RSS
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona finds campus antisemitism ‘repulsive.’ He told us what he’s doing about it.
(JTA) — A Jewish college student recently told Miguel Cardona that he believed antisemitism has become “normalized” on campuses. For the secretary of education, the comment stuck.
“That, to me, was repulsive,” Cardona told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Wednesday. “As a father that really got to me, that there’s a student that thinks antisemitism is normalized and treated differently. And that was even before the attacks.”
Since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, of course, antisemitism on college campuses has only more forcefully drawn public attention. The heads of three elite universities appeared to downplay the matter during a congressional hearing last month; two have since resigned amid the fallout. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has opened dozens of investigations into allegations of discrimination at universities and K-12 schools since Oct. 7, and while it does not reveal many public details about them, JTA has confirmed that many involve reports of antisemitism or Islamophobia.
Speaking to JTA Wednesday following a conversation with Jewish and Muslim students at Dartmouth College, Cardona said his department was taking steps to deal with the problem. He also praised the efforts of Dartmouth, which has been celebrated in the media for its attempts to host sessions bridging the gap between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian students — an effort that the school formalized on Thursday with the announcement of “Dartmouth Dialogues.” And he defended oft-criticized Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices, saying that Jewish students should be able to think of them as resources.
Here is what Cardona told JTA about how his department is handling the problem.
JTA: You just spoke to Jewish and Muslim students at Dartmouth about antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus. What did you learn from them?
Cardona: I learned that we’re able to create safe learning environments while also giving students an opportunity to express themselves. I learned that the more you engage students in problem solving, the more likely it’s going to be successful. And what I learned also is that you need a culture and a climate on campus that is willing to engage in problem-solving when conflicts arise. They have that at Dartmouth. It was there before Oct. 7. And clearly it’s part of the reason why they’re finding success.
You have spoken about how antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus have been problems since Oct. 7. How do you understand this problem at this moment, and how can the department address it?
I said that it’s been a problem before Oct. 7. As a matter of fact, it’s been getting increasingly worse even before the Oct. 7 attacks — to the point where I had a student when I visited Towson University, a Jewish student, who told me that he believes that it’s become normalized in our country to kind of brush aside antisemitism, more so than any other form of hate and discrimination. That to me was repulsive. As a father that really got to me, that there’s a student that thinks that antisemitism is normalized and treated differently. And that was even before the attacks.
I think this is an opportunity for colleges to stand up forcefully in protecting the safety of students on campus. I don’t want any Jewish students to feel like they have to hide symbols of their faith because of what’s happening on campus. I don’t want any student to feel that they have to hide their identity to be successful on campus.
We’ve released Dear Colleague letters, which are basically letters of guidance to the field, to make sure that they know their responsibility under Title VI to keep students safe. But even more fundamental than that, I think we’re at a point now where we have to be very direct, that students should not have to hide their identity or be ashamed of who they are or hide who they are on our college campuses. And it’s the responsibility of college presidents to act very clearly and unambiguously that student safety is their priority and that they’re going to listen and make sure that students feel that it’s taken seriously.
You mentioned Title VI investigations. Your department has opened close to 50 such investigations since Oct. 7. Many of them involve antisemitism. How do you choose what to investigate?
The decisions on how to investigate are made by the Office for Civil Rights. When they have the request, they look at them very carefully. A lot of folks don’t know this, but it’s important to note that the investigation requests, when accepted, open up an investigation [that is] very thorough. Students are spoken to and listened to, and it could even uncover something that wasn’t in the original investigation request.
We’ve opened over 45 in three months, which is almost double what was opened in four years in the last administration, which is testament that we take this very seriously. We take these threats and these beliefs of students of being unsafe on campus very seriously, and we’re going to thoroughly investigate them.
In the past, it took patterns of misbehavior before many Title VI investigations would be opened. Now some are being opened over single isolated incidents. Why?
Again, we recognize how important safety is on campus. And while we might open these cases, it doesn’t necessarily assume that the investigation is going to find Title VI violations. But we are committed to ensuring, through our enforcement arm, that we are sending the message and investigating, thoroughly, issues that lead to student safety concerns on campus.
You mentioned how many investigations there are. I imagine that takes a lot of resources. Are you directing more departmental resources to Title VI, or to other ways of combating antisemitism?
