Latest news with #AAUP
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Two big cases underway over Trump's higher education policy. Here are the key takeaways
BOSTON ― A federal courthouse was the epicenter of the legal world on July 21 as federal judges heard arguments in two cases surrounding the Trump administration's efforts to revoke federal funding from Harvard University and to deport foreign-born student protesters for pro-Palestinian activism. In courtroom 18 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, U.S. District Judge William Young heard closing arguments in American Association of University Professors (AAUP) v. Rubio. The organization's chapters at several universities, as well as the Middle East Studies Association, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March over what it described as an "ideological deportation policy" the administration was using to retaliate against noncitizens for pro-Palestinian speech. Steps away, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments in Harvard's lawsuit against the administration over the more than $2.5 billion in federal funding it pulled from the school, citing its alleged inaction on antisemitism. The First Amendment lies at the heart of both cases, which could have significant implications for the future of higher education and free speech in the U.S. Here are key takeaways from the trials. Research, civil rights and lives are at stake, attorneys say Harvard's attorneys argued that the loss of federal funding would significantly damage the school's ability to conduct research that serves a public benefit while not meaningfully addressing antisemitism, NPR reported. The Trump administration, on the other hand, said Harvard's Jewish students are harmed by the school's alleged inaction on antisemitism, which it has said amounts to a violation of federal civil rights law. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte law firm, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration on behalf of the association's chapters at several universities, including Harvard, and the Middle East Studies Association in March. In AAUP v. Rubio, attorneys from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Sher Tremonte law firm argued that the Trump administration's 'ideological deportation policy' affected not only the activists who have been arrested thus far but created a chilling effect on the free speech of noncitizen students and faculty. The government's attorneys disputed the existence of such a policy. If it did exist, lawyer William Kanellis said, 'you'd see many more arrests.' Judges questioned some arguments Both judges were skeptical of some of the arguments attorneys attempted to make in their courtrooms. The notion that the government has the authority to slash Harvard's federal funding for any reason was a 'major stumbling block for me,' Burroughs said. She said there would be 'staggering' implications for constitutional law if the government had the power to make such decisions 'for reasons oriented around speech.' Burroughs also questioned how revoking Harvard's federal grants contributed to the government's stated objective of combatting antisemitism at the university, as the Harvard Crimson reported. Young, meanwhile, appeared skeptical of the AAUP's argument that the Trump administration created and implemented a new 'ideological deportation' policy. He also questioned the plaintiff's arguments surrounding Canary Mission, an organization that says it 'documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' The plaintiff's attorneys characterized it as an extremist group the government relied upon to identify noncitizens for investigation and arrest. Young was skeptical of the attorneys' characterization of the group and said it's 'perfectly appropriate for the government to take leads from any source.' First Amendment issues at the heart of both cases Alexandra Conlon, a representing the plaintiffs in the deportation case, said that by revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism, the federal government was 'systematically violating the First Amendment' and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with. On the first day of the trial, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora said the First Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens alike. But she later backtracked to say 'there are nuances to the First Amendment,' Politico reported. Department of Justice attorney Ethan Kanter continued that argument July 21, saying noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are 'context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play.' Lawyer Steven P. Lehotsky, representing Harvard in the funding lawsuit, said the administration's actions against the university reflect a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,' the Harvard Crimson reported. Administration's moves are 'part of a broader attack' Ramya Krishnan, a Knight First Amendment Institute attorney representing the AAUP in the deportation case, said both that case and the one over Harvard's federal funding were part of the Trump administration's higher education "power grab." 'These are part of a broader attack on higher education in this country in weakening the independence of these institutions, in undermining them as a site for discourse and intellectual inquiry," she said, "and I think that people should be very worried about that.' The Trump administration has accused schools of engaging in "exploitative and unlawful practices" and said its steps to overhaul higher education would "rebuild public trust" in such institutions. Burroughs said she would issue an opinion in the Harvard case soon after oral arguments concluded on July 21, the Harvard Crimson reported. The school has requested a ruling by Sept. 3, which is its deadline for submitting paperwork to close out its federal grant funding. Young did not offer a timeline for issuing his opinion in the deportation case. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump funding cuts, deportation hearings underway. What to know.
