Racism

Department of Education to Investigate Racism at Princeton University

An open letter from the university's President acknowledging pervasive racism at the school prompts an inquiry

|

Tiana Lowe at the Washington Examiner reports:

The Department of Education has informed Princeton University that it is under investigation following the school president's declaration that racism was "embedded" in the institution.

President Christopher L. Eisgruber published an open letter earlier this month claiming that "[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton" and that "racist assumptions" are "embedded in structures of the University itself."

According to a letter the Department of Education sent to Princeton that was obtained by the Washington Examiner, such an admission from Eisgruber raises concerns that Princeton has been receiving tens of millions of dollars of federal funds in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which declares that "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 financial assistance." . . . .

"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 letter reads. "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 20 U.S.C. § 1094(c)(3)(B) and 34 CFR 668.71(c). Therefore, the Department's Office of Postsecondary Education, in consultation with the Department's Office of the General Counsel, is opening this investigation."

Readers may recall that in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases (Gratz and Grutter), some briefs filed in defense of the university's use of race in admissions argued that such use of race should be permissible to ameliorate the effects of the university's own prior racial discrimination. The University of Michigan did not embrace these arguments, however, and the above report helps explain why. Even assuming it was the case that there had been racial discrimination at the University of Michigan, had the university made any such admission to justify its use of race in admissions, it could have opened itself up to liability and prompted a federal inquiry, much like the one Princeton has to deal with now.

NEXT: Wrong But Not En Banc Worthy - D.C. Circuit Decision

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It is racist. They give preferences to blacks. They actively discriminate against Asians.

    Investigation done

    1. racism is like entropy; it only runs in one direction.

      1. I like that. Very clever use of words.

    2. Bakke to the Future!

      1. You’ve got the pun-filled title; all you need is the law review article to go with it.

  2. An affirmative action program focused on descendants of American slaves would be inconsequential to whites and Asians…diversity is a euphemism for overt racism towards whites and Asians. Latinos that come from households in which Spanish is the first language are not and never have been subject to the vile racism descendants of slaves were subjected to and they should not be included affirmative action programs initially implemented to help victims of racism.

    1. By definition, affirmative action is reverse discrimination. Admit more descendants of slaves, admit fewer who weren’t.

      “No consequences” hah!

      1. Wrong, affirmative action is to make up for past racism. You appear to be an idiot so affirmative action would have no impact on your life…lucky for you!

  3. Haw haw haw! “We didn’t actually mean we had pervasive, institutional racism! We’re just playing the game!”

    Last time a U got hoisted by its own petard like this was Michigan State U, which was looking for a new president, and released their list of diverse candidates to much fanfare.

    1. White guy
    2. White guy
    3-8. Minority and/or female

    1 declines
    2 declines
    MSU: “Uhhhhhh, we’re gonna open our search for candidates back up again…”

    They deservedly caught hell for it. The problem wasn’t being unable to find qualified minorities and women. It was that there never was intent to appoint anyone but the first one or two, and the rest were for show and apparently not properly vetted.

  4. Can the federal government claw back the money from an admittedly racist institution that received monies? One weeps for Princeton. Guess they’ll have to dip into that endowment of theirs.

    1. ED-OCR can terminate *all* future Federal funding to Princeton, including loans going to students attending there. It’s never been done, but OCR has that power.

  5. Epic level trolling by the DOE. Will be very interesting to see PU’s response. “Uh, just kidding about that racism.”

  6. What about the racism at Northwestern Law School. The Dean and several faculty members admitted they were racists.

  7. I have been wondering about something like this.

    When the George Floyd protests broke out, my inbox was flooded with emails from seemingly every entity I had ever done business with, asserting their promises to do a better job of eliminating and resisting “racism” in their businesses. Really? What exactly were your in-house attorneys, compliance officers, Human Resources staff, diversity officers, equal employment opportunity staff — receiving six and in some cases seven figure salaries — doing all these years if racism (not merely disparate treatment or implicit bias, but outright White Supremacy) is still rampant in your workplace? Did these people fail to do their jobs, and will they be held accountable for their abject failures? Or are you going to find some schlub who posted an ill-advised Facebook post ten years ago and throw him under the bus as your sacrificial lamb?