Absolutely. First of all, I think it’s really important that I share with you: In November, I asked Speaker of the House [Mike] Johnson for additional funding for the Office for Civil Rights. We had 10,000 complaints in 2019 lodged to the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. We had 90,000 in 2022. So we’re fighting for additional dollars there, instead of cuts, to the Office of Civil Rights.
But, you know, we’re also not going to change culture through memos, or through investigations. We are just as passionate, and just as urgent, on developing resources, guidance, exemplars, technical assistance mechanisms for universities. We’ve visited dozens of universities, members of our team. We’ve met with attorneys, we met with college presidents. You’ll see on our website a list of dozens of resources for campuses. My visit today to Dartmouth was to see for myself and hear from students myself, on what works, so that we could lift up best practices across the country.
So yes, we’re going to enforce and we’re unapologetic about them. But we’re also going to build capacity and give universities tools that we know work in other places to create safe learning environments where students could oppose, have different beliefs, but do so civilly. At the end of the day student safety is our No. 1 priority.
If you look at the Department of Education, what we’ve done since Oct. 7, you won’t find another administration that has come close to the work that we’ve done not only to investigate, but also to build capacity on campuses to create safe learning environments.
An official in your department, Tariq Habash, recently resigned over what he said was your failure to protect students who nonviolently advocate for Palestinians. How do you respond to the charge that doing what you do is actually chilling free speech on campus?
I wish Tariq well. He was a valued member of our team. And what I will tell you is the work that we’ve done at the Biden-Harris administration, and in particular at the Department of Education, around protecting students, including students who are feeling threatened with antisemitism, we’ve done more than any other administration. We’re going to continue to do it. Student safety for me is not something that we go light on, we have to make sure we’re clear on it.
We need to be very clear with college presidents that it’s our expectation that when students are feeling unsafe, they are responding to students right away. And that they’re taking it very seriously.
A lot of university administrators seem to have been slow to acknowledge that there is a problem. What are you actually able to compel administrations to do for Jewish students?
I think you’re right. I think that if there’s a lack of visibility from the leadership, it’s more likely that students are going to find unsafe ways to channel their frustrations. What we saw today at Dartmouth was when students are given an opportunity, because leadership owns the responsibility and acts on it, to create a safe learning environment and to listen to students.
I’ve been very clear from day one, calling out college presidents in terms of their responsibility to address this issue head on. We’ve not only provided accountability, but we’ve provided a lot of resources. I have my team ready to pick up the phone for any leader that is struggling with this and needs guidance and support. We have a technical assistance team that has been assembled. We have done numerous webinars, we’ve traveled to college campuses. We’ve engaged with the Muslim Jewish Advocacy Center in New York City and worked with them to help them serve as almost mentors to colleges and to K-12 district leaders. So we’re really modeling what we want to see from college leaders.
The student that told me that in this country he feels like we’ve normalized antisemitism: that message really resonated with me, and it upset me, to the point where, if that were my child, I would not feel comfortable wanting to send my child to a campus far away. I want for that child what I would want for my own child, and that’s leadership that’s willing to stand up on the values that we have in this country that students should be safe on campus.
A lot of critics of the rise of DEI programs have said that this is actually contributing to a hostile rhetoric for Jews in schools because Jews are not always included as part of the curricula, or they’re painted as oppressors in some of these frameworks. How do you think about the role of DEI in this problem?
I think in so many places across the country, we see DEI efforts reduced to just Black and brown issues. And as a Latino but also as an education leader, I think that’s unfortunate. We need to look at Diversity, Equity, Inclusion as a place where conversations about religious identity or difference of opinions could be handled respectfully and civilly, like what I saw today on Dartmouth’s campus.
I think it’s unfortunate if they’re being viewed as anything but the right place to go when there are issues of inclusion or safety or belonging that plague our universities. I think a well-developed DEI model includes opportunities for students to share the frustrations or concerns that they have on campus, relative to how they might be feeling with regard to antisemitism, Islamophobia or anti-Arab sentiment.
We’ve heard from Jewish parents who are now saying that, since Oct. 7, they’ve become uncomfortable with the idea of sending their children to some of these universities because the climate of antisemitism there has gotten so bad. What would you say to them?