USA Today
22-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Two big cases underway over Trump's higher education policy. Here are the key takeaways
BOSTON ― A federal courthouse was the epicenter of the legal world on July 21 as federal judges heard arguments in two cases surrounding the Trump administration's efforts to revoke federal funding from Harvard University and to deport foreign-born student protesters for pro-Palestinian activism. In courtroom 18 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, U.S. District Judge William Young heard closing arguments in American Association of University Professors (AAUP) v. Rubio. The organization's chapters at several universities, as well as the Middle East Studies Association, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March over what it described as an "ideological deportation policy" the administration was using to retaliate against noncitizens for pro-Palestinian speech. Steps away, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments in Harvard's lawsuit against the administration over the more than $2.5 billion in federal funding it pulled from the school, citing its alleged inaction on antisemitism. The First Amendment lies at the heart of both cases, which could have significant implications for the future of higher education and free speech in the U.S. Here are key takeaways from the trials. Research, civil rights and lives are at stake, attorneys say Harvard's attorneys argued that the loss of federal funding would significantly damage the school's ability to conduct research that serves a public benefit while not meaningfully addressing antisemitism, NPR reported. The Trump administration, on the other hand, said Harvard's Jewish students are harmed by the school's alleged inaction on antisemitism, which it has said amounts to a violation of federal civil rights law. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte law firm, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration on behalf of the association's chapters at several universities, including Harvard, and the Middle East Studies Association in March. In AAUP v. Rubio, attorneys from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Sher Tremonte law firm argued that the Trump administration's 'ideological deportation policy' affected not only the activists who have been arrested thus far but created a chilling effect on the free speech of noncitizen students and faculty. The government's attorneys disputed the existence of such a policy. If it did exist, lawyer William Kanellis said, 'you'd see many more arrests.' Judges questioned some arguments Both judges were skeptical of some of the arguments attorneys attempted to make in their courtrooms. The notion that the government has the authority to slash Harvard's federal funding for any reason was a 'major stumbling block for me,' Burroughs said. She said there would be 'staggering' implications for constitutional law if the government had the power to make such decisions 'for reasons oriented around speech.' Burroughs also questioned how revoking Harvard's federal grants contributed to the government's stated objective of combatting antisemitism at the university, as the Harvard Crimson reported. Young, meanwhile, appeared skeptical of the AAUP's argument that the Trump administration created and implemented a new 'ideological deportation' policy. He also questioned the plaintiff's arguments surrounding Canary Mission, an organization that says it 'documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' The plaintiff's attorneys characterized it as an extremist group the government relied upon to identify noncitizens for investigation and arrest. Young was skeptical of the attorneys' characterization of the group and said it's 'perfectly appropriate for the government to take leads from any source.' First Amendment issues at the heart of both cases Alexandra Conlon, a representing the plaintiffs in the deportation case, said that by revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism, the federal government was 'systematically violating the First Amendment' and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with. On the first day of the trial, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora said the First Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens alike. But she later backtracked to say 'there are nuances to the First Amendment,' Politico reported. Department of Justice attorney Ethan Kanter continued that argument July 21, saying noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are 'context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play.' Lawyer Steven P. Lehotsky, representing Harvard in the funding lawsuit, said the administration's actions against the university reflect a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,' the Harvard Crimson reported. Administration's moves are 'part of a broader attack' Ramya Krishnan, a Knight First Amendment Institute attorney representing the AAUP in the deportation case, said both that case and the one over Harvard's federal funding were part of the Trump administration's higher education "power grab." 'These are part of a broader attack on higher education in this country in weakening the independence of these institutions, in undermining them as a site for discourse and intellectual inquiry," she said, "and I think that people should be very worried about that.' The Trump administration has accused schools of engaging in "exploitative and unlawful practices" and said its steps to overhaul higher education would "rebuild public trust" in such institutions. Burroughs said she would issue an opinion in the Harvard case soon after oral arguments concluded on July 21, the Harvard Crimson reported. The school has requested a ruling by Sept. 3, which is its deadline for submitting paperwork to close out its federal grant funding. Young did not offer a timeline for issuing his opinion in the deportation case. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
The Guardian
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Key takeaways from trial over Trump administration's ‘ideological deportation' policy
