RSS
The Disgusting Lies of Haaretz
“Gaza Is the Horror That Can’t Be Denied. But Israelis Will Try,“ writes Dahlia Scheindlin in a long piece in Haaretz, about the war that’s been going on in Gaza for over a year. Her point is pretty straightforward: Israelis always deny the atrocities they commit, no matter how strong the evidence — and they have been doing so from 1948 until today.
To prove her point, Scheindlin provides a series of cases from the last 76 years in which, she claims, both the State of Israel and Israelis were guilty of horrible crimes, but they refused to acknowledge their guilt, denied the obvious facts, and proclaimed their innocence.
But Scheindlin’s examples can be dismantled and falsified. Indeed, her hit piece against Israel serves as an excellent example of the propaganda war that’s been waged against Israel for decades. The goal of this war is to slander Israel and blame the Jewish State for the most terrible crimes — regardless of the facts.
Genocide and War Crimes in Gaza
Scheindlin starts with the worst accusation of all: genocide, and how both Palestinians and Israelis respond to this accusation:
And nothing inflames the debate more than the word “genocide.”
For Palestinians, genocide is a descriptive fact – anything else is a lie. For international courts, it is a legal convention, the International Court of Justice is deliberating South Africa’s charges, according to a high bar of evidence… For many Israelis, the word is an antisemitic plot and a lie.
Israel’s government already flatly denies lesser charges – war crimes, ethnic cleansing, a second Nakba…
In other words: for the Palestinians, genocide is being waged against them; for Israelis, the accusation is baseless; and the independent body of jurists — the International Court of Justice (ICJ — will decide who’s right. And in any case, even if there is no genocide, it’s clear that Israel is guilty of war crimes, which it also denies.
But the rejection of the claim that Israel commit systematic war crimes is not unique to Israel. In fact, it is consensus amongst non-Israeli military experts — high officers and scholars of war and military affairs from democratic countries who examined, studied and expressed their professional conclusion about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
And the experts’ conclusion is that Israel does not engage in deliberate and unnecessary killing of civilians, and that it abides by the laws of war.
Among these experts are John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, who said:
Israel has followed the laws of war, legal obligations, best practices in civilian harm mitigation and still found a way to reduce civilian casualties to historically low levels.
Sir John McColl, former Deputy Commander of NATO Forces: “I know Israel’s doing all it can to save civilians.”
Andrew Fox, lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst: “…all the actions they have taken since [Oct 7], are justified both morally and from a national security perspective.”
Geoffrey Corn, Chair of Military Law at Texas Tech Univ. & Lt Col US Army, and Lt. General George Smith: “Israel consistently implements its legal obligation to avoid, whenever feasibly, [civilian deaths].”
Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of the British troops in Afghanistan: “No army takes more precaution than the Israel Defense Forces in order to prevent civil casualties.”
Vincenzo Camporini, former head of the Italian armed forces, together with a group of retired generals from UK & US militaries: “[The] IDF has developed and implemented innovative procedures to mitigate the risk to civilians arising from attacks on valid military objectives.”
Others who support this view include Gen. Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of the American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And a group of 7 US high ranking officers concluded in a special report that: Israel’s “[in] overall compliance with the Laws of Armed Conflict.”
There is no parallel group of that level who accuses Israel of violating the laws of war, or in deliberate unnecessary mass murder of civilian population. This is not “Israeli denialism.” Rather, it is the consensus amongst the relevant professionals.
“The Nakba” — 1948
Then Scheindlin turns to Israel’s great “original sin”: the flight of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from what became Israel, during the 1948 War of Independence. Here too, Israel denied its guilt and concealed the truth:
Israel’s leadership classified the archives related to the Nakba during the War of Independence, while David Ben-Gurion painstakingly cultivated the idea that most Palestinians left at their leaders’ instruction… Archives were declassified, scholars pieced together terrible truths, and Israel reclassified the material.
What “terrible truths” were revealed with the declassification of the archives?
The historian Professor Benny Morris, the prominent researcher of those archives in the early 1980s, concluded his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem with these words:
The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians (p. 286).
