Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hoist Them On Their Own Petard, Betsy!
I’m a bit giddy with schadenfreude. It’s probably because I’m a nerd of a lawyer.
Betsy DeVos has been a terrific Secretary of Education. Yesterday, her department sent a letter to the President of Princeton about Princeton’s admission of racism. Here are some excerpts (citations omitted)
Since you became President in 2013, and in exchange for well over $75 million in federal Title IV taxpayer funds alone, Princeton University (“Princeton”) has repeatedly represented and warranted to the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) Princeton’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . .. Title VI provides no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal assistance. Also, Princeton has made many material nondiscrimination and equal opportunity representations to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates during this time.
On September 2, 2020, you admitted Princeton’s educational program is and for decades has been racist. Among other things, you said “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton . . .” and “[r]acist assumptions . . . remain embedded in structures of the University itself.” . . . Because of racism, you announced race-based “diversity” measures for hiring, procurement, teaching, fellowship, and research funding.
Based on its admitted racism, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false. The Department is further concerned Princeton perhaps knew, or should have known, these assurances were false at the time they were made. Finally, the Department is further concerned Princeton’s many nondiscrimination and equal opportunity claims to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false, misleading, and actionable substantial misrepresentations in violation of [federal statute and regulation]. Therefore, the Department’s Office of Postsecondary Education, in consultation with the Department’s Office of the General Counsel, is opening this investigation.
. . .
Based on the facts, the Secretary of Education may consider measures against Princeton for false Program Participation Agreement nondiscrimination assurances, including an action to recover funds. Also, she may consider measures against Princeton for making substantial misrepresentations about the nature of its educational programs, including a fine proceeding. . . .
Wow.
So, your university is racist. Is it, Mr. Princeton President? Then your university lied to the federal government, lied to students, lied to parents, and lied to others, over and over again. Your university repeatedly violated the anti-discrimination law. Give us back all of that federal money, at least $75 million.
An article by the Washington Examiner, which includes the full letter, is here.
The letter demands voluminous records within 21 days, plus answers to written questions, plus the production of the President of Princeton and a corporate representative within 28 days for an interview under oath. A couple of the documents requests are just priceless (if you’re a nerd of a lawyer):
All records concerning, relating to, or referencing Princeton’s “systemic” and/or “embedded” racism, as those terms are used in the President’s Letter. The time frame for this request is January 1, 2013 to the present.
A spreadsheet identifying each person who has, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, been excluded from participation in, been denied the benefits of, or been subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance as a result of Princeton’s racism or “damage” referenced in the President’s Letter.
Then there’s this written question, which must be answered within 21 days:
The President’s Letter admits “Racism and the damage it does to people of color . . . persist(s) at Princeton” and racist assumptions “remain embedded in structures of the University itself.” Do these admissions mean Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances and representations to the Department and/or its students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates have been false and misleading? If not, why not?
Go Betsy! Strike first, strike hard, no mercy sir!
I hope that this is just the first of many such letters and investigations. I hope that the Department of Education is relentless in demanding refund of money and imposing fines for false statements.
BLM delenda est.
Published in Education
Ka boom!
Schadenfreude! Schadenfreude!
Makes the whole world less annoyed.
This could be fun to watch!
I’m sure a bunch of universities, government-funded social service agencies, and other entities have made this summer similar “we’re all irredeemably racist” statements pandering to the “woke” mob, statements that deserve comparison to the nondiscrimination statements as part of the contracting process.
When pandering to an audience (in this case the “woke” mob), one should at least remember what one said while pandering to a prior audience (government bureaucrats).
This by itself is an argument for re-electing Trump – this lawsuit has to keep going beyond Jan 20th.
Because you know it gets dropped day one in a Harris-Biden administration.
Pardon me for being ignorant, I guess. But I want this to be more than just trollery, and I don’t understand what more it is exactly.
As trollery goes, it would be magnificent. Super-hilarious and well-deserved. Rich, dark covfefe!
Go, Betsy, go!!!
She needs to pursue this with the entire Ivy League and then work her way through the state universities. Better hire more investigators! (You want this gig, @arizonapatriot, I know you do! You can clean up the 3 major AZ state universities.)
And expand the Education Department’s SWAT Team.
Made my day. That is the best thing I’ve read in a while. Go Betsy!
Interesting idea. There’s a federal false claims statute called the qui tam law that allows a private plaintiff to assert a federal claim, if the feds don’t proceed after receiving notice. I’m not sure if this would fit in the qui tam category.
The Princeton President’s letter implies that several laws were broken in certifications done by the Federal Government and that civil rights violations may have occurred. Why would the DoEd investigate?
The certifications were part of money from the DoEd.
Aren’t we all some color or another?. So any deviation form specific requirements for anyone of any color would be discriminatory.