My heart goes out to those parents and it’s frustrating as secretary of education to hear that, in 2024, that is the case. What I would tell those parents is that they have the right to discuss with the leadership of the university their feelings, because, quite frankly, parents can decide where they send their children. And it would be a disservice, not only to the students who are of Jewish descent, but to all students, to have a university whose membership is limited based on feelings of antisemitism by some of the students. Students learn best in a diverse learning environment. Students learn best when they can be on campus, unapologetic of who they are. And I wouldn’t want Jewish students to not feel comfortable expressing who they are, their feelings, even if it’s in disagreement with some other students on campus.
Those parents have the right, and those universities have the responsibility to ensure to those parents, that their students are going to learn in a safe learning environment and that there are resources on campus, not only for the students to go if they feel unsafe, but also where those students could go to express their pride in their culture and their religious background and in their ancestry.
—
The post Education Secretary Miguel Cardona finds campus antisemitism ‘repulsive.’ He told us what he’s doing about it. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’
New York City Mayor Eric Adams attends an “October 7: One Year Later” commemoration to mark the anniversary of the Hamas-led attack in Israel at the Summer Stage in Central Park on October 7, 2024, in New York City. Photo: Ron Adar/ SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has accused mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani of spreading antisemitic views, citing Mamdani’s past remarks and anti-Israel activism as he starts his efforts to thwart the progressive insurgent.
Adams’s repudiation comes in the aftermath of a heated mayoral Democratic primary in which Mamdani, a 33‑year‑old democratic socialist, former rapper, and New York City Assembly member, achieved a stunning upset over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday. While Mamdani has denied being antisemitic, Adams argued that some of Mamdani’s rhetoric, including his defense of the phrase “globalize the intifada,” crosses the line into inflammatory territory and risks alienating Jewish New Yorkers.
In the Thursday interview with journalist Don Lemon, Adams slammed Mamdani for his “embracing of Hamas” in his public comments and rap lyrics. The mayor labeled Hamas a “murderous organization” that murders members of the LGBTQ+ community and uses “human beings as shields” when engaging in military conflict with Israel.
“You can’t embrace Hamas, and the mere fact that you embrace Hamas says a lot,” he said.
During his rap career, Mamdani released a song praising the “Holy Land Five,” a group of five men connected to the Hamas terrorist group. The men were accused of funneling millions in cash to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation — a charity organization that was shut down by the federal government in 2001 for having links to terrorist groups.
The mayor added that the city’s Jewish community should be “concerned” with Mamdani’s comments.
Eric Adams after campaign kickoff calls his Democratic rival, Zohran Mamdani, “an antisemite” who, he says, has embraced Hamas.
“Those who are Jewish should be concerned.” pic.twitter.com/COZSF9jHXE
— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) June 26, 2025
Adams is battling to keep his political future alive amid mounting legal and political troubles. A federal bribery probe into foreign campaign donations cast a shadow over his administration until charges were unexpectedly dropped by a Trump-aligned Justice Department, sparking accusations of political favoritism. Since then, Adams has leaned into right-wing rhetoric on crime and immigration, forging relationships with allies of US President Donald Trump and refusing to rule out a party switch, moves that have alienated Democratic leaders and progressives alike and caused his approval ratings to spiral.
Adams, who is running for reelection as an independent, had reportedly hoped for Mamdani to emerge victorious in the Democratic primary, believing that a face-off against the progressive firebrand would create an opportunity to revive his near-moribund reelection campaign by highlighting the democratic socialist’s far-left views.
Mamdani, a progressive representative in the New York State Assembly, has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.
Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates.
In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying, “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”
High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has expressed interest in meeting with Mamdani prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement, indicating discomfort within Democratic circles regarding the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee’s meteoric rise over the past few months.
The post NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump
April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
A new amicus brief filed in the lawsuit that Harvard University brought in April to stop the Trump administration’s confiscation of some $3 billion of its federal research grants and contracts offered a blistering response to previous briefs which maligned the institution’s decision to incorporate the world’s leading definition of antisemitism into its non-discrimination policies.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, legal briefs weighing in on Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. have been pouring in from across the country, with dozens of experts, think tanks, and student groups seeking to sway the court in what has become a historic confrontation between elite higher education and the federal government — as well as a showdown between Middle American populists and coastal elites.