About 20 years later, more archival materials were declassified, and they brought Morris to somewhat revise his findings:
Birth Revisited describes many more atrocities and expulsions than were recorded in the original version of the book. But, at the same time, a far greater proportion of the 700,000 Arab refugees were ordered or advised by their fellow Arabs to abandon their homes than I had previously registered. It is clear from the new documentation that the Palestinian leadership in principle opposed the Arab flight from December 1947 to April 1948, while at the same time encouraging or ordering a great many villages to send away their women, children and old folk, to be out of harm’s way. Whole villages, especially in the Jewish- dominated coastal plain, were also ordered to evacuate.
In other words: the declassification of the archives revealed a reality of harsh war, and not unprecedented atrocities committed by Israel. In addition, even if most Arabs didn’t leave at the behest of their leaders, it was definitely true for many of them. This idea is not an invention of David Ben-Gurion, but a simple historical fact, which Dahlia Scheindlin happens to dislike.
The Tantura “Massacre” Affair
Scheindlin also mentions the story of the massacre that he IDF allegedly committed in the Arab village Tantura in 1948, according to the MA dissertation by Teddy Katz from 1998, which sparked an uproar:
Fellow academics unleashed smear campaigns and interviewees retracted their testimonies to Teddy Katz, whose master’s thesis chronicled a massacre by Israeli forces at Tantura in 1948 (that story is captured in an astonishing, eponymous film).
How many lies can be put in one sentence? First, there was no “smear campaign” by “fellow academics.” There were veteran, reputable historians who published their findings that there is no evidence of a massacre in Tantura, and that Teddy Katz’s thesis does not meet minimal academic standards.
Second of all, Katz’s interviewees did not “retract their testimonies.” They sued him, claiming that he distorted their testimonies unrecognizably, in order to support his pre-determined conclusion. And indeed, the trial revealed significant gaps between the recorded testimonies and how they have been quoted in the thesis, as well as other distortions and lies.
The Al-Dura Affair
Dahlia Scheindlin’s piece reaches the beginning of the first Intifada:
In recent years, denial efforts often focus on individual cases, picking apart tiny details to prove Israel’s innocence… Examples of these micro-denials include a cottage industry that emerged over years to prove that 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura was not killed by Israeli fire in 2000, during the second intifada
The phrase “cottage industry” refers to “a business or manufacturing activity carried on in a person’s home.” That is, Scheindlin insinuates that the claims that Israel didn’t kill Mohammed al-Dura are based on some conspiracy theorists who investigated the case privately.
This claim has no basis. An Israeli investigative commission determined that the case of al-Durrah’s death was unclear, and that at the end of the infamous video supposedly showing his demise, the boy is seen alive. Moreover, the barrage of bullets that struck the boy could not have been fired from an IDF position, according to an Israeli police forensic expert, who took part in investigating the case. Dr. Yehuda David, who claimed to have already treated bullet scars on al-Durrah in 1994, was acquitted in a libel suit filed against him in French court.
But even if Sheindlin claims that all the above investigations and conclusions are Israeli propaganda, two main points stand:
- The video clip showing al-Durrah’s death contains zero evidence that the IDF killed the boy.
- Even if we accept the unproven allegation that al-Durrah died by IDF fire, he was not intentionally murdered, but rather caught in the crossfire between Israelis and armed Palestinians.
Which raises the question: why is Mohammed al-Dura’s death discussed 24 years after the event? The reason? It serves as a major propaganda tool to incite terrorism and murder against Jews and Israelis. That’s why it became a symbol.
Scheindlin is blind to the fact that in her efforts to malign Israel she only exposes the nature of anti-Israeli propaganda.
The Explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital
Scheindlin uses another case of the Palestinian propaganda, which in contrast to the al-Dura case, failed to become a major source for anti-Israeli propaganda:
If a terrible incident is wrongly attributed to Israel – such as the explosions at the Al-Ahli hospital early in the war, most likely by misfired munitions from Palestinian militias – this is leveraged as proof that Israel is innocent in all other cases.
Reminder: In the hour following the explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital on October 17 2023, Hamas authorities claimed that Israel bombed the hospital and the people in it. The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced that 500 people were killed by the blast. Many major international media outlets accepted the Palestinian version as is, and delivered it to the world.
Only in the hours and days afterwards did evidence accumulate proving that it was a fabrication.
Media outlets and intelligence agencies around the world reached the conclusion: a failed Palestinian rocket hit the hospital’s parking lot, and the number of dead was lower by orders of magnitude than the initial claim.
