Latest news with #TitleVI
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Anti-Semitism Gets the DEI Treatment
To do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is one definition of insanity. According to Robert Shibley, a special counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), it's also Columbia University's approach to addressing anti-Semitism on campus. On Tuesday, Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, announced in an email to the community that the university would take several steps to quell anti-Semitism on campus. Columbia will appoint Title VI and Title VII coordinators to review allegations of discrimination. It will launch new programming around anti-Jewish discrimination, send out regular messages affirming its zero-tolerance policy on hate, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism for certain disciplinary proceedings. In her message, Shipman promised that the university would continue making reforms until it had stamped out anti-Semitism. 'In a recent discussion, a faculty member and I agreed that anti-Semitism at this institution has existed, perhaps less overtly, for a long while, and the work of dismantling it, especially through education and understanding, will take time,' she wrote. The message was notable for how closely it resembled the communications that university presidents have previously sent out about other forms of discrimination. Replace the references to 'anti-Semitism' with 'racism,' and Shipman's message could practically have been lifted from the statements of summer 2020. As university presidents contort themselves to respond to campus anti-Semitism, they seem to be replicating the DEI push of the past decade, bureaucracy and all. It's not just Columbia. Harvard University is also implementing new trainings, evaluating its administrative complaint structure, and adopting a more expansive definition of anti-Semitism. Franklin Foer: Columbia University's anti-Semitism problem Setting aside the question of insanity, Columbia's approach is risky: University leaders may be implementing reforms that aren't proven to work, or are proven not to work. Giving anti-Semitism the DEI treatment is also ironic: Universities are instituting these policies under pressure from the Trump administration, which is simultaneously engaged in an effort to root out DEI from governing and educational institutions across the country. Anti-Semitism is a real issue at Columbia. As my colleague Franklin Foer documented, university administrators slow-walked responses to anti-Jewish discrimination; such apathy directed at any other protected group would have led to scandal. In the days after Hamas's brutal attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Columbia's student newspaper interviewed dozens of Jewish students about life on campus. Thirteen students said they had suffered attacks or harassment. Under President Donald Trump, campus anti-Semitism has also been a pretext to wage war on universities. In March, the Trump administration used Columbia's perceived deficiencies in combating anti-Semitism as an excuse to yank $400 million in research funding. It demanded far-reaching concessions as a precondition for getting the money back. Columbia soon acquiesced to the reforms, with only minor changes. But the administration still didn't restore the funding. The two parties have been locked in protracted negotiations ever since, though they are reportedly nearing a deal. Shipman's Tuesday announcement was one attempt among many to satisfy the administration. Assaf Zeevi, an Israeli professor at Columbia's business school, told me he was encouraged by the latest reforms. He cautioned, however, that these efforts would matter only if the university demonstrates that it will discipline students who harass their Jewish peers or violate protest policies. Otherwise, the recently announced measures are no more than lip service. (Columbia did not immediately provide comment.) Universities have built up their antidiscrimination apparatuses for decades now. Yet they seemed utterly ill-equipped to address anti-Semitism on their campuses. 'It suggests that whatever tactic universities were using and the huge growth in the bureaucracy dedicated to this hasn't been effective,' Shibley told me. 'I don't think there's any reason to assume that adding some coordinators or throwing more people at the problem is going to solve it.' Rose Horowitch: The era of DEI for conservatives has begun Ineffectiveness is one concern. Here's another: As the university sets up a new anti-Semitism bureaucracy, it runs the risk of repeating the overreach of the DEI movement. What began as a well-intentioned effort to address real issues of discrimination resulted in a proliferation of administrators who, in certain instances, evolved into a sort of speech police. David Bernstein, the founder of the North American Values Institute, has criticized DEI initiatives for flattening nuanced issues. 'I don't like the idea of training anybody in ideas,' he told me. 'Just as I'm critical of DEI programs for providing simplistic answers about power and privilege to complex issues, I'm worried that campus anti-Semitism training will use the same playbook.' The appointment of new Title VI coordinators and the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism could also tend in that direction. FIRE has opposed universities adopting the IHRA definition, arguing that it could be used to punish speech that merely, if harshly, criticizes Israel's government. Universities' existing policies are sufficient to punish anti-Semitic speech, Shibley said. The problem is that schools haven't enforced them. And then there's the fact that the Trump administration, even as it has focused on addressing anti-Semitism, has pushed universities to get rid of efforts that have the faintest whiff of DEI. The notion that some version of the DEI bureaucracy is appropriate for anti-Semitism and only anti-Semitism is nonsensical. 'Ultimately, the most important thing a university can do to deal with this anti-Semitism problem is to embrace the free expression of ideas and to make sure that they have faculty who embrace a genuine liberal education," Bernstein told me. The experiments in addressing anti-Semitism are likely to continue all summer and into the next academic year. 'Hopefully, some will work,' Shibley told me. 'I'm concerned, though, that many of them are going to cause government overreach and end up causing more problems than they solve.'
