RSS
J Street’s Dishonest, Anti-Israel, Anti-Peace, Anti-Democracy Manifesto
J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami addressing the 2019 J Street National Conference. Photo: J Street via Flickr.
JNS.org – Since its founding, J Street has established itself as a far-left extremist organization that represents only a sliver of American Jewry. However, it attracts disproportionate media attention because it serves as a “man bites dog” story—Jews who oppose Israel. J Street published a 10-point manifesto to rationalize its positions, but its raison d’être can be summarized in a single sentence: To lobby the US government to impose the views of a small group residing far from Israel, who neither participate in its elections nor contribute their children to its military, upon the people of Israel, who alone bear the consequences of these misguided policies.
J Street’s manifesto opens by graciously acknowledging that “Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people,” but it quickly distorts history. It fails to mention that, beginning with the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the international community recognized the Jewish people’s right to a national home in Palestine. Nor does it acknowledge that two-thirds of the land originally designated for the Jewish homeland was unilaterally excised to create Jordan.
The root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, stems from the Islamist desire to eradicate the Jewish people—a goal first championed in the 1920s by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Hitler-collaborating Mufti of Jerusalem. By 1947, Palestinians had already rejected multiple statehood offers, including the 1937 Peel Plan, the 1939 British White Paper and the 1947 U.N. partition plan. Instead of negotiating, Arab nations launched a war intended to annihilate Israel, not create a Palestinian state. The outcome of the war was the 19-year occupation of the West Bank by Jordan and of Gaza by Egypt. During that period, there were no demands by the Palestinians, the United Nations, human-rights organizations, campus activists or anyone else to end the occupation and create a Palestinian state. J Street conveniently ignores the repeated Palestinian refusals of autonomy in 1979 and statehood offers in 2000 and 2008.
Contrary to its assertion, Palestine was never the national home of the Palestinian people. The Jewish people trace their indigeneity to the Land of Israel to their exile from Egypt. If it had not been for foreign conquerors, Israel would be more than 3,000 years old. Still, Jews have been sovereign in their homeland altogether for more than 500 years. Arabs did not arrive in what the Romans first called Palaestina until the seventh-century Muslim conquest, and “Palestine” was never an independent state. In the early 20th century, Palestinian nationalism was not driven by a desire for independence but by the aspiration to become part of Greater Syria.
J Street claims that most American Jews support a Palestinian state. However, a May 2024 poll found that only 12% supported a state with no conditions, while just 25% would accept one that is demilitarized and accepts Israel as a Jewish state. What Americans think is irrelevant anyway. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians want a Palestinian state.
- A February 2025 survey by the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs found that 75% of Israeli Jews opposed a Palestinian state.
- A 2024 PSR survey reported that 57% of Palestinians opposed a two-state solution, while 48% supported violent “armed struggle.”
Despite these facts, J Street insists that the two-state solution is the only way forward and that granting Palestinians independence is essential to guarantee Israelis’ safety. However, history has disproven this notion. Israel gave up land in the Oslo Accords and got suicide bombings; it withdrew from Gaza and got missile attacks culminating in the horrors of Oct. 7. Palestinian Islamists reject any Jewish presence, and the “secular” Palestinian Authority is committed to the destruction of Israel in stages.
J Street insists peace requires “statesmanship, diplomacy and compromise,” three characteristics totally absent from Palestinian society. It also overlooks that their vision would require the politically unacceptable evacuation of 100,000 or more Israelis from their homes.
J Street speciously claims that the “occupation” prevents its “acceptance.” This is demonstrably false. Israel has relations with 159 out of the 193 U.N. member states. Regionally, the Arab-Israeli conflict is over. Israel has formal relations with Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates.
J Street claims Israel’s policies threaten bipartisan support in the United States, yet Congress overwhelmingly backs Israel. Efforts to condition foreign aid, supported by J Street, were rejected.
J Street insists that American Jews can be “pro-Israel” while criticizing the Israeli government. However, Israelis have no obligation to listen to those who don’t live with the consequences. J Street lobbies the US government to coerce Israel’s democratically elected leaders, which is neither democratic nor pro-Israel.
