RSS
Under New Editor, the Wall Street Journal Is Misreporting Facts About Israel
Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker is making changes at the venerable publication, pushing more “life-style stories with snappy headlines” in the news section — and she’s reportedly downsized, if not gutted, the standards desk that handles corrections. She’s eliminated an editing team “responsible for prepublication review of sensitive stories.”’
The new direction, as described in a National Review story, resonates alarmingly for many readers of the newspaper who have long counted on its fact-focused, serious coverage, but find something very different today. For many, the increasingly skewed, factually shoddy coverage of Israel is a striking indicator of the wider shift in the paper’s tenor and content.
Reporter Omar Abdel-Baqui could be the poster child for this new Wall Street Journal.
One “sensitive” story of his with far too little fact-checking and editorial oversight was a June 15 account focused on the disappointments of young Gen Z Palestinians. Much of the bias of the piece stems from relentless omission of critical information. The online title, “Gen Z Palestinians See Door Slamming Shut on Coexistence with Israel,” perfectly conveys the deceptions and distortions that follow.
What the article fails to mention is that many Palestinians are themselves the door-slammers. There’s no hint in the story that the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly refused an independent and peaceful state next to the Jewish State of Israel. There’s no suggestion the melancholy Gen Z Palestinian teens who are cast as buffeted by upheaval and uncertainty should blame their own autocratic leaders for ruining their lives. (The print version was similarly titled: “Gen Z Palestinians Have Little Hope for Peace.”)
Striking photographs accompany the story. A 15-year-old girl fully clothed in black, and wearing a keffiyeh, poses floating on her back in the Persian Gulf, gazing skyward — as if in a fashion spread. A displaced Gazan from a wealthy family, the young woman also appears elsewhere in the online version of the story standing fully clothed in the water, expressionless. This could be Teen Vogue.
Abdel-Baqui recounts various harsh political events that have ostensibly shaped the lives of the young woman and fellow Palestinian teens, but he continuously omits facts key to an accurate understanding of how Palestinians themselves are culpable for their circumstances. Thus Abdel-Baqui writes:
“Though their parents recall an era of hope amid the 1990’s Oslo Accords, the latest breakthrough agreement between the two sides, Palestinians under the age of 25 – who comprise most of the population – say the door to coexistence with Israelis always felt barely ajar. It has been slammed shut since Oct. 7.”
The repetitive door metaphor omits how exactly that “era of hope” and “door to coexistence” surrounding Oslo was blocked.
There is no mention of Palestinian terrorists blowing up Israeli buses, cafes, and religious events in the wake of the 1993 Oslo agreements. The terror attacks began only six months after the September 1993 agreement — in 1994 in Afula, Hadera, and then Tel Aviv. The bloodletting intensified in 1995 and 1996, when gruesome mass bombings occurred in Jerusalem, Ramat Gan, Beit Lid, and elsewhere. All the while, Israel continued attempting to implement Oslo measures aimed at getting to an “end of the conflict” predicated on Yasser Arafat’s false pledge to resolve disagreements peacefully.
Obviously, there’s no suggestion in the article that Gen Z parents were wishing their ruthless, corrupt leaders had been different human beings and accepted Israel’s extended hand. So reference to the parents wistfully recalling an era of Oslo peace only to be let down is an egregious deception characteristic of the entire piece.
In relaying the pain and disappointment of other Gen Z Palestinians, Abdel-Baqui refers to the sealing off of the West Bank after October 7 and how it prevented friendly Palestinian interaction with Israelis, and before that, the building of a “barrier across much of the military-occupied West Bank” because of a “Palestinian uprising known as the Second Intifada.”
The reporter notes that Israeli “skepticism grew during the Second Intifada when Palestinian militants launched suicide bombings across Israel and deepened after Oct. 7, leading many Israelis to conclude they can’t trust Palestinians.”
Once more, there’s not the slightest hint by the Wall Street Journal reporter that the Second Intifada and the security barrier were results of Palestinian rejection of coexistence and peace. The Gen Z’ers and their families are cast as innocents simply looking for an open door if Israel would only offer one. The formulation is a lie insofar as it overlooks critical facts such as those cited above and many related ones.
Abdel-Baqui could have written a genuinely significant story probing the predicament of young Palestinians betrayed by “leaders” like Yahya Sinwar who, far from promoting their safety and happiness, use them as shields for Hamas gunmen, situating rockets, and tunnel openings in their family homes. As is well known, Hamas fighters themselves hide in tunnels while leaving Palestinian women and children exposed to Israeli targeting of the terrorists and their rocket launchers and other military hardware.
What is it like for teenagers to live in that world?
How do Gen Z Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank feel about a regime that rejects peaceful coexistence and leaders who seize Israeli children, young women, and elderly hostages and torment them, some in underground dungeons? What exactly have they been taught about Jews? Did Abdel-Baqui ask any of them how they felt about the mass rape of young Israeli women on October 7? Have young Palestinians been so indoctrinated in Jew-hatred that rape, murder of children, and hostage-taking are acceptable? That would have been a worthwhile question to probe and report.
Perhaps as well, given the widespread belief that Jews are interlopers in the land of Israel, it would have been worthwhile to probe what Gen Z’ers make of the countless archeological sites and artifacts literally everywhere in the region marking the long and ancient Jewish presence there. They’re told Jews have no history in the land and must be expelled. Wouldn’t these questions have been important and informative for readers?