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
George Mason University's diversity efforts are now facing a major federal challenge: Here's why
George Mason University (GMU), one of Virginia's most diverse public institutions, is currently under investigation by the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The federal civil rights probe was launched over allegations that GMU's hiring and promotion practices unlawfully favour faculty from underrepresented groups, potentially violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. According to the OCR, the investigation stems from complaints filed by several professors who claim GMU engaged in "illegal racial preferencing" under its DEI initiatives. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in any programme receiving federal funding. OCR officials assert that the university's DEI policies amount to "pernicious and widespread discrimination," as reported by WTOP New s. Allegations focus on hiring and promotion policies The OCR cited various internal policies implemented at GMU since 2020. Among these are the appointment of Equity Advisors in each department who reportedly consider immutable characteristics such as race in hiring decisions. Additionally, GMU President Gregory Washington had expressed support for recognising "the invisible and uncredited emotional labour" of faculty of colour in tenure and promotion criteria, as quoted by WTOP News. Another point of concern raised by OCR is the university's diversity cluster hire initiatives, designed to close demographic gaps between the student body and faculty. The OCR claims these practices demonstrate that GMU "not only allow[s] but champion[s] illegal racial preferencing," according to a statement from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, as reported by WTOP News. University denies wrongdoing and rebrands DEI office In response to the investigation, President Washington stated in a university-wide email that GMU has "always complied" with civil rights laws and announced the renaming of the DEI office to the Office of Access, Compliance, and Community. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Washington described the change as "a more specific and intuitively accurate reflection of its charter," and clarified it was not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, according to WTOP News. GMU issued an official statement saying it received the OCR's letter at the same time as news organisations. The university reaffirmed its compliance with all federal and state laws and stated it regularly reviews its policies to ensure alignment with legal standards. Student and faculty demographics under review More than 50% of GMU's students identify as people of colour, yet over 65% of its faculty are white, according to internal university reports. This disparity has been central to the DEI measures now under federal scrutiny. Probe follows separate antisemitism investigation This is not the first time GMU has faced a Title VI investigation. Earlier this year, the OCR launched a separate inquiry into allegations that the university failed to respond appropriately to antisemitic incidents on campus following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023. The university has denied those claims, and President Washington stated that "antisemitism has no place at George Mason University, and never has," as reported by WTOP News. Investigation aligns with broader political context The GMU investigation comes amid a nationwide rollback of DEI programmes in higher education, with the current US administration under President Donald Trump taking an active stance against such initiatives. In Virginia, Governor Glenn Youngkin has prioritised restructuring university governance and cutting DEI spending. The case at GMU parallels a similar situation at the University of Virginia, where President Jim Ryan resigned following a Title VI complaint and political pressure. Analysts suggest that Virginia's upcoming elections, particularly for the office of Attorney General, may influence how such investigations unfold. Support and resistance from public figures and alumni Virginia's former Governor Doug Wilder, the first Black governor in US history and a GMU supporter, criticised the scrutiny facing GMU's leadership. He referenced his own experience attending segregated schools and questioned how George Mason, the university's namesake, would view the situation today, according to WTOP News . Three Democratic state senators who are GMU alumni—Jeremy McPike, Stella Pekarsky, and Saddam Azlan Salim—issued a joint statement of support for President Washington. They highlighted the university's academic progress between 2020 and 2025, referencing its jump from 45 to 30 in Wall Street Journal public university rankings, and from 72 to 51 in US News rankings, as noted by WTOP News . They concluded: "To claim that anti-racism is racially discriminatory makes a mockery of the laws the Department claims to be enforcing," as reported by WTOP News . TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us .
