More than 50 universities are being investigated for alleged racial discrimination as part of President Donald Trump’s campaign to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs that his officials say exclude white and Asian American students.

One of them: the University of South Florida.

The Education Department announced the new investigations Friday, one month after issuing a memo warning America’s schools and colleges that they could lose federal money over “race-based preferences” in admissions, scholarships or any aspect of student life.

“Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “We will not yield on this commitment.”

Most of the new inquiries (but not the one into USF) are focused on colleges’ partnerships with the PhD Project, a nonprofit that helps students from underrepresented groups get degrees in business with the goal of diversifying the business world.

Department officials said that the group limits eligibility based on race and that colleges that partner with it are “engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs.”

The group of 45 colleges facing scrutiny over ties to the PhD Project include major public universities such as Arizona State, Ohio State and Rutgers, along with prestigious private schools like Yale, Cornell, Duke and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 In a statement, the PhD Project said it aims to “create a broader talent pipeline of current and future business leaders who are committed to excellence and to each other.”

“This year, we have opened our membership application to anyone who shares that vision,” it said.

Arizona State said the business school is not financially supporting the PhD Project this year, and on Feb. 20, told faculty that the school would not support travel to the nonprofit’s conference.

A statement from Ohio State said the university “does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or any other protected class, and our PhD programs are open to all qualified applicants.”

Six other colleges are being investigated for awarding “impermissible race-based scholarships,” the department said. Those schools are: Grand Valley State University, Ithaca College, the New England College of Optometry, the University of Alabama, USF, and the University of Oklahoma at Tulsa.

An initial press release from the Education Department erroneously identified the University of Tulsa as one of the schools under investigation.

Additionally, the University of Minnesota is being investigated for allegedly operating a program that segregates students on the basis of race, the department said.

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.

Post Views: 0

Florida’s Attorney General says he’s not going to continue to defend at least one law against challenge.

In a statement on social media Friday, James Uthmeier said Florida’s post-Parkland prohibition on people under the age of 21 buying guns was not something his office would keep litigating, as he personally believes “restricting the right of law-abiding adults to purchase firearms is unconstitutional.”

“If the NRA decides to seek further review at SCOTUS, I am directing my office not to defend this law. Men and women old enough to fight and die for our country should be able to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their families,” Uthmeier said Friday.

The National Rifle Association and Radford Fant, the son of former state Rep. Jay Fant of Jacksonville, filed suit back in 2018 challenging the state’s then new prohibition in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act on people who aren’t old enough to drink legally buying guns.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released its ruling Friday upholding the state law the AG doesn’t want to defend.

“The Florida law that prohibits minors from purchasing firearms does not violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because it is consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,” argues the majority.

The argument is that minors have proven at times to not be trustworthy when it comes to owning firearms.

“From the Founding to the late-nineteenth century, our law limited the purchase of firearms by minors in different ways. The Florida law also limits the purchase of firearms by minors. And it does so for the same reason: to stop immature and impulsive individuals, like (Parkland shooter) Nikolas Cruz, from harming themselves and others with deadly weapons. Those similarities are sufficient to confirm the constitutionality of the Florida law.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis has been opposed to this law since his campaign for Governor in 2018. He has stepped up efforts this year to prod the Legislature into changing it, but as has been the case throughout his time in office, leadership has resisted a change.

While lawmakers may not want to move, the AG’s decision to stand down in defending a law he and the Governor find objectionable appears to be a way to create an appellate workaround that in other contexts may be called “judicial activism,” but which will accomplish a long-standing policy aim of the executive branch.

Post Views: 0

Senate Democrats were grim Friday as they left Washington after a brutal 10-week stretch that consistently showed the limits of their power in the minority — and culminated with a deeply personal rupture over how to best counter President Donald Trump.

“Everyone made hard decisions, right? Really hard decisions,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, of the position in which Democrats found themselves over the last week as they had to decide between voting for a Republican spending bill they hated and shutting down the government. “It’s like two horrible things, and you can’t imagine either one.”

Internal dissension burst into the open Thursday evening after Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced he would vote to move forward on the Trump-backed spending measure, ensuring its eventual passage even though Democrats said it would give Trump broad discretion on decisions that are traditionally left to Congress.

The intraparty backlash was unusually swift as activists and House Democrats who had uniformly opposed the bill heaped criticism on Schumer. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Schumer’s New York colleague, joined other top party members in a statement saying, “We will not be complicit.”

The heat on Schumer came after several other Democratic setbacks in the dizzying weeks since Trump’s inauguration, and as Republicans have only become more unified under the president’s second term.

Republicans confirmed Trump’s entire Cabinet swiftly and with little internal disagreement, denying Democrats the needed votes to block nominees they saw as extreme, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Democrats were also unable to stop a series of moves by Trump’s administration that would normally be left to Congress under the law, including mass firings across the government. Adding to their challenges, the outlook for future Senate elections grew even gloomier after Democrats in three swing states — the latest being Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire — announced their retirement.

The days leading up to Friday’s vote on government spending were particularly bleak after several hourslong meetings that became contentious. Senate Democrats repeatedly left the meetings stone-faced and refusing to talk with reporters. The angst was particularly acute among rank-and-file who have spent years messaging about the perils of shutdowns.

“It’s a momentous decision,” said Shaheen, one of nine Democrats who voted with Schumer to keep the government open.

The tension was unusually high after Senate Democrats had remained solidly unified through Trump’s first term and through most of Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency, when Democrats passed several major policy bills and held the Senate against perceived odds in the 2022 midterm elections.

Schumer’s move to support the spending legislation put him in the rare position of bucking his party’s base. He said that of two bad options, a partial government shutdown was worse because it would give Trump even more control to shut down agencies and there would be “no off-ramp” to get out of it. “I think people realize it’s a tough choice,” he said.

Reaction to Schumer’s decision was mixed. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who voted not to move forward on the spending measure, wouldn’t answer when asked by reporters if she still has confidence in the Democratic leader. But Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, who voted to move forward, said Schumer “is showing leadership” by taking a stand.

Schumer and Democrats in his caucus say they believe they will eventually gain more political ground as members of their party become more motivated, and as they continue to criticize Trump on what they predict will be the economic ramifications of his policies.

On Friday, as he walked into the Senate to vote, Schumer said Democrats will “resume pounding away at Donald Trump” and arguing that he’s hurting the middle class economically. “It’s brought down his numbers some, and we’re going to keep at it, keep at it, keep at it.”

Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont said that spending vote was a “tough political call,” but the party would continue to be unified on the economic message.

“All of our base wants us to fight, and I’m with them,” said Welch, who voted not to move forward on the spending measure. But he questioned whether the party ever had any leverage, as Trump was preparing to blame them if there was a shutdown.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Democrats need to “keep their eyes on the ball.”

“The stark reality is, we’re the minority in the House, we’re the minority in the Senate, and we don’t control the White House, so we need to use every tool as nimbly and ingeniously as we can,” Blumenthal said. “But most importantly, the growing anger.”

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.

Post Views: 0