Your Cart is Empty
Vague. Undefined. Overbroad. Burdensome. Legally contested.
That’s how major higher ed groups are describing the Trump administration’s latest effort to crack down on what it considers diversity, equity and inclusion by requiring colleges and universities to sign a pledge that they will comply with “executive orders prohibiting unlawful discrimination on the basis of race or color” to receive federal funds. The proposed pledge warns that race-based scholarships, hiring preferences, diversity statements and more may constitute illegal discrimination, in the government’s opinion.
A federal judge has granted an additional tranche of colleges a delay before they must submit newly required data to the U.S. Department of Education on their applicants, admits and enrollees broken down by race and sex.
Institutional members of two higher education groups — the Association of American Universities and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts — will now have until April 14 to submit the data.
A Minnesota judge dismissed the federal government’s challenge to a state law in Minnesota that makes some undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition.
This is the first ruling against the Trump administration’s campaign to end in-state tuition for undocumented students—a policy that the government’s lawyers have argued violates federal laws. In three of the seven lawsuits so far, the states agreed with the administration and scrapped their state laws. But Minnesota challenged the Justice Department in court and sought to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.
The Trump administration’s investigations and demands for admissions data have extended beyond undergraduate colleges and universities, The New York Times reports. Now, the Department of Justice is requesting years’ worth of information about applicants at major medical schools.
The three institutions currently under investigation—Stanford University, Ohio State University and the University of California, San Diego—have been asked to turn over the reports by April 24. If they don’t, according to the Times, the DOJ says federal funding for their professional programs could be on the line.
The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden have won and received a court order vindicating their free speech rights. The dire predictions after the Supreme Court found insufficient standing to support a preliminary injunction in Murthy v. Missouri have failed to materialize. On March 25, the district court in Louisiana signed a consent decree in Missouri v. Biden admitting that the government wrongfully squelched Americans’ speech for years by strong-arming social media companies to eliminate disfavored speech. The decree allows New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) plaintiffs Jill Hines and Aaron Kheriaty, along with Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit and the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general, to obtain sanctions should the surgeon general, CDC, or CISA attempt to do this again.
A Florida International University law student and former Miami Republican Party official has sued to stop the university from investigating his involvement in a group chat with fellow conservative students that was rife with racist and offensive language.
Abel Carvajal said in a lawsuit filed on Monday in Miami federal court that his speech in the group chat is protected under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Carvajal alleged that any disciplinary actions FIU pursues against him would be viewpoint-based discrimination.
