Latest news with #Cicero
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
Dog dies in Cicero house fire, no people hurt
CICERO, N.Y. (WSYR-TV) — The North Syracuse Fire Department and the Onondaga County Sheriff's Office were called to a house fire in Cicero, where a dog died. First responders were called to the 6000 block of Thompson and Totman Road around 3 p.m. on Monday, where crews told NewsChannel 9 that no people were hurt in the fire, but a dog did die. First responders also said that the fire was reported by a neighbor and a passerby. The cause of the fire is currently unknown. This story will be updated as NewsChannel 9 learns more. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
RTÉ News
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- RTÉ News
5 tips for the perfect wedding speech
Analysis: You could turn to ChatGPT for help or you could take advice from ancient top orators like Cicero and Quintilian By David Roberts, Birmingham City University Looking for an example of how not to give a wedding speech? Try this. I was recently told an anecdote about guests at a wedding who became suspicious about the detached, cliched style of the groom's speech, and the monotonous way it was read. Gathered at the reception afterwards, they asked ChatGPT to write a groom's wedding speech. Bingo! The result was as good as identical. Admittedly, whether you're bride or groom, best man or chief bridesmaid, giving a wedding speech can be a scary prospect. But if you want to keep it personal and memorable, AI is not the answer. From RTÉ Radio 1's Brendan O'Connor Show, 'there is a certain kind of Irish lad who is made to be a best man'. Peter McGann on what makes a great best man speech, what to avoid and how to survive if it all goes wrong So what is? You could do a lot worse than following the five canons of classical rhetoric, as recommended by the great practitioners of the ancient world, Cicero and Quintilian: invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. Invention The first canon of classical rhetoric is invention. That's the process of discovering and developing the ideas you'll use in your speech. You can't speak about everything, and no one likes a speech that drones on. Around ten minutes is all you need. That leaves you time for maybe six or seven events in the life of the person you're talking about. If you visualise those six or seven events, that will help you remember them. Is there a theme or characteristic that binds them together? Identify one or two, and use them to create a thread. From RTÉ 2fm's Hennifer Zamparelli show, Jessica O'Sullivan on the politics of wedding speeches Good speakers often begin with a bit of a warm-up – maybe some light-hearted comments about the venue, or something in the news, or just a good joke. Plan to single out people in the audience for a mention or a laugh. Say something nice about the new family, or friendship groups you've discovered through the relationship. Arrangement History is your best friend when it comes to arranging the order of your speech. The events you've chosen under "invention" happened in order of time. So lean on history and organise them chronologically. Also, remember that many of the best wedding speeches often follow an arc from light to serious. You can make fun of your subject for a while, but nothing quite beats ending with love. Style This will vary depending on your role. Best men and chief bridesmaids traditionally skirt the boundaries of politeness, or sometimes go crashing through them (the worst best-man jokes are not repeatable here, nor anywhere else, and there's no shortage of books dedicated to them). From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, why Gen Z couples are requesting wedding party tracks from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s for their big day Mostly you'll be talking to a mixed audience. You can be a bit risqué without offending anyone (sexist jokes are not recommended). And because you're likely to be talking to people you know, try to be informal – the "familiar style", as it used to be called. That also means being personal. The speech has to sound like you. Memory The prospect of remembering a speech may feel daunting or impossible. But speaking without notes makes a huge difference to how you engage your audience. Look into their eyes and they will be drawn in. The ancient Roman educator Quintilian was one among many orators to recommend visual analogues as a memory aid – often, the ground plan of a house, where a porch leads to a hall, which leads to a dining room, and so on. You populate each room with clues. They might be verbal or visual. Anything that helps you lift your eyes from a script will increase your chances of getting the audience on your side. From RTÉ Today Show, is a B guest list a good idea for weddings? Delivery Calm your nerves by visualising the scene ahead of time. Most people visit their wedding venue before the big day, so take the opportunity to get used to the space, and then run it through in your head afterwards. Try rehearsing the speech while you're going for a walk. When it comes to the big day and the room is full, remember that you can't speak directly to everyone. Instead, pick out maybe three or four people to focus on, in different parts of the room. There are novel approaches and there are disasters. The double-act approach can work brilliantly, where bride and groom take turns to deliver a single speech, but it may need scripting. If the venue has the facilities, a slide show can work well. Picking out the various groups of families and friends and getting them to wave usually works as a good warmup. When you get a laugh, ride it – start speaking again just as the laughter is dying down. Don't wait for silence. If you get into a panic and can't think of anything, just say you're so happy that you're speechless, and raise your glass for a toast.
Hypebeast
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Hypebeast
'The Bear' Season 4 Trailer Reveals Carmy and the Crew's Race Against the Clock
Summary FXhas shared the official trailer ofThe Bearseason four. The trailer puts an emphasis on the financial aspect of running a restaurant, highlighting a brand new clock in the kitchen. Cicero tells Carmy that when the clock runs out, The Bear will no longer have money to continue operations and must shut down. It continues to tease the group's desire to 'take care of people' by serving them at the restaurant, but their own struggles come in the way of greatness. Syd warns Carmy about the pitfalls of using 'chaos and turmoil' to motivate his dishes, but he later tells her that he wants The Bear to be a sanctuary. The trailer also hints at another appearance from Jamie Lee Curtis, who portrays the Bearzatto matriarch. Returning for the fourth season are Jeremy Allen White, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Ayo Edebiri, Lionel Boyce, Liza Colón-Zayas, Abby Elliott, Matty Matheson and Oliver Platt. Watch the full trailer above. All 10 episodes ofThe Bearseason four premiere June 25.