Instead of fresh insight, Abdel Baqui’s story hewed to immutable touch points of an immutable fable of total Palestinian innocence in the face of Israeli malevolence. Predictably, in the fable, Jewish settlers and settlements are invoked as major elements of Palestinian victimization. Again, the facts are incomplete, distorted, and false, both in the broad suggestion that it is overwhelmingly non-violent Palestinians on the receiving of gratuitous settler violence, but also in factual details of history.
Abdel-Baqui recounts the deplorable killing of Bilal Saleh by settlers in November 2023 in a period shortly after October 7, when fear and anger on the part of Israelis at the unprecedented Hamas atrocities and the jubilation of West Bank Palestinians over the massacre had fueled tensions. That crime is completely inexcusable — and was treated as such by Israel. But there’s no context provided to explain that the area has been radicalized and militarized, with a massive inflow of arms and the growth of Iranian-supported militias threatening to set off a larger conflict. There’s no mention that most of the Palestinian casualties have been gunmen killed in clashes with Israeli military, or Palestinians killed when shooting, hurling IED’s, stabbing, ramming or otherwise assaulting Israelis. In this tense environment, civilians are sometimes tragically caught in the crossfire.
Nor is there reference to the brutality inflicted on innocent Jews in the West Bank and the mortal dangers they face as in the case, for instance, of the Dee family, a mother and two daughters murdered in April 2023 as they drove in the Jordan Valley to a family gathering. They were shot first from a distance, and when the vehicle crashed, the Palestinian terrorist circled back to shoot them again at close range. There’s no reference to the recent kidnap and murder of a young Israeli shepherd. Such information obviously would offer context to Abdel-Baqui’s one-dimensional fable.
Indicative of the shoddy reporting on settlements, a photo caption asserts that “the number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has ballooned since the 1990’s.”
The opposite is true. The large majority of existing settlements were founded in the 1970s and 1980s (a total of 116), with just seven added in the 1990s and another five in the last 24 years up to the recent present when there has been “tentative” recognition of a possible four of five additional settlements. Thus, there are about 133 settlements with nine or ten founded “since the 1990’s.” The intent of the Journal’s claim is seemingly to suggest rampant Jewish settlement expansion — regardless of the facts.
When alerted that the rate of growth in the number of Israeli settlements has not “ballooned since the 1990’s” but rather declined dramatically compared to earlier decades, the Journal corrections editor refused to correct or clarify.
CAMERA noted in communication with the Journal that the reporter was likely conflating the supposed addition of new settlements with population increase within existing ones which has, indeed, occurred, and urged editors to correct the record on the error. The Journal was, however, content to misinform readers, injecting in the private correspondence reference to counting “illegal outposts”– which are not “settlements” and were not referenced in the original problematic photo caption — and citing the partisan claims of Peace Now.
The lesson of the exchange was the striking indifference of the Journal to adhering to professional standards mandating accuracy.
More serious is another uncorrected error Journal editors have chosen to promote in their coverage. The news pages have rhetorically awarded the West Bank to the Palestinians — having decided to refer to the West Bank as “Palestinian land” or “Palestinian territory.” Of course, the land is not Palestinian but rather disputed until, per the Oslo Accords to which the Israelis and Palestinians are signatories, there is a negotiated agreement on the disposition of the territory.
Nevertheless, the Journal is standing by an erroneous statement by Yaroslav Trofimov from December 1, 2023, that Israel “has maintained military occupation over Palestinian territories since 1967.” Indeed, the paper has doubled down, and is now regularly publishing this factually false terminology. as Abdel-Baqui did repeatedly on July 19, 2024
Previously on May 17, 2020, the publication had promptly corrected the same error, noting that “a Page One photo incorrectly referred to those parts of the West Bank as Palestinian territory. Under the Oslo accords, sovereignty over the West Bank is disputed, pending a final peace settlement.” Many other outlets, including the The New York Times, have made similar errors and then set the record straight. The Los Angeles Times just recently corrected the same error
Over the past year, however, and with increasing frequency, possibly coinciding with changes under Emma Tucker, the news pages have declined to address substantive errors that are corrected by other news outlets. Moreover, the tilt of the errors has been markedly in one direction– towards denigrating Israel’s position in the conflict with the Palestinians.
Regarding the false characterization of the entire West Bank as Palestinian, Journal editors have been blunt, telling CAMERA point blank:
“We accept the use of Palestinian territories to refer generally to the West Bank and Gaza.”
CAMERA asked in response: “Given the Journal’s delineating of the West Bank as ‘Palestinian territories’, can you cite … the date and terms of the agreement under the Oslo Accords when the PA and Israel reached a Final Status agreement on the challenging disposition of that territory after Israel’s withdrawal from 40% of the West Bank per Oslo II? What are the territorial lines agreed on under that Final Status Agreement that apply to the remaining 60% of Area C that you designate ‘Palestinian territory’”?
The Journal did not address the questions raised but replied: “The articles are accurate; there aren’t any errors to correct.”
The contempt of Journal news editors for readers and for the norms of ethical journalism in deeming it their prerogative to assign disputed West Bank territory to their preferred party appears to be part of the new regime under Emma Tucker.
Accuracy, impartiality,, and accountability — the precious components of honorable journalism on which a public relies to learn about the world and to help shape reasoned response to events — are on the wane in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal.
Andrea Levin is Executive Director and President of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, where a different version of this article first appeared.
The post Under New Editor, the Wall Street Journal Is Misreporting Facts About Israel 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.