Trump administration says George Washington University broke law over treatment of Jewish students
The US Department of Justice said GWU had been 'deliberately indifferent to the hostile educational environment for Jewish, American-Israeli, and Israeli students and faculty' during pro-Palestinian protests in April and May 2024.
In a letter to university President Ellen Granberg, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the department found members of the university community had taken part in 'antisemitic, disruptive protests,' including setting up an encampment at University Yard. These actions, she wrote, were intended to 'frighten, intimidate, and deny' Jewish, Israeli and American-Israeli students access to the university environment.
'The Department finds that despite actual notice of the abuses occurring on its campus, GWU was deliberately indifferent to the complaints it received, the misconduct that occurred, and the harms that were suffered,' Dhillon wrote.
Dhillon said the Justice Department planned to move forward with enforcement but was offering the university a chance to reach a voluntary resolution. GWU has until 22 August to say whether it is willing to take part in such talks.
George Washington is the latest university targeted by the Trump administration, which has threatened to cut federal funding to institutions over pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
Protesters, including some Jewish groups, told Reuters the administration wrongly links criticism of Israel's military actions in Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism, and advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump claims India tariffs cut off Russian oil sales, forced Putin to negotiating table on Ukraine: ‘When you lose…'
On the eve of a high-stakes summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, United States President Donald Trump has claimed that his tariffs on India 'essentially took them out of buying oil from Russia' – a move he suggested may have influenced Moscow's willingness to negotiate. Speaking to Fox News Radio's The Brian Kilmeade Show on Thursday, Donald Trump said he believed Putin 'wants to get it done' and is now convinced 'he's going to make a deal' when the two leaders meet on Friday. Donald Trump linked the anticipated diplomatic progress in meeting Vladimir Putin on Friday, to his economic measures, particularly secondary tariffs against India. 'Everything has an impact,' he said, adding that the restrictions had effectively removed India – Russia's second-largest oil customer – from the market. 'Certainly, when you lose your second largest customer and you're probably going to lose your first largest customer, I think that probably has a role,' Trump remarked, suggesting that economic pressure had created leverage ahead of the talks. When asked if Trump might offer 'economic incentives' to Russia in exchange for ending the war in Ukraine, the US President refused to disclose details. 'I wouldn't want to play my hand in public,' he said. However, he emphasised that Russia had 'tremendous potential' in oil and gas, calling it 'a very profitable business.' Trump indicated that if the summit yielded positive results, he would immediately call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and invite him to a follow-up meeting at one of three possible locations – potentially even remaining in Alaska 'because it would be by far the easiest.' 'If it's a bad meeting, I'm not calling anybody. I'm going home,' he said. 'But if it's a good meeting, I'm going to call President Zelensky and the European leaders.' Trump placed the odds of failure at 25 per cent, warning that unsuccessful talks could lead to further sanctions against Moscow. 'In that case, I will return to run the country – and we have made America great again already in six months,' he declared. While stressing that he would not personally negotiate an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, Trump said it would be up to Putin and Zelensky to finalise any deal. 'I'm not going to negotiate their deal. I'm going to let them negotiate their deal,' he added. The US President confirmed he would address the press after the meeting, but left open whether it would be alongside Putin. 'I think it might be nice to have a joint [press conference], and then separates,' he said, noting that he would speak publicly regardless of whether the summit succeeded or collapsed. As the world watches, Friday's meeting in Alaska could mark either a breakthrough in the Ukraine conflict or a deepening of geopolitical tensions – with India's role in the equation unexpectedly thrust into the spotlight.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
10 minutes ago
- Business Standard
To Lose a War: How the US slowly lost its way in Afghanistan conflict
A gripping account of two decades in Afghanistan, tracing the Taliban's fall, America's missteps, and the enduring human cost in Jon Lee Anderson's To Lose a War NYT TO LOSE A WAR: The Fall and Rise of the Taliban By Jon Lee Anderson Published by Penguin Press 371 pages $30 By Elliot Ackerman In one of the final scenes of Mike Nichols's 2007 movie Charlie Wilson's War, Representative Charlie Wilson of Texas, played by Tom Hanks, pleads with his colleagues to approve reconstruction money for Afghanistan. The country's mujahedeen, backed by the CIA, had by this point defeated the Soviets after a long and bloody war over the course of the 1980s. American policymakers were ready to move on and Wilson, begging for one one-thousandth of the sum the US government had recently appropriated to fight its secret war, says: 'This is what we always do. We always go in with our ideals and we change the world and then we leave. We always leave. But that ball though, it keeps on bouncing.' Jon Lee Anderson's To Lose a War: The Fall and Rise of the Taliban follows the bouncing ball. One of this country's pre-eminent war correspondents, Mr Anderson covered Afghanistan for more than two decades as a reporter for The New Yorker; this collection of his dispatches, all but one published in the magazine, spans that time, beginning in 2001, shortly after the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the US-affiliated Northern Alliance, and ending in late 2021, with a grim portrait of Afghanistan's myriad challenges — from crippling drought and economic collapse to political feuds — in the wake of the US withdrawal. In his preface, Mr Anderson characterises Afghanistan as 'more of a battleground of history' than 'a nation.' The early chapters deal with the rise of American power in Afghanistan in the aughts, as well as the Taliban's precipitate fall in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Weeks after those attacks, Mr Anderson travelled to Kabul at an inflection point. The Taliban