Harvard’s case has rallied a team of defenders, including some who are responsible for drawing scrutiny of alleged antisemitism and far-left extremism on campus.
Earlier this month, the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) — which blamed Israel for Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel mere hours after images and videos of the terrorist organization’s brutality spread online — filed a brief which compared Zionists to segregationists who defended white supremacy during Jim Crow, while arguing that Harvard’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — used by hundreds of governing institutions and widely accepted across the political spectrum — is an instrument of conspiracy and racist oppression.
“Adopting the IHRA definition, granting special status to Zionism, and penalizing pro-Palestinian student groups risks violating the Title VI rights of Palestinians on campus,” the filing said. “There is ample evidence that adoption of IHRA and other policies which limit speech supporting Palestinian rights are motivated by an intent to selectively silence Palestinians and students who advocate on behalf of Palestinians. Such action cannot be required by, and indeed appear to violate, Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act].”
The document added, “Though the main text of the definition is relatively benign, the illustrative examples — seven of the eleven which pertain to criticism of Israel — make clear that they are aimed at preventing Palestinians from speaking about their oppression.”
Similar arguments were put forth in other briefs submitted by groups which have cheered Hamas and spread blood libels about Israel’s conduct in Gaza, including the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and other anti-Zionist groups.
“Harvard’s incorporation of IHRA was an overdue and necessary response to the virulent and unchecked antisemitic discrimination and harassment on its campus,” the Brandeis Center said in its response to the arguments, noting that Harvard itself has determined that embracing the definition is consistent with its obligations under Title VI, which have been reiterated and stressed by the US Office for Civil Rights (OCR) guidance and two executive orders issued by President Donald Trump.
“Misunderstandings about what antisemitism means — and the form it takes — have long plagued efforts to address antisemitic conduct. Modern versions of antisemitism draw not only on ancient tropes, but also coded attacks on Zionism and the Jewish state, which often stand in for the Jewish people in modern antisemitic parlance,” the organization continued. “Sadly, this is nothing new: Soviet propagandists for decades used the term ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zio’ in this coded way. This practice has become commonplace among antisemites in academia who seek to avoid being labeled as racists.”
The Brandeis Center also argued that IHRA does not “punish or chill speech” but “provides greater transparency and clarity as to the meaning of antisemitism while honoring the university’s rules protecting free speech and expression.” The group stopped short of urging a decision either for or against Harvard, imploring the court to “disregard” the briefs submitted by PSC, JVP, and MESA.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard sued the Trump administration, arguing that it bypassed key procedural steps it must, by law, take before sequestering federal funds. It also said that the Trump administration does not aim, as it has publicly pledged, to combat campus antisemitism at Harvard but to impose “viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding.”
The Trump administration has proposed that Harvard reform in ways that conservatives have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Its “demands,” contained in a letter the administration sent to interim Harvard president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implored Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
On Monday, the attorneys general of Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, and 12 other states said the Trump administration took appropriate action to quell what they described as Harvard University’s flagrant violation of civil rights laws concerning its handling of the campus antisemitism crisis as well as its past history of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by practicing racial preferences in admissions.
“Harvard both admits that it has a problem with antisemitism and acknowledges that problem as the reason it needs a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. Yet when the federal government acted to rectify that acknowledged violation of federal law through a negotiated practice, Harvard cried retaliation,” the attorneys general said in their own brief. “Its characterization of its refusal to follow federal nondiscrimination law as First Amendment speech is sheer chutzpah.”
They continued, “There is strong evidence of Harvard’s discriminatory animus, and the First Amendment does not shield it from consequences. This court should deny summary judgement and allow the federal government to proceed with enforcing the law. Perhaps if Harvard faces consequences for violating federal antidiscrimination law, it will finally stop violating federal antidiscrimination law.”
Trump addressed a potential “deal” to settle the matter with Harvard last Friday, writing on his Truth Social platform, saying a “deal will be announced over the next week or so” while praising the university’s legal counsel for having “acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right.” He added, “If a settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”
To date, Harvard has held its own against the federal government, building a war chest with a massive bond sale and notching a recent legal victory in the form of an injunction granted by a federal job which halted the administration’s restrictions on its international students — a policy that is being contested in a separate lawsuit. Garber has reportedly confirmed that the administration and Trump are discussing an agreement that would be palatable to all parties.
