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
It depends? Are we talking additive colors or subtractive colors? Did God use CMYK or RGB when he knitted us together?
FTFY.
Princeton needs an emergency meeting of the board of trustees to fire that racist president.
Depends on whether you are talking about light or pigments. White is all colors in light, no colors in material, like paint for instance.
I love these people. The president of Princeton University says his institution is racist, as if he is just a reporter and has no control over what goes on at his school.
I am a big fan of homeschooling, and I become a bigger fan all the time. When I was younger I thought that those parents were weirdos, to be honest. Now I think many are just smart.
Well, Mrs. Augustine and I sure are.
Every time I see CEOs, university deans and others on TV promising to make their boards or workforces or student bodies more racially diverse, it’s always occurred to me, aren’t they admitting publicly right there that they are violating a federal law? What would happen at such a board meeting if one member objected and said Hey, we’re setting ourselves up to be prosecuted. Because what they are all doing violates the letter of the law. It’s as if there’s an unspoken gentleman’s agreement that only one interpretation of the law will be enforced. That’s a precarious position to be in if you have such a job. All it takes is for a change in a prosecutor’s interpretation of the law to get you in trouble.
My three were all homeschooled (largely due to the determination of my late wife). One is now a senior engineer in an aerospace company (tech fellow level), one is the head of the pipeline engineering department at a civil engineering company. The third does CAD-CAM at a medical device manufacturer and working to finish his engineering degree. YMMV, but I got good results.
7% would be a doubling since 2012 when it was estimated that 3.5% of American children were home-educated. I can’t find any more recent figures with a cursory web-search.
Homeschooling is wonderful if you can swing it. Financially, it’s been tough on us, and I look forward to the day when the kids are done and I can send my wife out to earn some income. But don’t tell her that! ; ) (Three more years! I gotta hang on for three more years!)
I love everything about this story.
Time to grab a tub of buttered popcorn, kick back, and watch the show!
Thought the same thing when the Durham probe kicked off, but now I am worried that all the good stuff was in the preview of coming attractions. (sigh)
I have the impression that pretty much every university (and every corporation for that matter) has made a similar public statement. Is there any reason why the Department of Education shouldn’t do the same thing to every single one (assuming they all receive federal money)?
More, please.
I cling to the perhaps naive hope that Feds cracking down on leftist institutions (ie, holding them to their own standards) will cause some of them to realize that this is what happens when the government is too big.
Legal processes are almost always slow, and when it’s something as serious as going after former senior government officials, you have to make sure every I is dotted and T crossed.
Maybe the EEOC can go after companies who had their CEO’s bow to BLM and made statements like, “we need to do more to stop systemic racism.”
I expect that Princeton will shop around for a Progressive judge who will issue an injunction on the DoE, and things will get bogged down until there’s a new administration. Still, it’s been fun.
If the investigation finds that Princeton University lied on its applications for federal funding then the Department Of Education can take measures to recover those funds. That’s the practical legal application of this investigation.
The effectiveness of this tactic will depend on the precise language used.
The Princeton president confessed that his institution was racist. There may be other universities and companies that issued similar statements. One that I recall was from Brown University — you can read it here.
While the Brown statement is mendacious, black supremacist groveling in my estimation, it does not actually say that Brown is racist. It complains about racism generally. I don’t think that the Brown statement could be used in the same way that the DOEd is using the Princeton statement.
Bravo Betsy!! As Rush says/said, “Words have meaning.”
Could this lead to the Princeton Pres saying, “I take it back I was only pandering.”
The obvious truth is that the president was only pandering, but he would condemn himself in the eyes of the woke if he were to speak this truth. Possibly, the president will be spared any such admission by exploiting legal delay tactics until another administration. If not, the verbal gymnastics that his legal team uses will be interesting.
Would this also apply to government contractors where there are FAR clauses against discrimination?
But doesn’t that still admit that their previous certifications were false?
The theory goes that “yellow” paint isn’t really “yellow,” it actually reflects yellow light (rather than absorb it).
And perhaps a bonus is that the left should go along with it, rather than fight it. It’s all part of eating their own.
All Ts get crossed, one way or another. But not all Is get dotted.
RWTL,
By George, you’ve hit on the, “I was only pandering” defense. Not since “temporary insanity” has there been such an all-purpose defense available. Trial lawyers everywhere are giddy with glee.
Regards,
Jim
I don’t care whether or not anything comes of it, it was a brilliant move!
Jerry: I share your enthusiasm for this action by the Department of Education. If Universities want to ape this mindless progressive mantra about systemic racism, fine. Then give us our money back you racists! Of course this is political, but sadly, that’s the way this game is played these days. Bravo to Secretary DeVos for bringing a gun to the knife fight.
Secretary DeVos is becoming my second favorite Cabinet Secretary. Bill Barr is still #1.