    1. EXACTLY — with all the money we are spending, why no results?

  8. Admitting systematic racism exists is not a good reason to open an investigation.

    Civil Rights investigations should not be used for trolling.

    1. It is when the institution certified that it didn’t exist – as a requirement for receiving federal funds. It’s not trolling: it’s investigating admitted fraud.

      1. Then say that and pass regs accordingly. Have the courage of your convictions, DoEd, not this trashy behavior.

        1. But that is what the DOE is saying.

          1. No, they are not. They are taking a statement about systemic racism and treating it like intentional discrimination. I’m not going to pretend they, or you, are so ignorant about how systemic racism operates.

            If they want to target systemic racism, they should create a program and protocol to do that. But you and I know they don’t want to do that.

            They don’t then they shouldn’t pretend to misunderstand statements about systemic racism in order to target an institution just to own the libs.

            1. “I’m not going to pretend they, or you, are so ignorant about how systemic racism operates.”

              I don’t know how it operates because I don’t believe in imagined fairy tales. I’m an empiricist.

              Princeton admitted to harming people through racism. That violates the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and they do not qualify for federal funds. They didn’t make some ambiguous statement about this new religion.

              1. Plenty of empirical studies on systemic racism.

                And you can know how a fairy tail operates even if you don’t believe in it.

                You’re not being serious.

                1. So you’re saying an entity admitting to systemic racism is not racist under existing laws / regulations?

                  Then does systemic racism have a real definition where it’s “racism” but not racism?

                  1. Are you saying all legal definitions exhaust the meaning of a word?

                    The current legal definition of racism held by DoEd does not encompass racism of the type that Princeton is describing.

                    That’s not uncommon with legal versus general definitions.

                    1. From the Princeton, letter: “Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.”

                      I’ll grant you that your charge of trolling may have some merit, but the “sometimes by conscious intention” language affixed to the “Racism and the damages it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton” would appear to satisfy the legal definition of discrimination, even if there are better critiques to be leveled at such letter.
                      See https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism:
                      (“Either it affirmed platitudes to which we can all subscribe, or, more menacingly, it asserted controversial and arguable positions as though they were axiomatic certainties. “)

                    2. If the law says don’t do X, and then someone admits they are guilty of doing a type-of-X, then they are doing X.

                      If you now want to say that type-of-X is really not a subset of X, then stop calling it X.

                      But if type-of-X is meant to subsume the power of X, you cannot then turn around and say that type-of-X should not be treated as if it is X.

                      The core of systemic racism is still discrimination based on race. This does not matter if it is overt, in fact, it’s meant to cover activity that is diffuse, but that activity is still considered discrimination based on race.

                    3. The core of systemic racism is still discrimination based on race.

                      Nope. Not as the woke SJW uses it.

            2. Since when does discrimination have to be intentional to be actionable? Disparate impact is just as valid of a claim.

          2. Um, no. DOE is Dept of Energy, ED is Education in FedSpeak.

            Which makes it interesting when ED writes to Ed.

    2. “Admitting systematic racism exists is not a good reason to open an investigation.”

      He didn’t say that systematic racism exists in some generic way, he said racism at Princeton was harming “people of color” and Princeton had racist “structures”.

      If a CEO has such knowledge, then its totally proper to investigate that company.

      1. Yeah. i’m inclined to agree with Bob. If Princeton just made a comment about how bad societal racism is, that wouldn’t have drawn this. They are saying that their own institution is racist.

        1. Systemic racism effects every institution.

          If you are an institution and admit it exists, the next step is to admit that you are therefore part of that problem, and should look for solutions.

          This is a purposeful misunderstanding of what Princeton said in order to publicly harass them with regulatory burdens that are not called for.

          1. “Systemic racism effects every institution.”

            Prove it.

            1. Wokists don’t need proof. They have faith.

              1. Yeah, that’s why there’s so much academic study in the area.

              2. Bob from Ohio: “Prove it”
                Sarcastro: “I don’t need to”

                That’s pretty much the definition of faith.

                1. Read better, AL. I was not invoking an article of faith.

            2. First, I don’t need to. If that’s incorrect, then Princeton was incorrect and not racist. If that’s not incorrect, the Princeton was correct but not guilty of specific wrongdoing.