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Columbia announces additional steps to combat antisemitism amid negotiations with Trump administration
Columbia University announced Tuesday additional steps it would take to combat campus antisemitism after months of negotiations with the Trump administration to undo cuts to its funding. Among the steps, the most controversial Columbia President Claire Shipman announced was the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The definition is widely used among governments and other schools but has been criticized by left-leaning groups because it considers some anti-Zionism advocacy antisemitic. 'Columbia is committed to taking all possible steps to combat antisemitism and the University remains dedicated to ensuring that complaints of discrimination and harassment of all types, including complaints based on Jewish and Israeli identity, are treated in the same manner. Formally adding the consideration of the IHRA definition into our existing anti-discrimination policies strengthens our approach to combating antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Other actions will include appointing Title VI and Title VII coordinators, additional antisemitism training for faculty, staff and students and affirming a zero-tolerance policy for hate and antisemitism on campus. Two people familiar with the situation told The New York Times a funding deal between Columbia and the administration could come as early as this week. It could include a hefty hundred-million dollar fine and further reforms on campus. 'Our work toward an agreement with the federal government has put a harsh spotlight on many of the difficult issues regarding discrimination and harassment we've seen on our campuses. The fact that we've faced pressure from the government does not make the problems on our campuses any less real; a significant part of our community has been deeply affected in negative ways,' Shipman wrote. 'In my view, any government agreement we reach is only a starting point for change. Committing to reform on our own is a more powerful path. It will better enable us to recognize our shortcomings and create lasting change,' she added. Columbia began cooperating with the federal government after it took away over $400 million in funding for alleged inaction on antisemitism.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US Education in the Trump 2.0: A timeline of what changed in just 6 months
Timeline of US education-related actions during Donald Trump's second presidency (January 2025 – July 15, 2025) The second presidency of Donald Trump, inaugurated on January 20, 2025, has brought significant changes to the United States' federal education policy landscape. Over the first six months of the administration, sweeping reforms were undertaken that affected the US Department of Education (USED), civil rights enforcement, university funding, Title IX and Title VI interpretations, and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives across K–12 and higher education. Through executive orders, administrative actions, and Department-led initiatives, the Trump administration pursued a course of decentralisation, framing the movement as returning educational control to states and local communities. The restructuring included staff reductions, program eliminations, funding freezes, and legal battles surrounding enforcement of federal civil rights laws. January 2025: Executive orders and reorientation of USED priorities January 20, 2025: Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term as President of the United States. January 20–23: President Trump signed multiple executive orders aimed at dismantling DEI efforts across federal agencies. Most notably, Executive Order 14151 repealed Executive Order 11246, a landmark policy that had established affirmative action programmes requiring federal contractors to promote workforce diversity. This repeal effectively ended federal affirmative action requirements and led to the closure of DEI offices within government departments, marking a significant shift away from institutional efforts to address systemic inequities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo Additional executive orders signed on January 20 included: • Executive Order on Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Governmen t: This defined sex as male and female based on biological classification at birth, rescinding prior Title IX protections for gender identity and sexual orientation. • Executive Order on Expanding School Choice: Promoted public fund usage for private education, reducing federal involvement in K–12 education. • Executive Order on Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling: Reinstated the 1776 Commission to promote "patriotic education" and prohibited funding for schools promoting gender or equity ideologies. January 29, 2025: Executive Order 14190, titled 'Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling' , was signed. The order categorised the teaching of gender ideology and critical race theory as subversive acts, calling for investigations and the possibility of criminal penalties against educators facilitating social transitions for transgender students. January 31, 2025: USED issued a "Dear Colleague" letter signalling the return to the 2020 Title IX rules from Trump's first term. The rules narrowed the definition of sexual harassment, reinstated live hearings, and limited institutional liability. Legal challenges from education advocacy organisations followed. February 2025: DEI-related investigations and legal actions February 2, 2025: USED placed approximately 100 employees on administrative leave, primarily not related to DEI, as part of enforcement under Executive Order 14151. February 3, 2025: USED opened Title VI investigations into five universities—Columbia, Northwestern, Portland State, UC Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota—over allegations of antisemitic harassment linked to campus protests. Investigations followed Trump's Executive Order on Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. February 5, 2025: The 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' executive order was signed. It directed USED to enforce Title IX such that transgender women would be barred from participating in women's sports. The NCAA responded by restricting eligibility in line with the order. The University of Pennsylvania subsequently lost $175 million in federal funding due to its past compliance with more inclusive NCAA policies. February 10, 2025: USED terminated $336 million in Regional Educational Laboratory grants and $33 million in Equity Assistance Centre funding. The cancellations cited DEI and critical race theory content as misaligned with federal goals. Eight states filed suit, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. February 13, 2025: Linda McMahon was confirmed as Secretary of Education by the Senate (52–48 vote), with her agenda aligned toward dismantling the Department of Education. February 14, 2025: USED's Office for Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter interpreting the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision as invalidating all DEI programmes. The letter gave institutions 14 days to comply or face funding loss. Legal action followed, and a federal judge in New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement. March 2025: Layoffs, legal resistance, and executive restructuring orders March 1, 2025: An FAQ was issued by USED OCR clarifying the February letter's provisions. Despite adjustments, a Maryland federal court issued a nationwide injunction blocking the executive order's implementation. March 3, 2025: Secretary McMahon publicly outlined the "final mission" of USED as the decentralisation of federal education control and dismantling of the Department. March 11, 2025: USED announced a workforce reduction of approximately 2,000 employees—nearly half its staff. Layoffs impacted civil rights, special education, student aid, and research functions. An additional 600 employees resigned voluntarily. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) was nearly dismantled, with $900 million in research grants cancelled. USED's civil rights office saw over 40% staffing cuts. March 14, 2025: The Senate passed H.R. 1968, a Continuing Resolution funding key education programmes like Title I and IDEA through 30 September 2025. On the same day, USED launched Title VI investigations into 45 universities over race-exclusive DEI activities. March 19, 2025: The administration cut $175 million in funding to the University of Pennsylvania, citing Title IX violations. March 20, 2025: President Trump signed an executive order titled 'Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities' , instructing Secretary McMahon to facilitate the closure of USED and reassign responsibilities to Treasury, HHS, DOJ, and others. March 24, 2025: Over 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to block USED layoffs. A federal judge issued an injunction temporarily pausing further terminations and restructuring. March 31, 2025: The administration issued detailed oversight demands to Harvard, including audits and DEI policy reviews. Harvard President Alan Garber rejected these as unconstitutional. April 2025: Escalation of funding cuts and DEI restrictions April 3–11, 2025: The Trump administration expanded its demands on Harvard University. It requested a four-year audit covering academic governance, hiring practices, and curriculum oversight. In response, President Alan Garber reaffirmed resistance on April 14, citing constitutional protections. Litigation from faculty associations followed. April 14, 2025: The administration froze over $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard, citing concerns over DEI and antisemitism. Similar funding holds were placed on Columbia University (approx. $400 million), Cornell University (over $1 billion), and Northwestern University (approx. $790 million). April 23, 2025: President Trump signed a new executive order targeting DEI in higher education. The order required institutions to disclose all foreign financial ties, decertified DEI programmes for accreditation purposes, and revoked Obama- and Biden-era equity-based