Education secretary says universities must follow the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the nation's universities must abide by the Civil Rights Act and do a better job of vetting international student activists and professors who teach ideology instead of subject matter during a Wednesday morning interview with CNBC. Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo
May 28 (UPI) -- Federal funding could be withheld from U.S. universities that don't abide by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on Wednesday.
McMahon was interviewed by CNBC on Wednesday morning regarding President Donald Trump's call to withhold all federal funding to Harvard University, threatening to revoke its non-profit status for failing to protect Jewish students and halting its intake of international students.
"When we looked at different aspects of what Harvard was doing relative to anti-Semitism on its campuses, they were not enforcing Title VI the way it should be," McMahon told CNBC.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance," according to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
"If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action," the DOJ says.
McMahon said the Trump administration had conversations with Harvard President Alan Garber and anticipated more conversations, but the university filed a federal lawsuit against the administration.
McMahon said it's important for the administration to "call attention" to what Harvard and other universities are doing
Harvard has a $53 billion endowment that it has invested and draws annual returns of between 5% and 10%, she said.
"That's billions of dollars," McMahon said, adding that Trump might consider increasing the endowment tax on universities.
"That's something that the American public can wrap its head around," she said. "There are a lot of issues that we'd like to look at, and we'd like to continue to talk to Harvard."
The CNBC interviewer asked McMahon if she agrees the federal government should vet international students by reviewing their social media posts, which the Trump administration has proposed.
McMahon said she doesn't know the criteria that the State or Homeland Security departments are considering to vet international students seeking visas to study in the United States.
"The president certainly has great concerns," she said.
"There are foreign students who come to this country ... who help create this unrest," McMahon explained.
"There are activists who come in," she continued. "There are professors that are hired and brought in who are teaching ideology more than they are subject matter."
She said it's important to know what the backgrounds and ideologies of international students and professors might be prior to the arrival at college campuses in the United States
As the interview opened, McMahon said universities "should continue to be able to do research as long as they're abiding by the laws and are in sync ... with the administration and what the administration is trying to accomplish, but primarily abiding by the laws.
That comment drew strong rebukes from some media outlets.
Gizmodo accused the Trump administration of continuing an "attack on higher education."
Rolling Stone ran a headline claiming McMahon said Harvard needs to be in sync "with Trump's political goals" after the Trump administration cut off all contracts with Harvard.
"The Trump administration is warning the nation's universities that their federal funding and research grants will only remain safe if the school is compliant with the goals of the Trump administration," Rolling Stone reported.
The entertainment magazine accused the administration of attempting to "force Harvard -- and other prominent American universities -- to surrender their academic independence and accept government oversight in respect to their curriculums, staffing decisions and student body."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House?
Elon Musk's time in the Trump administration is coming to an end after a tempestuous 129 days in which the world's richest man took an axe to government spending - stirring ample controversy along the way. Earlier this week, the South African-born billionaire, on his social media platform, X, thanked President Trump for his time at the Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge. Trump announced he will host a news conference in the Oval Office on Friday with Musk, writing: "This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way." While Musk's time in government lasted little more than four months, his work with Doge upended the federal government and had an impact not just in the halls of power in Washington - but around the world. Let's take a look at some of the ways Musk has left a mark. Musk took a job with the Trump White House with one mission: to cut spending from the government as much as possible. He began with an initial target of "at least $2 trillion", which then shifted to $1tn and ultimately $150bn. To date, Doge claims to have saved $175bn through a combination of asset sales, lease and grant cancellations, "fraud and improper payment deletion", regulatory savings and a 260,000-person reduction from the 2.3 million-strong federal workforce. A BBC analysis