Uprc-tbllG4az6XenkCDXjM8tGJvr/pub

Cornell faculty in support of democracy and academic freedom

The brazen assault on academic freedom sweeping across the country has again got Cornell in its sights.

There is a letter to the Cornell board of trustees circulating right now, and we urge all Cornell faculty to sign it.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScCQXl77TWPhipU1-BDIl4RjXJfnjtbBRsRQZS1aYEHg_m2Sg/viewform?fbclid=IwY2xjawJmArJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHlyrWHA6jW86CBJJcBHosEa3xZLZYUgP0KHVV3YGyN0JbHkfvIgDgigZB-xe_aem_38-jfNWB7O_LR-2rqcZB_A

For some of the legal context, you should check out some of Michael Dorf’s posts, on Columbia and on the AAUP filling the void left by Columbia’s capitulation.

See also the longer statement co-authored with other constitutional law scholars.

Under Title VI, the government may not cut off funds until it has

  • conducted a program-by-program evaluation of the alleged violations;
  • provided recipients with notice and “an opportunity for hearing”; 
  • limited any funding cutoff “to the particular program, or part thereof, in which…noncompliance has been…found”; and 
  • submitted a report explaining its actions to the relevant committees in Congress at least thirty days before any funds can be stopped.

These requirements aim to ensure that any withdrawal of funds is based on genuine misbehavior on the university’s part—on illegal toleration of discriminatory conduct, not just on allowance of First Amendment–protected expression. The requirements aim to make clear to recipients of federal funds just what behavior can form the basis for sanctions. And each of the requirements aims to make sure that the sanction fits the offense.

Yet here the sanction was imposed without any agency or court finding that Columbia violated Title VI in its response to antisemitic harassment or discrimination. Even to the extent that some protesters’ behavior amounted to illegal harassment of Jewish students, no agency and no court has concluded that Columbia illegally failed to reasonably respond to such discriminatory behavior—much less failed to act at a level justifying withdrawal of nearly half a billion dollars in funds. The government’s action therefore risks deterring and suppressing constitutionally protected speech—not just illegal discriminatory conduct.

AAUP wins in court!

A Legal Win for Members and Our Campuses and Communities

From https://www.aaup.org/news/win-aaup-higher-ed-and-our-communities

Last night, in a case in which the AAUP was a plaintiff, the US District Court for the District of Maryland granted a preliminary nationwide injunction on key parts of a pair of executive orders issued by President Trump. The orders broadly and in vague terms seek to end diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities among federal government grantees and contractors, including virtually all colleges and universities.

In its decision, the court explicitly cited the evidence provided by courageous AAUP members when it found that there were “concrete actual injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and their members” as a result of the unlawful actions of the administration and that AAUP members and their institutions would “be forced to either restrict their legal activities and expression that are arguably related to DEI, or forgo federal funding altogether.”

The decision was in response to a suit filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of four organizations representing different affected groups: the AAUP (representing faculty members), the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (representing their diversity officer members), the City of Baltimore (representing a public sector grantee), and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (representing a private sector grantee). We sought this temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump administration from using federal grants and contracts as leverage to force colleges and universities to end all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, whether federally funded or not, and from terminating any “equity-related” federal grants or contracts.

As our brief explained, the orders are unconstitutional, usurping congressional power and violating First and Fifth Amendment rights. Absent preliminary relief, significant and irreparable harm would have been caused to our members, their students, and communities. Most importantly, the government could have used the threat of terminating billions of dollars of grants and contracts, as well as the threat of investigations and enforcement actions, to force faculty and universities to cease virtually all of their legally permissible work relating to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

The AAUP’s membership includes many potentially affected faculty: those whose work focuses on Black studies; Latino studies; Asian studies; gender or sexual orientation identities; diversity, equity, and inclusion specifically; environmental justice; and other subject matter targeted by the president’s anti-DEIA executive orders. We also represent a significant number of members who focus on medical and other scientific research related to whether and how race and ethnicity affect health outcomes. Beyond AAUP members, students and communities would be harmed by the termination of the higher education grants: work on female reproductive health would be curtailed; assistance to help students with disabilities and from underrepresented populations graduate and find careers would be undermined; and efforts to strengthen research capacity at historically Black colleges and universities would be set back.

The judge noted that our lawsuit is likely to succeed on the claim that enforcement actions against companies and universities would violate constitutionally protected free speech and wrote: “That is textbook viewpoint-based discrimination . . . . The government’s threat of enforcement is not just targeted towards enforcement of federal law. Rather, the provision expressly targets, and threatens, the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.”

More information:

Day of action:  Mobilizing to defend education on March 4

https://www.aft.org/ProtectOurKids

The AAUP is supporting the American Federation of Teachers’ mobilization to defend education

The Trump administration wants to make painful cuts to education and healthcare in order to slash taxes for billionaires. The administration’s plan to “block grant” federal education programs and gut the U.S. Department of Education would rob 26 million students living in poverty of critical services and 7.5 million students with disabilities of special education support. It would eliminate career and technical education for 12 million students, threatening their future job opportunities. Slashing Medicaid and student loans could strip healthcare coverage from 10.3 million people and end access to student loans, making college unaffordable for another 10 million working-class families.

Join us on March 4 and stand up to protect our kids!

On Tuesday, March 4, educators, students, parents and community allies will stand up against assaults on public education and on opportunity for America’s youth. We are calling on lawmakers to strengthen, not undermine, our local public schools and the services they provide to children, families and communities.

By highlighting the harmful consequences of these attacks on public schools and students, we aim to build public pressure on policymakers and amplify the voices of those directly impacted.

We must:

  • Pressure decision-makers: Urge elected officials at both the federal and state levels to oppose cuts to federal funding and block grants, both of which will hurt kids.
  • Raise awareness: Educate the public about the devastating consequences of dismantling the Department of Education, gutting federal education funding and providing no-strings-attached block grants.
  • Mobilize support: Engage a broad coalition of stakeholders—including educators, students, parents and community members—to participate in actions nationwide.
  • Drive media coverage: Generate media attention through storytelling, coordinated events, rallies, etc.
  • Lift up our stories: Highlight how these cuts disproportionately harm vulnerable students, including those from underserved communities and students with disabilities.
  • Take action in our communities: Wage this fight in the communities where students will lose services they rely on, not just in Washington, D.C. 

Day of Action activities can include:

  1. Local and national events: Organize rallies, marches and teach-ins in key cities and communities on March 4. Partner with local organizations to host panels or town halls focused on the impact of federal education funding cuts.
  2. Advocacy and lobbying: Organize call-in days and email campaigns targeting legislators to urge them to oppose the Trump agenda that will hurt our public schools and communities. Provide participants with scripts and talking points for contacting their representatives.
  3. Story collection and amplification: Collect and share real-life stories from educators, students and parents showcasing the tangible harm cuts to services and supports they rely on will cause. Use videos, blogs and social media to amplify their voices.
  4. Media outreach: Conduct interviews with local media outlets and adapt a sample press release and op-ed featuring impacted individuals.
  5. Digital mobilization: Launch a robust social media campaign with shareable graphics, infographics and videos using the hashtag #ProtectOurKids to drive engagement and awareness.