discipline guidance for K–12 schools. The new policy mandated behaviour-based discipline approaches and prohibited what it described as race-conscious disciplinary policies. May 2025: Institutional scrutiny and proposed agency transfers May 12, 2025: A task force including USED, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the General Services Administration (GSA) revoked an additional $450 million in federal grants to Harvard. The justification cited continuing violations of Title VI and DEI enforcement failures. May 22, 2025: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice of intent to revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Programme (SEVP) certification, threatening its international student enrolment. A federal judge swiftly granted an injunction, blocking the move. Late May 2025: USED and HHS opened a civil rights investigation into the Harvard Law Review following an alleged Title VI violation related to article submission practices. The investigation cited discriminatory procedures and editorial decision-making linked to DEI frameworks. May 2025 (ongoing) The Trump administration began discussing the structural reassignment of USED responsibilities. Proposals included moving: • Student loans to the Department of the Treasury or the Small Business Administration (SBA), • Special education oversight to HHS, • Civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice (DOJ). No formal transfers were completed by July 15, 2025, as such actions require congressional authorisation. The resulting uncertainty affected planning for institutions and borrowers. June–July 2025: Court rulings and further dismantling efforts June 6, 2025: Federal Judge Myong Joun upheld a March injunction that blocked further USED layoffs and agency restructuring. The ruling reaffirmed that layoffs and transfers without congressional oversight exceeded executive authority. July 14, 2025: The US Supreme Court, through its shadow docket, lifted the injunction, enabling the Department to terminate approximately 1,400 employees. The affected roles were largely within civil rights enforcement, special education, and federal research divisions. The Court's order allowed the Trump administration to proceed with dismantling USED functions, despite objections from legal and civil rights groups. Ongoing legal challenges and court rulings (January–July 2025) Multiple legal actions have been filed against the Trump administration's education policies, leading to several notable court decisions: • Boston Federal Court (March 2025): A lawsuit by 20 state attorneys general challenged the legality of USED staff terminations. A judge ordered staff reinstatement, but the administration reportedly delayed full compliance. • Maryland Federal Court (March 2025): A nationwide injunction was issued blocking major provisions of the anti-DEI executive orders, temporarily safeguarding grant eligibility. • New Hampshire Federal Court (March 2025): A judge blocked the enforcement of the February 14 'Dear Colleague' letter, ruling that it infringed upon free speech protections. • New York Federal Court (February 2025): The American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers filed a case over Columbia's funding cuts, alleging unconstitutional restrictions on institutional autonomy and academic speech. These legal developments have resulted in temporary relief for some institutions, though broader challenges remain pending in federal courts. July 15, 2025: Current status As of July 15, 2025, the US Department of Education remains operational, though significantly weakened. While full congressional dissolution of USED has not occurred, its functions have been curtailed through staffing reductions, executive orders, and agency restructuring. Core federal education programmes such as Pell Grants, Title I, and IDEA remain active. However, questions persist regarding their future oversight and delivery mechanisms. Universities, particularly Ivy League institutions, continue to face funding freezes and investigations related to DEI and antisemitism compliance. Summary of actions and institutional impacts Area Action Immediate Effects DOE workforce ~50% staff cut; legal injunctions; Supreme Court approval in July Disruptions in civil rights enforcement, research, student loans, and data collection Student loans/grants Mandates to transfer to Treasury/SBA; frozen university funds Borrower uncertainty; disruptions to aid and research funding Higher education $2.2B+ in grants frozen; DOJ/HHS investigations; accreditation scrutiny over DEI Legal battles; oversight compliance measures K–12 schools Executive orders on CRT, gender ideology, and discipline Removal of protections for transgender students; increased litigation Federal roles Proposals to transfer to HHS, DOJ, Treasury, Labour Coordination and implementation issues Legal and political context Despite multiple lawsuits and preliminary injunctions, the administration has proceeded with its education reform agenda. The Supreme Court's intervention to lift an injunction on USED layoffs marked a key turning point, raising concerns about separation of powers. While Congress holds the authority to dissolve federal agencies, no legislative action to abolish USED has occurred as of mid-July. The Trump administration has framed its education strategy as an effort to return control to states, eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies, and protect what it describes as American values. The coming months are expected to include continued legal battles, potential legislative standoffs, and policy shifts as USED's functions are reassessed. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