of those figures, however, found that evidence is sometimes lacking. This mission has at times caused both chaos and controversy, including some instances in which federal judges halted mass firings and ordered employees reinstated. In other instances, the administration has been forced to backtrack on firings. In one notable instance in February, the administration stopped the firing of hundreds of federal employees working at the National Nuclear Security Administration, including some with sensitive jobs related to the US nuclear arsenal. Musk himself repeatedly acknowledged that mass firings would inevitably include mistakes. "We will make mistakes," he said in February, after his department mistook a region of Mozambique for Hamas-controlled Gaza while cutting an aid programme. "But we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes." Doge's efforts to access data also garnered controversy, particularly the department's push for access to sensitive treasury department systems that control the private information of millions of Americans. Polls show that cuts to government spending remain popular with many Americans - even if Musk's personal popularity has waned. The presence of Musk - an unelected "special government employee" with companies that count the US government as customers - in Trump's White House has also raised eyebrows, prompting questions about potential conflicts of interest. His corporate empire includes large companies that do business with US and foreign governments. SpaceX has $22 billion in US government contracts, according to the company's chief executive. Some Democrats also accused Musk of taking advantage of his position to drum up business abroad for his satellite internet services firm, Starlink. The White House was accused of helping Musk's businesses by showcasing vehicles made by Tesla - his embattled car company - on the White House lawn in March. Musk and Trump have both shrugged off any suggestion that his work with the government is conflicted or ethically problematic. Around the world, Musk's work with Doge was most felt after the vast majority - over 80% - of the US Agency for International Development's (USAID's) programmes were eliminated following a six-week review by Doge. The rest were absorbed by the State Department. The Musk and Doge-led cuts formed part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to bring overseas spending closer in line with its "America First" approach. The cuts to the agency - tasked with work such as famine detection, vaccinations and food aid in conflict areas - quickly had an impact on projects including communal kitchens in war-torn Sudan, scholarships for young Afghan women who fled the Taliban and clinics for transgender people in India. USAID also was a crucial instrument of US "soft power" around the world, leading some detractors pointing to its elimination as a sign of waning American influence on the global stage. While Musk - and Trump - have for years been accused by detractors of spreading baseless conspiracy theories, Musk's presence in the White House starkly highlighted how misinformation has crept into discourse at the highest levels of the US government. For example, Musk spread an unfounded internet theory that US gold reserves had quietly been stolen from Fort Knox in Kentucky. At one point, he floated the idea of livestreaming a visit there to ensure the gold was secured. Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa More recently, Musk spread widely discredited rumours that the white Afrikaner population of South Africa is facing "genocide" in their home country. Those rumours found their way into the Oval Office earlier in May, when a meeting aimed at soothing tensions between the US and South Africa took a drastic twist after Trump presented South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with videos and articles he said were evidence of crimes against Afrikaners. Musk's work in government also showed that, despite public pledges of unity, there are tensions within the "Trump 2.0" administration. While Trump publicly - and repeatedly - backed the work of Musk and Doge, Musk's tenure was marked by reports of tension between him and members of the cabinet who felt Doge cuts were impacting their agencies. "They have a lot of respect for Elon and that he's doing this, and some disagree a little bit," Trump acknowledged in a February cabinet meeting. "If they aren't, I want them to speak up." At one point, he was asked whether any cabinet members had expressed dissatisfaction with Musk and turned to the room to ask them. No one spoke. The announcement of Musk's departure also came the same day CBS - BBC's US partner - publicised part of an interview during which Musk said he was "disappointed" by Trump's "big, beautiful" budget bill. The bill includes multi-trillion dollar tax breaks and a pledge to increase defence spending. Musk said the bill "undermines" the work of Doge to cut spending - reflecting larger tensions within the Republican Party over the path forward. Elon Musk leaves White House but says Doge will continue What is Doge and why is Musk leaving? Musk 'disappointed' by Trump's tax and spending bill How much has Elon Musk's Doge cut from US government spending?