It might be trollery, but it will get the attention of every college in the country. They will be very careful about their virtue signaling in the future. In the end, Princeton has good lawyers and will be able to thread the needle.
Was the Princeton President’s letter even trying to describe any actual facts? Or was it just leftist gobbledygook used to push society leftward?
If the point is merely to call out the leftists on their spouting idiotic ideology, I’m not sure how that’s different from trollery.
On the other hand, maybe it’s actual philosophy. Maybe it’s something along the lines of “Your publicly uttered words actually mean something, and they entail that you’ve broken some laws; therefore you have publicly confessed to crimes. So please go ahead and fill us in on the details.”
Trollish covfefe I can enjoy, and maybe even support. Good philosophy I can enjoy, and unambiguously approve of. I think I can understand both of those things.
But I don’t understand what else this is in terms of law. Is there some legal aspect to this I’m missing entirely? (Maybe I’m trying too hard; maybe it doesn’t even need to be anything else!)
Let’s go with this.
Ah, so . . . as a legal move it warns universities to not spout so much leftist ideology because they might get in trouble with the feds if they join in the BLM “We’re racist too!” craze.
@saintaugustine,I would understand the legal issue as: the university certified itself as compliant with the relevant Title VI provisions, on which federal funding was contingent. If that certification is found to be a misrepresentation or falsification, then the DoE has grounds to demand a refund of the federal taxpayer dollars provided under the umbrella of that certification, plus any statutory financial penalties.
Have I summarized the legal issue correctly, @arizonapatriot?
Your icon picture makes me think you are kinda cheesy orange. Not that there is anything wrong with that, ask our President…
That seems to be the idea. I haven’t reviewed the statutes and regulations involved.
But finding it to be false comes entirely from a leftist ideology screed that wasn’t even meant to describe any actual facts. Or do I understand the situation of the Pr. President’s letter incorrectly?
I’m happy calling them on their nonsense, though: It wasn’t meant to describe facts, but words still have meaning, and you’ve incriminated yourselves, you silly university leftists!
Maybe I just have a hard time thinking of that as a law thing. It seems like philosophy.
But then–why should it be philosophy? Call a philosopher if you need it explained in detail. Law should be able to work with the ordinary meaning of English words. Maybe I should shut up!
It makes for an easy legal case.
The DOEd alleges that Princeton is racially discriminatory. The evidence is the admission of the president of Princeton that this is true. Princeton then has to rebut this. Good luck with that. Apparently, the possible sanctions include recovery of federal funds previously paid, and possible fines for misrepresentations to students, parents, and (unspecified) others.
It’s like bringing a wrongful death case, based on the defendant’s public confession of the killing.
Some colors are more equal than others, apparently.
White isn’t a color. White is the absence of color. White is a hideous nullity, like a fish belly, especially if the fish is rotten and smelly. At least, this seems to be the theory put forward by people like Kendi and DiAngelo. Maybe I’m not clever enough to understand the nuance of their position.
I think my puzzlement stems from an idea that they never meant it when they admitted it.
But then–if that’s what the words mean, they must have admitted it, whether they meant it or not.
The president of the university is a public figure. What he or she publicly announces is not supposed to be a joke. His words are to be taken seriously. If he can’t figure that out, or thought the DoE would wink at it, then he failed to understand the current climate in higher education.
ETA: you know, this makes me think about all the corporations who make public statements about non-discrimination in hiring when they’re recruiting. If they have now gone woke and confessed to “systemic racism,” or some similar woke thoughtcrime, then the plaintiff’s bar could have a field day with them…….
Seems like the options are:
1: “Yes we actually are ‘systemically racist’ ” [in which case they’re in trouble legally]
or
2: ” ‘Systemic racism’ isn’t real racism”. Which would be a great precedent to have on the books.
If you affirm to the government that you are not discriminating and therefore receive (in just the last 7 years, the term of this current Princeton president) over $75 MILLION …. and then this same president publishes an open letter saying – we have been discriminating….then, yeah, you need to give the money back. And maybe get in trouble for lying on federal forms.
Nailed it. They either have to back away from their systemic racist bilge or lose Federal funds and repay those they already received.
As I put it on another thread (or maybe earlier in this thread – I’m not going to go back and check)
“No, you misunderstand. We didn’t mean the illegal kind of racism. We meant the ‘White people are bad’ kind of racism.”
There’s actually a Bible story about this sort of false confession, in the Old Testament. In 2 Samuel 1, a man came to David from the battlefield on Mount Gilboa to report the death of King Saul and his son Jonathan. Seeking to curry favor with David, the man falsely claimed to have killed Saul (at Saul’s request). In fact, Saul had killed himself. The messenger didn’t get the reward that he expected:
(cribbed from my comment in the PIT)
Devos: “Wow, you’re systematically racist? This is a confession? Ok, Susan, call the Justice Department…”
Princeton: