4 ms·

I have a hard time imagining this specific threat to be more than bluster. Would someone with relevant legal expertise be able to comment on how likely a ban on

by alwa 2y ago

I have a hard time imagining this specific threat to be more than bluster. Would someone with relevant legal expertise be able to comment on how likely a ban on foreign enrollments would be to fly in the courts? Surely the administration have a substantial degree of discretion with respect to student visas, but can they precipitate a blanket revocal on something as nakedly coercive (and speech-involved) as this? (Edit: at a casual, non-expert glance it seems that a student can apply for a student visa at any SEVP-certified school, and the regulations governing SEVP certification seem to be at [0]. They list a lot of potential reasons to withdraw approval once it’s issued, but they all seem pretty specific: falsifying records, lying on your application, failing to keep proper records in relation to the students’ enrollment, and so on. Does it feel like maybe the mechanic here is claiming that tracking students’ speech is part of that essential record-keeping task?) [0] https://www.ice.gov/sevis/schools/reg#2144 https://www.ice.gov/sevis/schools/reg#2144

curious_curios 2y ago
NAL but we’re in uncharted territory here with the administration ignoring court orders.
- chinathrow 2y ago
  Uncharted for the US. Well known in other regimes.
- tomp 2y ago
  Not entirely uncharted. I'm not sure how it was done legally, but when the Supreme Court ruled that Biden administration's student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional, Biden (or rather, his team) found another way to forgive loans. I expect Trump's administration to similarly find legal workarounds.
  - d3nj4l 2y ago
    Yeah, they found another way. The Court said they couldn't do it one way, so they found legal ways to cancel debt. That's not ignoring a court order.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    >found another way to forgive loans. Yes, and? The supreme court ruled how the loans were canceled, not on Biden's desire to cancel loans
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    false equivalency > found another way to forgive loans finding another _legal_ way to do something is not at all the same as ignoring a court order or breaking the law
rayiner 2y ago
The Supreme Court has held that the government can use its control over funds to condition speech in ways it couldn’t directly: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-and-free-speech/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-a... The Supreme Court has also held that the government can revoke tax exempt status of a private organization where it furthers a compelling government policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United... Control over federal funding is also the hook for Title VI’s application of non-discrimination laws to private universities. The government also has the trump card up its sleeve that Harvard is almost certainly violating Title VI through extensive programs of race consciousness. It’s well established that the civil rights laws apply equally to whites as to non-whites. Harvard has many programs for non-whites where, if those programs were for whites instead, that would be a Title VI violation that would jeopardize Harvard’s federal funding. E.g. Harvard had various racially segregated graduation parties last year: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-university-to-offer-segregated-graduation-ceremonies-based-on-race-class-sexuality https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-university-to-of.... If you can’t have a “White Celebration” then you can’t have a “Black Celebration” either. If Harvard doesn’t settle they’ll get hit with a Title VI lawsuit and they’re going to lose it.
- allturtles 2y ago
  Your first link involves laws passed by Congress. But there is no relevant law that requires "viewpoint diversity" (whatever that means) or most of the other demands in the government letter, this is simply an executive diktat. Your second link involves a change in IRS policy. But there was no such change, instead again we have an executive diktat, despite the fact that the law explicitly forbids the President or his office from targeting specific institutions for audits or investigations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Whether Congress does it or the executive does it isn’t relevant to the first amendment question, which is what I’m responding to above.
grafmax 2y ago
Given the ongoing pattern of bullying, power grabs, and disregard for the law - including the trampling of constitutional rights - dismissing this latest threat as mere bluster seems less like reason and more like denial.

by alwa 2y ago

curious_curios 2y ago

NAL but we’re in uncharted territory here with the administration ignoring court orders.

chinathrow 2y ago
Uncharted for the US. Well known in other regimes.
tomp 2y ago
Not entirely uncharted. I'm not sure how it was done legally, but when the Supreme Court ruled that Biden administration's student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional, Biden (or rather, his team) found another way to forgive loans. I expect Trump's administration to similarly find legal workarounds.
- d3nj4l 2y ago
  Yeah, they found another way. The Court said they couldn't do it one way, so they found legal ways to cancel debt. That's not ignoring a court order.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  >found another way to forgive loans. Yes, and? The supreme court ruled how the loans were canceled, not on Biden's desire to cancel loans
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  false equivalency > found another way to forgive loans finding another _legal_ way to do something is not at all the same as ignoring a court order or breaking the law

rayiner 2y ago

The Supreme Court has held that the government can use its control over funds to condition speech in ways it couldn’t directly: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-and-free-speech/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-a... The Supreme Court has also held that the government can revoke tax exempt status of a private organization where it furthers a compelling government policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United... Control over federal funding is also the hook for Title VI’s application of non-discrimination laws to private universities. The government also has the trump card up its sleeve that Harvard is almost certainly violating Title VI through extensive programs of race consciousness. It’s well established that the civil rights laws apply equally to whites as to non-whites. Harvard has many programs for non-whites where, if those programs were for whites instead, that would be a Title VI violation that would jeopardize Harvard’s federal funding. E.g. Harvard had various racially segregated graduation parties last year: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-university-to-offer-segregated-graduation-ceremonies-based-on-race-class-sexuality https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-university-to-of.... If you can’t have a “White Celebration” then you can’t have a “Black Celebration” either. If Harvard doesn’t settle they’ll get hit with a Title VI lawsuit and they’re going to lose it.

allturtles 2y ago
Your first link involves laws passed by Congress. But there is no relevant law that requires "viewpoint diversity" (whatever that means) or most of the other demands in the government letter, this is simply an executive diktat. Your second link involves a change in IRS policy. But there was no such change, instead again we have an executive diktat, despite the fact that the law explicitly forbids the President or his office from targeting specific institutions for audits or investigations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217
- rayiner 2y ago
  Whether Congress does it or the executive does it isn’t relevant to the first amendment question, which is what I’m responding to above.

grafmax 2y ago

Given the ongoing pattern of bullying, power grabs, and disregard for the law - including the trampling of constitutional rights - dismissing this latest threat as mere bluster seems less like reason and more like denial.