              But for proof lets look at how schools are funded: Property taxes. Lets look at the studies about discipline use disparities for similarly situated young children of different races. Lets look at the school-to-prison pipeline and who that effects. None of it intentional, all of it creating racial disparities in education.

              I would recommend a book: The Privileged Poor: How Elite Colleges Are Failing Disadvantaged Students
              https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674976894/reasonmagazinea-20/

              1. Systemic racism is just the aggregation of individual racial prejudice. Princeton is required to prevent racial prejudice from affecting its students’ education. If it doesn’t, they don’t get Federal funds.

                1. No, that is not what it is. No intent is required.

                  Look it up and try again.

                  1. “No, that is not what it is.”

                    That’s what it is.

                    “Look it up and try again.”

                    I’m not going to get into a debate about scripture. I’m just telling you what systemic racism really is.

                    1. It’s not scripture. I’m the one who has read up on the issue. You’re the one dismissing it without bothering to know what it is supposed to be.

                      Who is acting on faith?

                    2. Still don’t want to hear about the good news, Sarcastro.

              2. “But for proof lets look at how schools are funded: Property taxes. Lets look at the studies about discipline use disparities for similarly situated young children of different races. Lets look at the school-to-prison pipeline and who that effects. None of it intentional, all of it creating racial disparities in education.”

                But in your examples, these activities are being treated as institutionally-racist and subject to various supposed “remedies.”

                Once the regulators thought that black students being suspended from school was due to a racist system, then regulators didn’t simply shrug and say, “well, society has a racism problem, what are ya gonna do? Time for my lunch break.”

              3. So is there or is there not systemic racism at Princeton or any university? If there is, then why shouldn’t the government investigate it and punish it? What is systemic racism but a disparate impact claim?

          2. So just like regulations are normally used then

            1. Show me another example like this.

              1. Can’t post links on this web site.

                – You can search for Joyce’s Tavern in Staten Island if you want.
                – Any OSHA action is usually the result of union organizers trying to harass an employer.
                – Obama IRS targeting of Tea Party groups is a celebrated example of regulatory harassment
                – Homeschoolers are often targets of regulatory harassment by state agencies

                The whole job of regulators is to harass people who want to make a choice the government overlords dislike.

                1. I wasn’t merely speaking about abuse of process.

                  None of those are public trolling.

          3. Sarcastro- there’s a big difference between “systemic racism exists everywhere and Princeton is not immune” or something, and saying “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton” and that “racist assumptions” are “embedded in structures of the University itself.”

            1. I do not see the difference – they both say the same thing.

              ‘racist assumptions’ is a manifestation of, and ‘racism and the damage it does’ is a description of systemic racism.

              That is clearly the intent of the message.

              Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading up on it for my job, but this is glaringly obvious to me.

              1. Consider the following two statements:

                1. “There is a culture of securities fraud in the industry, and our brokerage, like all participants in the market, is not immune to that culture.”

                2. “Securities fraud persists at our firm and our firm is built on a foundation of securities fraud.”

                I’d say statement 2 is more likely to draw an SEC or FINRA investigation than statement 1.

                And I will be a little more pointed about this. There’s a reason Princeton didn’t make its statement in the form of (1)- because there’s a lot of very disingenuous people in this world who are going to say that a statement about racism in the form of (1) is insufficiently self-flagellating, even though there’s nothing particularly wrong with the statement. These activists WANT Princeton to say “yes, we admit it, we confess, we are totally racist and we discriminate all the time!”. That’s kind of the goal of the activism.

                And the government is playing a useful role, one which would have been played by Princeton’s lawyers if the system was working right, in saying “you shouldn’t go around admitting to illegal conduct”.

                Universities are going to have to learn to tell the activist community on racial issues “no” on occasion. In some ways, this is related to the controversy over the Chinese almost-n-word at USC. Everyone’s afraid that some very extreme pressure groups who claim to represent Black people (but who take positions most Black people don’t care about) is going to call them racist.

                Leaving aside the thorny issue of affirmative action, I don’t think Princeton is actually engaged in any significant amount of race discrimination. I do think they are affected, as we all are, by systemic racism. But that’s not what the extreme pressure groups want. They want the University to admit illegal conduct.

                1. But that’s not what the extreme pressure groups want. They want the University to admit illegal conduct.

                  No, they don’t. If they thought there were illegal conduct, they themselves would have filed a complaint with the Ed Dept, or in court. They just want public self-flagellation, and all sorts of goodies as informal reparations.

                  1. But they want self-flagellation in a form that appears to be an admission of illegal conduct.

    3. “Civil Rights investigations should not be used for trolling.”

      It’s supposed to be used to get them to fix their problems, instead of saying, “Oh, we have to do better!”

      If they want federal funding, they have to stop being racist.

      1. By this investigation, the current DoEd doesn’t believe systemic racism is a thing, so by their definition they will find no racial discrimination.

        You think this investigation will cause Princeton to solve their problems faster than they currently are?
        Or will it just cost them a lot of time and trouble in order to own the libs.

        This is as abusive as anything you guys claim the IRS did.

        1. “By this investigation, the current DoEd doesn’t believe systemic racism is a thing, so by their definition they will find no racial discrimination.”

          Huh?

          1. They took Princeton statement about systemic racism as a statement about specific intentional racism.
            They are therefore opening an investigation based on an admission that does not actually admit what they think it does.

            Not an ingredient for a fruitful investigation, eh?

            1. Princeton did not make any statement, Sarcastr0; Mr. Eisgruber (president of PU) made several damning statements while completely sober, not under the influence of drugs, and not under duress. From what I can tell, Mr. Eisgruber has pointed out some very serious issues at PU, centered around systemic racism. The DoEd has no reason to think Mr. Eisgruber is lying and let’s face it…as president of PU, he would know if there is a problem. Hell Sarcastr0, I believe him. There is a systemic racism problem at PU and it stinks.

              So….Why shouldn’t the DoEd investigate PU?

              1. The DoEd does not have a mechanism to address systemic racism, Commenter.

                This is not a serious investigation.

                1. “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 financial assistance.”

                  The president of Princeton confessed to breaking the law.

                  1. Not as the law is currently enforced, he didn’t.

                2. S0,
                  I don’t know why this bothers you.
                  The university’s CEO made an uncoerced public statement admitting that many certifications made by Princeton under penalty of perjury were false.
                  He opened his mouth wide and shoved both feet in.

                  1. Only someone willfully blindness about systemic racism can take the statement as an admission of intentional discrimination.

                    You’ve got a good head on your shoulders. Others here are bad-faith lost causes. But I’m kinda disappointed you can’t see it.

                    1. Funny how you seem to be the only one who CAN see it. They just don’t have faith like you do.

                    2. For reasons both personal and professional I have read both books and studies about systematic racism; can any of the others here say the same, or are they talking out of their hat about something they don’t know about?

                      This is a conservative blog, and has gotten more so over the years. It is not exactly full of open-minded knowledge seekers.
                      I wouldn’t draw a lot of factual conclusions about the weight of the comentariat’s opinion.

                3. Well Sarcastr0, I have to confess that I am somewhat entertained by it all. I know it is wrong to have schadenfreude about PU, but in this case…well, I will make a small exception. It could not happen to a nicer set of people.

                  If it is not a serious investigation, then nothing will come of it. You have nothing to fear. It will be a minor inconvenience.

                  It kind of sucks when the law critically examines your side, doesn’t it?

                  1. Schadenfreude is a vice we all share.

                    Schadenfreude brought on by the burdens of government trolling is not something to take lightly.

                    1. Yeah, I was right. It really does suck when people and institutions on ‘your side’ gets put under the legal microscope by the federal government. Sauce for the gander, I guess.

                      Not to worry Sarcastr0, after being forced to piss away millions on legal representation from PU’s endowment, the investigation will be closed. It is all good.

                    2. I’m not weeping for Princeton. This is a matter of principle.
                      If the Obama admin had deliberately misinterpreted a statement by the NRA or something in order to open a burdensome investigation that also tossed some red meat to the left in September 2012, I’m quite sure I’d be angry at him as well.

                      I’m pretty partisan, but above that I love process. And abuse of process – public, open, abuse of process – is one of my buttons.

                    3. Sarcastr0….General Michael Flynn would agree with you = And abuse of process – public, open, abuse of process – is one of my buttons.

