Trump administration widens George Mason University probes
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said it is investigating if the university has violated Title VI by discriminating against students based on race or ethnicity during admissions or scholarship practices.
'Public educational institutions are contractually obligated to follow our nation's federal civil rights laws when receiving federal funds,' said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. 'No one should be denied access to opportunity or resources because of their race, color, or national origin, and the United States is committed to keeping our universities free of such invidious bias.'
The Hill has reached out to GMU for comment.
The investigation comes on the back of a similar DOJ inquiry into whether George Mason discriminated against faculty for promotion or hiring based on race or ethnicity due to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Other investigations include inaction on antisemitism and an additional inquiry into discrimination in employment practices.
'As always, we will work in good faith to give a full and prompt response. George Mason University again affirms its commitment to comply with all federal and state mandates. The university consistently reviews its policies and practices to ensure compliance with federal laws, updated executive orders, and on-going agency directives,' a spokesperson for the university said in response to the investigation regarding DEI.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations" and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. "Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry," said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, "the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet," said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy," Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Most People Don't Know About Our 250-Year History, Part I
The Fed allowed one-third of U.S. banks to fail during the Depression. FPG/Hulton Archive. As we approach our country's 250th birthday, there is no better time to reflect on where we have been and how we got here. Yet Americans are surprisingly ignorant about our past. One reason: So much bad history has entered the popular culturecourtesy of bad historians, a few bad economists, and some talented writers like Charles Dickens and Upton Sinclair, who didn't understand history or economics at all. To remedy this problem, I highly recommend The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Myths of American Capitalism by Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux. Gramm is a former U.S. senator and Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Together they have combed through the scholarly literature and savagely dismantled myths about our economic history – myths that are routinely taught in high schools and colleges across the country. In this essay, I will address two severe economic downturns: the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. The Great Depression There are five myths here, beginning with the assertion that the depression was caused by capitalism and greed. Put differently, it's the idea that the worst economic downturn in our country's history occurred because of too much individual freedom and too little government. In contrast, the authors write, The worst failure was that of the Federal Reserve System, created to be a lender of last resort, providing liquidity to banks in times of a credit crisis. In fact, the Fed stood by, allowing one-third of the nation's banks to go out of business. A second myth is the idea that in the early stages of the depression, Herbert Hoover stood by and did nothing. In fact, Hoover was a very activist president. In response to the economic downturn, he raised taxes, increased spending, signed the Davis-Bacon Act (ensuring higher wages on federal construction projects) and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Like many of Franklin Roosevelt's policies, most of what Hoover did made things worse, not better. A third myth is that Roosevelt's policies saved us from the depression. In fact, they almost certainly caused the depression to extend for 12 years— longer than it did in any other industrialized country except for France. The authors write: A fourth myth is that Roosevelt united the public in times of crisis. In fact, Roosevelt was a divider, not a uniter. He vilified successful industrialists who opposed his policies as 'economic royalists' who made up an 'economic autocracy.' In fact, it is probably no exaggeration to say that Roosevelt vilified the rich in the United States the way Hitler, at the same time, was vilifying the Jews in Germany. University of Texas historian Henry W. Brands says that 'Roosevelt came disturbingly close to the demagoguery not only of Father Coughlin and the late Huey Long, but also of the fascists of Europe.' The final myth is the idea that it took the enormous increase in government spending during World War II to pull us out of the depression. Were that really true, when the war ended and government spending precipitously retracted, we should have been right back into the depression again. In the four years following the end of World War II, government spending fell by 75 percent. The federal deficit fell by more than 50 percent and then eased into a small surplus. Yet income, output and economic wellbeing continued to rise. The Great Recession Following the Great Depression, the Great Recession—from 2007 to 2009—was our nation's most severe economic downturn. It encompassed a sharp fall in housing prices, accompanied by a spike in mortgage defaults, especially on subprime loans. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)—two government-sponsored enterprises established to support home ownership—went into receivership. There are four myths here, beginning with the assertion that the recession was caused by too much private sector greed and risk-taking and too little government supervision. If anything, the reverse is true. Subprime lending actually became a goal of the federal government—beginning under the Clinton administration, primarily through the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The authors explain: Using newly expanded CRA requirements, bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans. Guidelines turned into mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on its making of CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank without a passing grade—and getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. Increasingly, passing grades were gotten by making subprime home loans. By 2008, roughly half of all outstanding mortgage loans in America—28 million in all—were high-risk loans. The second myth is that the crisis was caused by lack of regulatory authority. In fact, there were a slew of federal and state banking laws, which gave rise to an army of regulators with the power to investigate, mandate corrective action, and fine and even imprison violators. The problem was that the traditional interest in meeting community credit needs with sound banking practices was overridden by a new federal policy designed to make 'affordable housing' available to more and more people. A third myth is that the recession was caused by banking deregulation—in particular by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). In fact, GLB removed barriers to competition in banking—making the financial sector more efficient. But regulatory authority did not decrease. It increased. The Congressional Budget Office actually scored GLB as increasing regulatory costs. Regarding GLB, President Clinton said, 'There's not a single solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash.' The final myth is the idea that the length of the recession was somehow caused by banking practices. In fact, an unusually weak recovery was more likely caused by increased penalties for working and increased subsidies for not working. During the Obama years, the authors say, the 'American economy was hit with a tidal wave of new rules and regulations across health care, financial services, energy and manufacturing.' At the same time there was an explosion in the enrollment numbers for disability benefits, food stamps and cash welfare. So why are these facts so important to know? George Santayana is reputed to have said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The experiences of the Great Depression and the Great Recession are events that no sane person should want to experience again.
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
NYC's ‘We're With Colbert' rally for late-night host is a bust with just 20 protesters
What a joke. A Big Apple rally in support of on-his-way-out 'Late Show' host Stephen Colbert drew fewer than two dozen people Sunday — with even the NYPD cops on scene quickly calling it a day since most of the demonstrators left after just a few minutes. Organizers said the 'We're With Colbert' gathering outside the CBS Broadcast Center on Manhattan's West Side said it was meant to be part of a nationwide call for 'integrity.' Advertisement 4 Demonstrators gather outside CBS' offices in Manhattan on Sunday to protest the end of the 'Late Show' with Stephen Colbert. REUTERS 4 Colbert was told this was his last season on CBS, sparking controversy on both sides. CBS 'Our country is not perfect, never has been,' said the event's organizer, who would only identify himself as Matt and said his nickname is 'Slim.' Advertisement 'But we've always had the First Amendment, and now Mango Mussolini is trying to take that from us,' he said, referring to a derogatory nickname for President Trump. CBS said declining viewership and diminishing profits led to its decision to end the show in May 2026, effectively firing the 61-year-old talk-show host Colbert — but critics claim the network bowed to pressure from Trump. 4 CBS officials said the decision to fire Colbert was the result of growing costs and diminishing viewership. Luiz C. Ribeiro for New York Post 4 The number of protesters at Sunday's 'We're With Colbert' rally topped off at about 20 at its peak. REUTERS Advertisement CBS's parent company finalized an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media shortly after Colbert was told he was on his last season. The merger required federal approval. Colbert has also been among the top talk-show hosts who routinely roast Trump. 'This is a First Amendment attack,' a protester who refused to give her name said of the closing-down of the show. 'We can't stand for that.' Advertisement Still, Colbert has also come under fire for featuring predominantly lefty-leaning guests. According to the right-leaning group MRC NewsBusters, Colbert has had 176 liberal guests and only one Republican on his show since 2022.