J Street ignores that Israel was ready to withdraw from captured territories in exchange for peace after 1967, only to be met with the Arab League’s “Three No’s”: no peace, no recognition and no negotiations. The 2009 Fatah conference reiterated this stance: no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to armed struggle.
In yet another omission, J Street says that Israel’s “occupation” was supposed to be temporary, forgetting that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, the basis for all peace talks, tied Israeli withdrawal to the Arab states ending their belligerency. Israel was not obligated to give up all the territory it captured but still withdrew from roughly 94%. The Palestinians were not mentioned and given no political rights.
J Street criticizes Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, but says nothing about the repression of Palestinian rights by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
During the Obama administration, most Jews disagreed with his call to halt settlement construction. In 2019, only 25% supported dismantling all settlements; 41% supported dismantling some, while 28% opposed dismantling any. Meanwhile, a December 2024 poll found that only 29% of Israeli Jews opposed annexation, while 40% supported it.
The manifesto calls for “The 23-State Solution.” This is interesting because opponents of Palestinian statehood have long pointed out that since there are already 22 Arab states, there is no reason for a 23rd. Many people also note that Jordan is both geographically and demographically a Palestinian state. Yet another fact is that most Palestinians live in what was historically Palestine.
J Street falsely equates the “historical and emotional ties” to the land of Palestinians and Jews. They argue that adding another Arab state will lead to Israel’s acceptance by its adversaries and global recognition. The former, however, cannot be placated, and the latter has already been achieved.
The fact that all the peace agreements with Israel were made without concessions to the Palestinians proves that they are unnecessary. The Abraham Accords succeeded because the UAE and Bahrain were fed up with Palestinian intransigence and decided to put their interests first. J Street argues that Saudi Arabia will be different; however, the Saudis will likely follow the example of the others who normalized ties with Israel and bypassed the Palestinians—provided they get what they want from the United States.
J Street backs a return to the disastrous Iran nuclear deal and advocates a “diplomacy-first approach,” oblivious to the fruitless negotiations pursued by the Biden administration that allowed Iran to advance to the point it has the uranium to build multiple weapons.
Point eight reminds us that J Street added pro-democracy to its tagline. The problem is that it doesn’t support democracy unless the outcome suits its needs. The group rejects the democratic process in Israel because it disagrees with the representatives chosen by the people. The group also claims to support bipartisanship, yet it exclusively funds Democrats, including those who are openly hostile to Israel.
Regarding combating antisemitism, J Street defends antisemitic rhetoric under the guise of “criticism of Israel.” It falsely claims that right-wing groups exaggerate campus antisemitism while Jewish students face unprecedented harassment almost exclusively from the left. They mention “longstanding allies,” but not the fact that many turned on and often expelled Jewish students while endorsing Hamas. J Street defends radical groups that glorify terrorism, opposes anti-boycott legislation and objects to effective methods for motivating administrators to protect Jewish students.
Like other demonizers of Israel, J Street speciously attacks the internationally recognized (including the United States) definition of antisemitism proffered by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism by ignoring its explicit declaration: “Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
In its final catchall point that “everything else also matters,” J Street argues Jewish voters are not hawkish single-issue Israel voters. True, Jews don’t rank Israel high among the issues that determine their vote, and yet they consistently vote for pro-Israel candidates and oppose those who are anti-Israel.
The manifesto complains about “powerful and well-funded” lobbies, meaning AIPAC, which have those traits because they represent the bulk of the pro-Israel community. After years of being the largest “pro-Israel” PAC and filling Democratic candidates’ coffers, their funding is now dwarfed by AIPAC’s bipartisan support.
Reflecting its anti-democratic agenda, J Street denigrates “hawkish” voters, meaning conservative and Orthodox Jews who, in the last election, overwhelmingly favored Donald Trump in part or whole because of his positions on Israel. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, received the lowest percentage of the Jewish vote of any Democrat since Michael Dukakis, partly due to President Joe Biden’s policy toward Israel.
J Street pretends to represent Jewish interests, but its actions tell a different story. It supports policies that endanger Israel, disregards the will of Israelis and Arabs, and undermines Israel’s democracy.
The post J Street’s Dishonest, Anti-Israel, Anti-Peace, Anti-Democracy Manifesto first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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.