                    4. I’m not saying Flynn wasn’t used unfairly, but he was used unfairly entirely in keeping with the FBI’s usual shoddy and shabby process.

                      You and I agree that ending FISA would be a good thing.

                      But this is different in that it’s
                      1) Directly targeted, and
                      2) used by the government as a PR/electioneering exercise.

    4. Admitting systematic racism exists is not a good reason to open an investigation.

      X exists.”

      “I/we are actively engaging in X.”

      Surely even you aren’t so stupid that you can’t tell the substantive difference between the two.

  9. “prompted a federal inquiry, much like the one Princeton has to deal with now”

    For a few months. After that, it seems likely the concern-trolling racists will no longer be in position to send documents on federal letterhead.

    1. “For a few months.”

      Well that depends, right? If Biden wins, Princeton will be free to cling to its racist ways. But if Trump wins, they will have to open wide and be compelled by their betters, like DeVos, to accept progress and stop being racist.

      1. Right. And you couldn’t make it any clearer that this investigation absolutely positively IS. NOT. TROLLING!!!

  10. Why did the Washington Examiner redact the identity of the concern-trolling right-wing bigot(s) who signed that letter?

  11. Considering that we have made so much racial progress that they had to create an invisible racism only Priests of Wokeness can illuminate (systemic racism,) it is joyful to see PU taken at its word and hopefully held accountable.

    It is no wonder they chose this route rather than say, doing something about institutional racism — people may ask who exactly instituted this openly racist polices like gun control and the minimum wage — the “D” behind their names is visible!

  12. This is really hilarious, but how did they fine ANYONE at the Department of Education to go along with it?

    1. Betsy DeVos is a godsent to the American federal government. Cherish her while we can. She could have just retired with her billions, but instead she’s saving American education by eradicating one ridiculous leftist institution at a time.

  13. The DOE’s action strikes me more as a political tool to threaten withdrawal of federal funds from schools that publicly identify as “woke” rather than an application of legitimate legal principles.

    I agree there is an obvious difference between the sort of intentional discrimation in admissions etc. that Title IX covers and the sort of inadequate affirmative action, systemic racism, unconscious bias, microaggressions, etc. that Princeton is talking about.

    The “woke” movement may be right or wrong, but a school can easily pass Title IX without being “woke.”

    1. “a school can easily pass Title IX without being “woke.””

      We’re going to have to see about that, especially under a Biden administration.

  14. And as to the legitimacy of “wokeness,” how many white people on this blog have never mistaken a black doctor or other professional for an orderly, janitor, secretary, or similar? How many have never been afraid seeing a group of young black men pass by in the streets at night? Why is it that drug and other laws get enforced much more strictly in black neighborhoods despite evidence of similar use rates? Can we really expect communities that were still doing lynching in the 1950s to become instantly all kumbaya just because a federal law was passed in Washington?

    The fact that some people have used “wokeness” as a source of virtue signalling and personal power, and we have these anecdotes where people have taken things too far, sometimes rediculously so and sometimes trampling others’ rights in the process, doesn’t prove that the whole thing is delusional or that there is no underlying problem.

    1. Never mistaken a black doctor or other professional for an orderly, janitor etc. Never.

      How is that young group of black men acting? Individual actions matter.

      What drugs are being used? Black communities demanded stricter drug laws.

      The 1950’s are not today. Huge gains have been made and should not be dismissed. Is everything perfect? No. Never will be, but there is nothing like 1950’s racism today.

      And things would be better if identity politics did not corrode the national discourse, purposefully and constantly separating by race, pitting one against the other. Teaching new generations that they are automatically victims and should harbor ill-will toward the other group, because of actions generations in the past. Insisting that a group is automatically guilty because of their fathers’ fathers’ fathers’ fathers’ sins. Insisting that the only way to cure racism is via more racist actions.

      What a terrible ideology.

    2. And as to the legitimacy of “wokeness,” how many white people on this blog have never mistaken a black doctor or other professional for an orderly, janitor, secretary, or similar?

      And that is a problem because…

      How many have never been afraid seeing a group of young black men pass by in the streets at night?

      Whose fault is that?

      Can we really expect communities that were still doing lynching in the 1950s to become instantly all kumbaya just because a federal law was passed in Washington?

      That is what laws do.