According to a report published by The Harvard Crimson on Thursday, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
The Crimson added, “He also did not discuss how close a deal could be and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying on steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the University and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media as US Attorney General Pam Bondi and US Attorney General Todd Blanche listen, on June 27, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect
The University of Virginia (UVA) is without a president following the reported resignation of James Ryan, a move which the US Justice Department stipulated as a condition of settling a civil rights case brought against the institution over its practicing racial preferences in admissions and hiring, a policy it justified as fostering “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).
As first reported by The New York Times, Ryan tendered his resignation in a letter to the university’s corporate board on Thursday, noting that he had originally intended to step down at the conclusion of the 2025-2026 academic year. Recent events hastened the decision, the Times added, including several board members’ insisting that Ryan leave to prevent the institution’s losing “hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding” that the Trump administration would have impounded had he remained in office.
Ryan drew the scrutiny of the Justice Department, having allegedly defied a landmark Supreme Court ruling which outlawed establishing racial identity as the determinant factor for admission to the university as well as a series of executive orders US President Donald Trump issued to shutter DEI initiatives being operated in the public and private sectors. Such programs have been accused of fostering a new “anti-white” bigotry which penalizes individual merit and undermines the spirit of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement by, for example, excluding white males from jobs and prestigious academic positions for which they are qualified.
Another DEI-adjacent practice was identified at UVA in 2024, when the Equal Protection Project, a Rhode Island based nonprofit, filed a civil rights complaint against the university which argued that its holding a BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) Alumni-Student Mentoring Program is discriminatory, claiming no public official would think it appropriate to sanction a mentoring program for which the sole membership criterion is being white. UVA later changed the description of the program, claiming that it is open to “all races, ethnicities, and national origins” even as it stressed that it was “created with BIPOC students in mind.”
The university’s tactics were allegedly employed to hide other DEI programs from lawmakers and taxpayers, with Ryan reportedly moving and concealing them behind new names. He quickly exhausted the patience of the Trump Justice Department, which assumed office only months after the BIPOC program was reported to federal authorities.
“This is further demonstration that the Trump administration is brutally serious about enforcement of civil rights laws. This will send shock waves throughout higher education, and it should,” Kenneth Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told The Algemeiner on Friday, commenting on the news. “It is a clear message that university leaders will be held accountable, personally and professionally, if they fail to ensure their institutions’ compliance.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the Trump administration is leading a campaign against colleges and universities it has deemed as soft on campus antisemitism or excessively “woke.” Over the past several months, the administration has imposed catastrophic financial sanctions on elite universities including Harvard and Columbia, rattling a higher education establishment against which conservatives have lodged a slew of criticisms for decades. The actions coincide with a precipitous drop in public support for academia caused by an explosion of pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses and the promotion of views which many Americans perceive as anti-meritocratic, anti-Western, and racist.
Since January, the administration has impounded $3 billion in Harvard’s federal funds over the institution’s refusal to agree to a wishlist of policy reforms that Republican lawmakers have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Contained in a letter the administration sent to Harvard interim president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — the policies called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implore Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
Columbia University has announced that it acceded to similar demands put forth by the Trump administration as prerequisites for the restoration of its federal funds — including a review of undergraduate admissions practices that allegedly discriminate against qualified Jewish applicants, the enforcement of an “anti-mask” policy that protesters have violated to avoid being identified by law enforcement, and enhancements to the university’s security protocols that would facilitate the restoration of order when the campus is disturbed by unauthorized demonstrations.
Harvard is reportedly prepared to strike a deal with Trump as well, according to a Thursday report by The Harvard Crimson.
Garber, the paper said, held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
The Crimson added, “He also did not discuss how close a deal could be and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying on steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the university and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
Meanwhile, others continue to argue that Trump’s reforms of higher education threaten to mire the university in politics while describing Ryan’s resignation as a setback for academic freedom.
“It is a sign that major public research universities are substantially controlled by a political party whose primary goal is to further its partisan agenda and will stop at nothing to bring the independence of higher education to heel,” Michigan State University professor Brendan Cantwell told Inside Higher Ed on Friday. “It undercuts both the integrity of academic communities as self-governing based on the judgement of expert professionals and the traditional accountability that public universities have to their states via formal and established governance mechanisms.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration first appeared on Algemeiner.com.