A trial over the extraordinary measures taken by the Trump administration to detain foreign scholars over their pro-Palestinian speech revealed previously unknown details about the extent to which immigration officials broke with precedent in their campaign against university activists. The case, which was brought by the national American Association of University Professors (AAUP); its Harvard, Rutgers and New York University chapters; and the Middle East Studies Association (Mesa) after the arrest of several noncitizen students and scholars who had been outspoken about Palestinian rights, marked the first time the administration was asked to defend its position that it has the authority to deport noncitizens over constitutionally protected speech. The plaintiffs argued the government's actions amounted to an illegal 'ideological deportation' policy. 'The Trump administration is imprisoning and expelling people because of their political viewpoints,' said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which represented the plaintiffs along with the law firm Sher Tremonte. 'It would be difficult to conceive of a policy more offensive to the first amendment, or to the values the first amendment was meant to serve.' While the four arrested scholars – including the Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk – have all been released from detention while their legal cases proceed, others have left the country to avoid arrest and one is in hiding. The trial ended in Boston on Monday. The judge in the case, Reagan appointee William G Young, is not expected to rule on the case for at least a few weeks. Any decision he makes will almost certainly be appealed, possibly up to the US supreme court. These are some of the revelations that came out of the trial. Among the trial's most explosive revelations was the fact that the government relied on dossiers compiled by the rightwing Canary Mission, a secretive, pro-Israel group dedicated to doxing thousands of pro-Palestinian students, scholars and activists, as well as information by the far-right Zionist group Betar USA, which even the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League lists as an extremist organisation. Both Canary Mission and Betar had been involved in compiling 'deportation lists', sending 'thousands of names' to government officials. While that had been previously reported, the testimony of senior US immigration officials revealed for the first time the extent to which the government relied on such lists. Peter Hatch, a senior official within Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division, testified that the agency assembled a group of officials – known internally as the 'Tiger Team' – dedicated to investigating student protesters. The team rapidly compiled more than 100 reports based on a list of 5,000 individuals identified on the Canary Mission website. The dossiers the agency compiled on Öztürk, Khalil and others highlighted their pro-Palestinian speech, Hatch testified, included their Canary Mission pages, as well as, in Öztürk's case, an op-ed she wrote in a student paper. 'The direction was to look at the website,' Hatch said in court. 'That we should look at the individuals named in the Canary Mission website.' Four of the officers involved in Öztürk and Khalil's arrests, as well as in the arrests of Columbia graduate Mohsen Mahdawi and Georgetown postdoctoral fellow Badar Khan Suri, said that orders to prioritize the scholars had come from high up within the Trump administration. They also admitted they had never taken part in such arrests before. A New England Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agent involved in Mahdawi's arrest, William Crogan, said that he had never seen a noncitizen removed from the US based on similar factual allegations and that his superiors had ordered him to prioritize the case. Patrick Cunningham, an Ice agent in Boston, said the same of Öztürk's case, while Darren McCormack, an agent in New York, said that the request to arrest Khalil was unusual and that he was told the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and the White House were specifically interested in Khalil's case. Andre Watson, a senior HSI official, testified that early in the Trump administration, Ice and the state department coordinated on a new process to implement the president's executive orders targeting student protesters. During the trial, the government's attorneys sought to block the release of documents detailing its processes and reasons for revoking student visas and issuing determinations of removability for green card holders such as Khalil and Mahdawi. The records for only five of the targeted students were released in the end; many others were not. The government also succeeded in blocking the release of a state department report detailing the administration's policies on the matter. The government has claimed the authority to deport noncitizens who have committed no crimes but whose presence it deems poses a threat to US foreign policy and national security, and it has said that the students' presence in the US interfered with its stated efforts to combat antisemitism. The US Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment but in court filings it called claims of an ideological deportation policy the product of plaintiffs' 'imagination'. But John Armstrong, the most senior official at the state department's bureau of consular affairs, admitted under questioning that statements critical of Israel or US foreign policy could qualify noncitizens for deportation. He also admitted that officials who were instructed to compile allegations about the individuals targeted received no guidance about what constitutes antisemitism even as they sometimes invoked 'antisemitic conduct' in their memos. The administration's lawyers have also equivocated on whether noncitizens have the same constitutional rights as US citizens, at one point saying they do, but later adding that there are 'nuances' related to national security, immigration and foreign policy matters. Both citizen and noncitizen scholars testified about the climate of fear created by the arrests. Megan Hyska, a Canadian philosophy professor at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in court that she decided not to publish an op-ed she had written about organising resistance to the Trump administration's policies out of fear of being targeted for arrest. Nadje Al-Ali, a German anthropologist and former director of the Center for Middle East Studies at Brown University, said she canceled plans to travel abroad and stopped pursuing research related to Palestine because of similar concerns. Veena Dubal, the AAUP's general counsel, testified that the government's fearmongering campaign has fundamentally altered the group's activities. She said that members who had previously been very active within the group stopped attending meetings. Aslı Bâli, Mesa's president, warned in a statement to the Guardian that the impact of the government's policies risked only growing worse. 'The government is abducting individuals, and thereby separating families and squandering public resources, purely on the basis of protected political speech that they disagree with,' she said. 'They need to be held to account, and our rights need to be defended, because otherwise we will find these protections gone – and the chilling effect will be pervasive.'