    3. I suspect ReaderY is projecting his own racism onto everyone else — nope.

      Black men and women are my EQUALS, not some child race requiring paternalism and a “Great White Father” in Washington. The idea is patently racist and I reject it in the STRONGEST terms.

      From federal redlining to the drug war to dozens of racist policies, the majority of blacks that vote give power to the very party that for so long fought to make them 2nd class citizens. Ideas matter — and we have almost a hundred years in America of leftist policies destroying the black family and turning once great cities in hollow shells.

      ALL racism sucks — and seeing the hatred spill into the streets in an orgy of racist violence has NO EXCUSE!!!!!!

    4. “And as to the legitimacy of “wokeness,” how many white people on this blog have never mistaken a black doctor or other professional for an orderly, janitor, secretary, or similar?”

      Can’t say as I have.

      “How many have never been afraid seeing a group of young black men pass by in the streets at night?”

      Not because they were black. I lived for decades in a majority-minority area, so getting the vapors every time I saw black people would have been a bit odd. For me, when I see ‘black people’ I see ‘people who look like my neighbors’.

      “Why is it that drug and other laws get enforced much more strictly in black neighborhoods despite evidence of similar use rates?”

      That is probably location and detail specific. One factor is that the police tend to spend more time in areas, like mine, that made a lot of 911 calls. Another would be that, to my knowledge, that street corner drug selling is generally only a feature of the poorest, and thus usually higher minority neighborhoods.

      “Can we really expect communities that were still doing lynching in the 1950s to become instantly all kumbaya just because a federal law was passed in Washington?”

      Instantly, of course not. But 1950 was 70 years ago. A lot happens in two generations. For example, there are a lot of Nazis left in Germany, and it would be a mistake to assume that because there were lots of them in 1950 there must still be a lot today.

    5. “How many have never been afraid seeing a group of young black men pass by in the streets at night?”

      I guess it’s been quite a long time since Jesse Jackson said “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see someone white and feel relieved.”

      https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1993-12-03-1993337169-story.html

      Have things gotten so much better since the 90s that today only a white person would experience what Jackson experienced?

    6. And as to the legitimacy of “wokeness,” how many white people on this blog have never mistaken a black doctor or other professional for an orderly, janitor, secretary, or similar?

      I’ve never done that. But to be fair, I’m not a complete moron. If you have trouble differentiating between people doing those jobs…regardless of the amount of melanin in their skin…then you might be one.

  15. This is too rich. I cannot wait to see these virtue-signalling assholes spend two million bucks defending themselves against charges they themselves have freely admitted. Watching this ugly worm turn is one of the highlights of my otherwise drab week.

  16. Bravo. This is going to be fun to watch, as Princeton ties itself into logical and semantic knots to explain itself. I hope the examination of the president is videotaped (which will likely mean that copies of it will be available via a FOIA request).

    Thought exercise for the readers:
    Would a qui tam action under the False Claims Act exist against other higher ed institutions who similarly obtained millions in federal funds by certifying that they did not discriminate, but who now engaged in a public orgy of virtue signalling self-flagellation that asserts that they have and do in fact discriminate?

    I.e., if the certification was false when made (which, taking the “woke” statements like Princeton’s at face value, would be the case), then the universities could not have received the federal funds had they told the truth (because the law does not allow funds to go to institutions who cannot so certify). Ergo, funds were obtained from the feddies via fraud . . . . why is that not a prima facie False Claims Act case?

    Crank up the private lawsuits . . . .

    1. Crank up the private lawsuits . . . .

      Um, no. To file a private qui tam suit, you have to be the whistleblower, not someone who read about it in the paper.

      1. You have a citation for that bold statement? 31 USC 3730 speaks only of “a person,” and there’s no requirement in the statute (or to my knowledge in the caselaw) that you be an insider or otherwise have inside information. Indeed, qui tam cases have routinely been brought by noninsiders such as competitors, patients, etc.

  17. Robert King, the right-wing political operative who wrote the letter for the Department of Education, admitted in that letter that the current (Trump administration) Department of Education is racist.

    I believe he did this inadvertently, doing so because he is — like many conservatives, especially those with Kentucky on their resumes — illiterate.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. D-

      Rev, I really feel that your satire lately is lost it’s touch. You need a new shtick man.

Please to post comments