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Key Fed Inflation Rate May Hit 4-Year Low; S&P 500 Futures Flat (Live Coverage)
The Federal Reserve's primary inflation rate, the core PCE price index, out at 8:30 a.m. ET, is seen dipping to its lowest level since March 2021. S&P 500 futures fell modestly ahead of the report, as President Donald Trump said China has "violated" the preliminary trade deal. The inflation outlook, however, just became more hazy after a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling on Wednesday threw out the bulk of President Trump's second-term tariffs, saying he overstepped his authority.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff Ruling Threatens a $2 Trillion Fiscal Hole in Trump Plan
(Bloomberg) — The court ruling that blocked much of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs threatens to blow what some economists estimate as a $2 trillion hole into the US fiscal outlook over the coming decade, should the judgment stay in place. NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move NY Wins Order Against US Funding Freeze in Congestion Fight Why Arid Cities Should Stick Together The ruling could also present a new obstacle for Republicans who are relying on the revenue to help offset the cost of a roughly $4 trillion tax cut moving through Congress. 'At face value, this ruling will take away billions of dollars of prospective tariff revenue' annually, said Douglas Elmendorf a Harvard Kennedy School professor and former director of the Congressional Budget Office — a nonpartisan arm of the US legislature. A federal appeals court Thursday paused the Court of International Trade's Wednesday ruling striking down a swath of Trump's levies, and the White House is pushing to overturn the judgment entirely, aiming to appeal to the Supreme Court as soon as Friday. If the CIT ruling survives appeal, it would remove duties that would have raised nearly $200 billion on an annual basis, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. Trump and his aides had been relying on that increased revenue to get Republican lawmakers united behind the president's 'big beautiful bill' tax-cut package. The $2 trillion in added revenue over a decade would have gone some way towards offsetting the cost of the tax cuts, as measured by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, as the legislation's spending reductions aren't expected to cover even half the tab. Failing judicial success, Trump's trade team would have to stitch together duties using executive authority other than the one struck down. But the process would take months, and decisions could still end up facing legal challenges, economists say. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Fox News Thursday that 'anything that the courts do to get in the way both harms the American people in terms of trade and in terms of tariff revenue.' Even a short-term hit to revenue would pose problems: the government is currently barred from raising net new debt, and the Treasury has been using special accounting maneuvers to make good on payments. Monthly customs revenue just hit a record of over $16 billion, helping the department's cash flows. Barclays Plc warned that the court ruling will bring forward the date by when the Treasury will have exhausted its cash and extraordinary measures. That in turn builds pressure on Republicans to get the tax bill done, as it includes an increase in the debt limit. 'The fiscal outlook just got a lot worse as a result of this court ruling,' said Ernie Tedeschi, who is director of economics at Yale University's Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'Very high tariffs just got less likely.' The Budget Lab also estimated revenues would be about $2 trillion lower over 10 years — roughly $700 billion compared with $2.7 trillion — if the court ruling stands, and current tariff levels remain in place. Wednesday's court ruling involved Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to threaten the highest tariff rates in more than a century. The April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs involved a universal baseline levy of 10% plus much bigger rates for various trading partners — though Trump had put those on pause prior to the ruling. Bloomberg Economics estimated that the average US tariff rate got as high as nearly 27% at one point. The court ruling takes it below 6%. Other channels Trump has to impose tariffs include Section 232 authority to impose sectoral levies. The administration has already invoked it to set the stage for import taxes on items including smartphones and jet engines. Pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and other products are also being eyed for tariffs. Existing duties are in place on steel and autos, among others. 'There are other avenues to do the tariffs,' said Stephanie Roth, chief economist at Wolfe Research, who sees a $180 billion annual revenue hit from the court ruling. Economists at Citi, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley expect the administration will ultimately raise the tariff revenue it needs. White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran on May 27 told Bloomberg Television the tariffs would take in hundreds of billions of dollars a year, helping alleviate concerns about the fiscal deficit. Those estimates have bolstered the Trump administration against charges that its tax bill blows a hole in the budget. 'The blatantly wrong claim that the one, big beautiful bill increases the deficit is based on the Congressional Budget Office and other scorekeepers who use shoddy assumptions,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. They have 'historically been terrible at forecasting,' she said. After the House passed a version of the tax bill earlier this month, it's now in the Senate's hands. It's possible that Senate Republicans could propose adding tariffs in the multi-trillion dollar spending bill to help offset costs, though it's unclear it would garner enough support to pass. 'They might include trying to get some tariffs,' said Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation. 'But I really don't see the appetite for something as broad as what the president has done.' Trump in a Truth Social post Thursday evening blasted the option, saying, 'In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around DC for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other countries that are treating us unfairly.' YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Inside the First Stargate AI Data Center How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
