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
What, no love for Ben Carson at HUD?
Powerline has an update today. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/princeton-responds-to-the-department-of-education.php It appears that Princeton is trying to brazen it out. Don’t think it’s going to work. At least, I profoundly hope it doesn’t.
Sounds like “Just because WE said we’re racist, doesn’t mean YOU can!”
Maybe the racism they confess to is extra-legal meta-racism that cannot be quantified or listed on a Title VI certification.
The funny thing here is that Devos is just the adult in the room trying to save Princeton from itself.
She’s like the mom who shows up at the “peaceful protest” her daughter is attending, eyes the flames in the distance, rolls down the car window, and says, “Get in honey; we’re going home.”
I agree that it won’t work because the DoE letter demanded specifics: Who was damaged and how were they damaged by Princeton’s admitted persistent racism? Princeton’s preliminary response appears to be an attempt to deflect by focusing on “the nation’s history and the current effects of systemic racism” and to hide behind vague words and phrases such as “maintaining a community where all can thrive” and “systemic racism.”
The statement that Princeton “stands by its representations to the Department and the public that it complies with all laws and regulations governing equal opportunity, non-discrimination and harassment,” might suggest their line of defense. That is, we met the letter of the law, we did what the regulations told us to do. If the law wasn’t sufficient that’s not Princeton’s fault, the fault lies with the law’s inadequacy.
They may also highlight areas in which they went beyond the letter of the law in order to deal with the law’s “emanations and penumbras.”
None of that, however, is responsive to the DoE’s demand for specifics. Eisgruber’s open letter flatly stated that Princeton’s persistent racism hurt people. Princeton still needs to identify who was hurt and how.
And if Princeton says that there is no systemic racism, then that is the first major thrust in the argument against the existence of systemic racism. Someone would finally be telling the truth, that systemic racism has no clothes.
I don’t think the effort is to prosecute but to call “systemic racism’s” bluff.
The statement that Princeton released today in response is disingenuous:
There was nothing in the DoE letter that said this. What they did say was: Given your official statements made by the President of the University, you raise a question as to whether your certifications in the past were correct. If those certifications were in fact not correct and/or you have been discriminatory notwithstanding your representations in the past, you are then in violation of the law.
@ Saint Augustine
Their students sure thought they meant it as they marched through city streets hurling frozen water bottles here and there.
Another good piece about this in City Journal: https://www.city-journal.org/systemic-racism-princeton
Brilliant! Mind if I post this on FB.
As an example of political trollery, this is brilliant and thoroughly enjoyable.
However, what it the teeth is this, other than making the Princeton president’s and General Counsel’s lives miserable for a few months? In the B-H / H-B administration this will be dropped like a hot potato.
True. Once the Democrats are in office we will be forced to bend knee and declare our white racism.
I think it is a bit more than trollery. If Biden gets a clear win on 11/3 then, yes, it’s over. But the odds are that the outcome of the election is not known until 2021. You’ve got production deadlines that are coming due before then. You have penalties for failure to comply. If Trump wins you have made your position even worse if you don’t take the investigation seriously and or take steps to walk back the “confession.” They will want to do as much as they can to delay in the hopes of a Biden win, but they will adopt some middle strategy and not simply stand on their posturing. There will be discussions amongst trustees about this. This will not simply be filed in the dead letter box as you would with normal trolling. This is work and expense.
Which? Weirdos or honest? Or younger?
Was the DOE one of those departments that stocked up on guns and ammo during the Obama administration?
I think he meant homeschooling parents, but embrace the power of “and.”
Weirdos. Homeschooling parents.
“I’m 37; I’m not old.”
Your 37? I thought you were closer to 70
I think so. Mrs. Augustine keeps track of that sort of thing, but the arithmetic seems to check out: 2020-1983.