Scheindlin doesn’t provide an example for someone who claims the Al-Ahli case proves that “Israel is innocent in all other cases.” But the case does showcase the motivation of the industry of lies to defame Israel at every opportunity, as well as the willingness of the international media to embrace every anti-Israeli lie, as long as that lie is not clearly exposed.
Northern Gaza
Finally, Scheindlin moves to discuss the IDF’s activity in the Northern Gaza Strip in recent weeks:
Israel is still starving, bombing and expelling the population of northern Gaza. Many suspect it is implementing the “General’s Plan,” which seeks to empty northern Gaza of Palestinians…
She also describes the proceedings in Israeli court regarding the paucity of humanitarian supplies entering northern Gaza. She writes about the call of Israeli settler leaders and coalition members to establish settlements there. The conclusion is clear: Israel is slaughtering, starving, and expelling hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to build settlements in their stead.
Meanwhile, this is the version of the IDF regarding the operation in Northern Gaza Strip (as far as Scheindlin is concerned, this is merely typical Israeli “denialism”):
The Israel Defense Forces said Sunday that troops had encircled Jabaliya amid a new ground operation targeting efforts by Hamas to reestablish itself in northern Gaza. […]
Amid the expanded operation, the IDF announced on Sunday that it was preparing to evacuate civilians from the entire north of Gaza and would increase the size of the Israeli-designated humanitarian zone in the southern Strip.
The zone, where the vast majority of the Gazan population currently reside, is where most humanitarian aid is being delivered. There are also field hospitals there.
The military also said it was opening up two evacuation routes for Palestinians — along the Salah a-Din road and the coastal road.
The evacuation order’s purpose, according to the IDF, is to minimize the damage to the Palestinian population, while fighting Hamas and preventing the terror organization from tightening its hold in the region.
Which version should we believe — the IDF’s or Dahlia Scheindlin’s?
Well, it’s easy to believe Sceindlin if we ignore the military reality on the ground and Hamas’ modus operandi. And Hamas’ reality on the ground, as explained by a recent document by the Washington Institute, is that Hamas is maintaining “shadow governance” wherever the IDF hasn’t cleared completely of the terror organization’s presence:
Hamas has employed various methods to demonstrate a presence on the ground, provide essential emergency services to the people, and—most important—prevent any other potential players from stepping into its shoes.
These methods include, among others, taking over the humanitarian aid and its distribution to the population; establishment of terror command centers and ammo depots well inside the civilian population; and violently preventing civilians from leaving to the humanitarian zones, including by shooting those who dare evacuate.
These are the conditions that Hamas created, which require evacuating the civilians, in order to fulfill the two goals: to end Hamas’ rule in Gaza, and to minimize civilian casualties.
Regarding the expansion of humanitarian zones, Scheindlin writes:
The IDF says it has expanded the humanitarian zones for Gazans, but Tania Hary, executive director of Gisha, an Israeli NGO working on human rights in Gaza and the lead petitioner, rejects that term: “There is nothing actually humanitarian about the humanitarian zone … there’s not enough aid or shelter for people there, and airstrikes still take place in the zone
And again, it’s very easy to portray Israel as a monster, as long as we ignore Hamas’ existence and the ways it chooses to operate throughout Gaza, even a year after it chose to start a war. And so Scheindlin hides from her readers the systematic theft of humanitarian supplies by Hamas; Hamas officials who hide in the humanitarian zones; the firing of rockets from those zones; and the use of humanitarian zones to establish command centers, weapon workshops, ammunition storages, and bases to launch attacks against Israeli forces.
Conclusion
It’s very easy to incriminate the Jewish State and portray her in a monstrous light, when you believe any lie that her enemies tell about her, and dismiss any evidence that exonerates Israel as worthless “denialism.” That how Dahlia Scheindlin dismisses the professional assessments of military experts regarding Israel’s conduct of war; what historians say about the 1948 war; the real meaning of the al-Dura and Al-Ahli hospital affairs; and what’s going on in the Northern Gaza Strip and the humanitarian zones.
Dahlia Scheindlin wanted to write an indictment against the Israelis’ propensity to reject and deny their crimes. But ironically, the manifest that she wrote is a good example of the way Israel’s haters would blame the Jewish State for anything, disregarding inconvenient facts.
Shlomi Ben Meir is a contributor to CAMERA, where a version of this article first appeared.
The post The Disgusting Lies of Haaretz 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.