The Independent
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6B research cuts were illegal
File about 6 EDT Mon. Desk edited 7/19 by jjcooper. —- Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college — a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government. If U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
Boston Globe
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
It's a bit early to oppose Harvard's negotiations with Trump
'A lot of Harvard faculty believe' that negotiations are proper, Steven Pinker, psychology professor and copresident of Harvard's Council on Academic Freedom, told me. 'It's wise to try to see if there's a face-saving exit — especially assuming that the university doesn't do something crazy like allow the Trump administration to vet faculty appointments or to adjudicate viewpoint diversity or screen applicants for sympathy with American values.' That's the right approach. When the White House can make life even more difficult for Harvard and other universities — say, by trying to Advertisement But some members of the AAUP see the mere act of negotiating as an affront to the university's independence. Government professor and AAUP member Ryan Enos told me, 'It's not a negotiation when somebody is holding a gun to your head.' He added that 'in a free society, we don't negotiate for our rights.' Advertisement Enos has some misgivings about the rollout of diversity, equity, and inclusion in universities, but he believes the Trump administration is 'not asking for an honest and fair way to try to solve that problem.' He believes that the Trump administration is violating Harvard's First Amendment rights, as one of Harvard's lawsuits alleges. Similarly, Kirsten Weld, a history professor and president of Harvard's AAUP chapter, told me that the Trump administration is leveraging 'a huge amount of punitive, coercive power.' The Trump administration has overstepped on some of its demands, but on a purely practical level, Harvard is facing debilitating penalties. Billions of dollars are on the line for critical biomedical research. Foreign students that work on world-leading scientific research are no doubt eyeing research institutions abroad. 'The impact of these actions by the government, which are terrible, are terrible on biomedicine and the biomedical community at the medical school,' Jeff Flier, a medical school professor and the co-president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, told me. 'You know, if Harvard had no [federal] funding, the English department could continue for the next 600 years.' A Harvard Crimson Advertisement Many of the ideological gripes that Trump has with Harvard come out of the humanities — not from chemistry labs. And the truth is that the Trump attacks on Harvard, while There's heterodox thinkers in the name of 'safety.' I'd wager that some Harvard leaders are more than happy to have an excuse to do away with the most ideologically driven policies. And if Harvard has truly allowed discrimination to take place — something the Trump administration before attacking Harvard — then there are grounds for federal recourse. Negotiations are common parts of resolving legal disputes. The school shouldn't concede on issues that truly compromise its academic freedom. Some of the Trump administration's demands improperly ask Harvard to swap its own ideological litmus tests for the federal government's. Demands like auditing of the faculty and admissions process, and getting to define what ideological diversity looks like on campus are infringements on a private institution. But there are concessions that could actually strengthen Harvard's academic environment. Pinker listed a few, like upholding rules on disruptive protests, enacting measures to 'reinforce openness and mutual respect in the undergraduate culture,' and an agreement to follow the law on 'racial preferences in admissions and enrolling foreign students.' Advertisement Harvard should dismantle any remaining DEI bureaucracy and instead commit to upholding the civil rights protections that are already in place. It should shy away from the language of equity and instead resolve to respect each of its students equally, expecting excellence from everyone — something it Supporting negotiations with the Trump administration doesn't mean you want to instate a quota for the children of Mar-a-Lago members. Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