were on the run. Osama bin Laden was on the loose. And the country stood on the cusp of a promising future unimaginable only weeks before. In those heady days, Mr Anderson interviewed Ghulam Sarwar Akbari, a former Afghan communist who, like Wilson in Nichols's movie, blames US disengagement after the Soviet defeat for Afghanistan becoming a terrorist haven: 'After the Soviets left, and the mujahedeen were victorious, America, instead of helping them to create a good government, forgot about Afghanistan. America shouldn't have done this.' Reading Mr Anderson's early dispatches is like stepping into a time capsule. His Afghan and American subjects give voice to the conventional wisdom of a period nearly 25 years behind us. In the aftermath of the US invasion, he meets with Jack Idema, a private security contractor, who cites the urgent need for a large American military presence, without which 'we're gonna be right back to where we were five years from now.' That interview took place in 2001. In a 2010 dispatch from Maiwand, in the country's south, Mr Anderson writes: 'The situation that the US military finds itself in in Afghanistan is an odd one. Formally speaking, it has been deployed in Afghanistan since the autumn of 2001, and yet, in areas like Maiwand, it is essentially a newcomer.' In the same chapter, he embeds with the US Army's Third 'Wolfpack' Squadron of the Second Cavalry as its soldiers struggle to contain the Taliban insurgency. Already, American military deaths are beginning to mount. One of those casualties is the clarity of purpose with which the US entered the war after 9/11. Afghanistan was supposed to be the 'good' war, fought for a righteous cause: The destruction of Al Qaeda and the dismantling of the Taliban regime that offered the group a haven. This was a government that inflicted human rights abuses on its own people, enforced a barbaric form of Shariah law and refused to allow girls to attend school, making Afghanistan the worst place in the world to be a woman. Despite such initial clarity, the US slowly loses the thread on what it's doing in the country. In one of his later chapters, Mr Anderson follows Lt Col Stephen Lutsky as he wages a failing counterinsurgency campaign in the restive Khost Province. Lt Col Lutsky describes how many Afghans were willing to cut deals that often undermined American efforts, saying: 'For Americans, it's black or white — it's either good guys or bad guys. For Afghans, it's not. There are good Taliban and bad Taliban, and some of them are willing to do deals with each other. It's just beyond us.' Ultimately, the tragic US withdrawal in August 2021 proved Lutsky's point: The war was 'just beyond us.' Today, the conventional wisdom from the end of the 1980s, when Tom Hanks's Charlie Wilson was pleading for reconstruction funds, has been turned on its head. Ideas like 'nation-building' and 'regime change' have become politically toxic on both sides of the aisle. Maybe that's sound policy. Or maybe those policymakers should read Mr Anderson's reporting. If they do, they will find a book that is as deeply humane and profoundly rendered as any I've read about Afghanistan, or any other war. To Lose a War is a monument to both good intentions and folly, a humbling reminder that the ball keeps on bouncing.
Economic Times
10 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Committed to move forward in ties with US based on mutual respect, shared interests: India
Despite recent trade tensions with the US, India expresses optimism for continued bilateral relations based on mutual respect and shared interests. The robust India-US defense partnership remains a crucial element, with a significant military exercise planned for August in Alaska. India dismissed the US State Department's human rights report, citing its biased assessment and misunderstanding of India's democratic framework. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads India on Thursday hoped that its relationship with the US will continue to move forward based on mutual respect and shared interests, in remarks that came amid strain in ties between the two countries following President Donald Trump slapping 50 per cent tariff on Indian Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal also said that the India-US defence partnership remains an important pillar of the ties, adding an important military exercise between the two sides is scheduled for August."We remain focused on the substantive agenda that our two countries have committed to and we hope that the relationship will continue to move forward based on mutual respect and shared interests," he was responding to questions on the future of India-US relations at his weekly media briefing."India and the United States share a comprehensive global strategic partnership anchored in shared interests, democratic values and robust people-to-people ties. This partnership has weathered several transitions and challenges," he ties between India and the US are reeling under some strain because of Trump's tariff imposing a reciprocal tariff of 25 per cent on India, Trump slapped an additional 25 per cent duties on Indian goods for its continuing purchases of Russian crude the last few months, India and the US held several rounds of negotiations for a bilateral trade deal but it could not be sealed in view of sharp divergences in certain critical areas including agriculture and bilateral trade between India and the US was around USD 130 billion last year and there was a projection of upward mobility in the said the India-US defence relations remained defence partnership, "underpinned by foundational defence agreements", is an important pillar of the bilateral partnership, he robust cooperation has strengthened across all domains, he noted."We are expecting a US Defence Policy Team to be in Delhi in 21st edition of the joint military exercise 'Yudh Abhyas' is also expected to take place later this month in Alaska," Jaiswal said."Both sides remain engaged to convene the 2+2 Inter-sessional meeting at the working-level towards the end of the month," he added."As far as the question of defence acquisition is concerned, the procurement processes continue as per established procedures," Jaiswal said, rejecting reports that India has paused purchases of military hardware from the a separate query on the US state department's annual human rights report criticising India, he said such reports are a "mix of imputations, misrepresentations and one-sided projections that demonstrate a poor understanding of India's democratic framework, pluralistic society and robust institutional mechanisms for protecting human rights.""We do not attach any credence to such biased assessments. We remain focused on advancing human rights for our people through inclusive governance and development," he said.