LI school trustee accuses board of 'corruption' over Thunderbirds 'Mascotgate'
This bird doesn't fly. A Connetquot school board meeting turned contentious when one trustee accused her colleagues of trying to strong-arm a backdoor deal to modify their Thunderbirds team name, while also claiming members withheld critical information from the public. 'In my two years of service, I've never witnessed such blatant corruption carried out to serve personal and self-interested agendas,' board member Jacquelyn DiLorenzo shockingly said during a July meeting on Long Island. Advertisement 5 'In my two years of service, I've never witnessed such blatant corruption carried out to serve personal and self-interested agendas,' Jacquelyn DiLorenzo said. James Messerschmidt 'I cannot, in good conscience, make an irreversible decision that could strip future boards and future generations of their right to determine their own path,' she added. The district has been under fire from Albany over a 2023 statewide ban on Native American mascots and logos, which it initially fought in court along with other Long Island districts. Schools that are non-compliant with the ban risk loss of state funding and removal of board members. Advertisement 5 The district has been under fire from Albany over a 2023 statewide ban on Native American mascots and logos. James Messerschmidt More recently, however, the Connetquot district quietly communicated to the state Education Department that it had, since around 2020, been allocating at least $23 million for a logo change. Both entities decided in late June to propose to condense Thunderbirds into the already in-use T-Birds. The compromise came just days before Sec. of Education Linda McMahon announced a federal probe over the deal, which her office says may violate Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act. 5 The Connetquot district quietly communicated to the state Education Department that it had been allocating at least $23 million for a logo change. James Messerschmidt Advertisement However, Jaquelyn Napolitano-Furno, a six-year trustee who stepped down this month, is irate over the backroom deal, as T-Birds was initially considered an unacceptable replacement. 'Mascot-gate is unfolding in Connetquot because the School Board decided to defy the will of the people,' Napolitano-Furno told The Post Monday. 'For four years, [T-Birds] was derogatory, and now it's not derogatory,' she previously said. Advertisement DiLorenzo also pointed to 'multiple community surveys' that blatantly show taxpayer interest in continuing the fight rather than kowtowing to the mandate. Both DiLorenzo and Napolitano-Furno said that the school board was reluctant to publicize the data last month and blasted the lack of transparency over the multimillion-dollar issue. The board's reasoning, according to DiLorenzo, is 'for the sake of saving their own trustee seats.' Napolitano-Furno spoke to The Post about the issue in late June, adding that at least one survey showed 60% of residents wanted to continue the legal battle for Thunderbirds. 'Worse, [the board] ignored the rest of the survey suggestions … because it doesn't fit the narrative they've already decided on,' DiLorenzo added. 'They've asked for your input through surveys they never intended to honor — unless the results gave them political cover.' 5 However, Jaquelyn Napolitano-Furno, a six-year trustee who stepped down this month, is irate over the backroom deal. James Messerschmidt She also said that Napolitano-Furno, who remains an individual plaintiff in a lawsuit to retain Thunderbirds, 'has been relentlessly pressured to drop her case' by the board as a means to instead move forward with the T-Bird compromise. 'The pressure didn't stop, not even during her daughter's graduation,' said DiLorenzo, who is also personally in favor of keeping the Thunderbirds. Advertisement Napolitano-Furno, who spoke at the July meeting, was informed that an emergency session would have been held in June to approve the deal — outside of public view — had she changed her position. 5 The board's reasoning, according to DiLorenzo, is 'for the sake of saving their own trustee seats.' James Messerschmidt 'It's disgraceful and sad to see Connetquot blatantly violate Title VI,' said Napolitano-Furno's attorney, Oliver Roberts. Advertisement DiLorenzo, who said she fought tooth and nail to have the board release survey information, also firmly believes that the public must be further involved. 'If change ever becomes unavoidable, it should be done with full community involvement,' she said. 'Not through backdoor assumptions.'
