3 ms·

The word "dictatorial" doesn't apply here. What we're talking about is government funding being provided to private universities. And Congress hasn't appropriat

The word "dictatorial" doesn't apply here. What we're talking about is government funding being provided to private universities. And Congress hasn't appropriated specific amounts of money to specific universities. It has created a pool of funds and given the executive branch discretion to allocate those funds. The powers of the executive branch are invested in the president. See Article II, Section 1 ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."). Congress, moreover, has enacted laws that use those funds as a hook to influence the behavior of private universities. Specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows the executive branch to deny federal funds to universities that discriminate on the basis of race. Now, it just so happens that, in 2023, Harvard university, among others, was found by the Supreme Court to have flagrantly violated that law: https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa... There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law, where Congress has authorized the executive branch to do so. Indeed, I'm at a loss to understand who else you think has the power to do this, if not the President?

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
I'm guessing that what GP meant with "dictatorial" was along the lines of the power you describe being wielded in a specific manner. To put it differently: a state of affairs where the Executive/President has those powers may not be dictatorial, but this specific instance of him making use of that discretion in this specific way might be.
otterley 2y ago
> There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the back door. Let the strength of your arguments and facts speak for themselves. And make sure they are actual facts.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. Didn't SFFA clearly establish that? The Supreme Court outright reversed the bench trial ruling, which had found that Harvard and UNC's programs comported with Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. You have a point that I should've said "was found to have violated" rather than "is in violation." Whether Harvard is still violating the law is debatable. But I'm not sure Title VI withholding can't be predicated on a recent violation. Regardless, as you know, the government routinely uses the threat of legal action for suspected violations to coerce compliance. Virtually every FDA/SEC/CFTC/etc. enforcement action starts with a letter along the lines of: "you're in violation of the law, do X, Y, and Z, or else we'll take action."
  - otterley 2y ago
    It’s not reasonable to characterize SFFA as a finding of wrongdoing on Harvard’s part. At the time, universities were adhering to existing law (Bakke and Grutter cases). The Court then overturned its own precedent and decided that what was once acceptable under its own law was no longer so. The text of the Equal Protection clause didn’t change; the only thing that changed was the Court’s interpretation of it. So it’s not like Harvard was operating in bad faith or being malicious, which is the characterization suggested by your “violation” language. (Not to mention that every university in America that considered race in their admissions process, despite not being a named party to the suit, was similarly situated—probably most universities in the country.) And there’s no evidence to suggest that Harvard didn’t respond appropriately and in a timely fashion to the new law.
    - foxglacier 2y ago
      It seems like Harvard and those other universities might have been pushing the boundaries. Was the discrimination required or just allowed? The court for Grutter seemed to say it was "required" and for Bakke a "compelling state interest", but I might not understand the meaning of that properly. There are universities that don't discriminate (UC?) and they somehow get away with it. If you were running Harvard and trying your best to comply with the law, would you feel it's legally safer to discriminate or to not discriminate? The answer to that points to whether they were operating in bad faith or not. Title VI seems to clearly say "don't discriminate" but again I might not understand how exceptions are allowed.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago

I'm guessing that what GP meant with "dictatorial" was along the lines of the power you describe being wielded in a specific manner. To put it differently: a state of affairs where the Executive/President has those powers may not be dictatorial, but this specific instance of him making use of that discretion in this specific way might be.

otterley 2y ago

> There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the back door. Let the strength of your arguments and facts speak for themselves. And make sure they are actual facts.

rayiner 2y ago
> Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. Didn't SFFA clearly establish that? The Supreme Court outright reversed the bench trial ruling, which had found that Harvard and UNC's programs comported with Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. You have a point that I should've said "was found to have violated" rather than "is in violation." Whether Harvard is still violating the law is debatable. But I'm not sure Title VI withholding can't be predicated on a recent violation. Regardless, as you know, the government routinely uses the threat of legal action for suspected violations to coerce compliance. Virtually every FDA/SEC/CFTC/etc. enforcement action starts with a letter along the lines of: "you're in violation of the law, do X, Y, and Z, or else we'll take action."
- otterley 2y ago
  It’s not reasonable to characterize SFFA as a finding of wrongdoing on Harvard’s part. At the time, universities were adhering to existing law (Bakke and Grutter cases). The Court then overturned its own precedent and decided that what was once acceptable under its own law was no longer so. The text of the Equal Protection clause didn’t change; the only thing that changed was the Court’s interpretation of it. So it’s not like Harvard was operating in bad faith or being malicious, which is the characterization suggested by your “violation” language. (Not to mention that every university in America that considered race in their admissions process, despite not being a named party to the suit, was similarly situated—probably most universities in the country.) And there’s no evidence to suggest that Harvard didn’t respond appropriately and in a timely fashion to the new law.
  - foxglacier 2y ago
    It seems like Harvard and those other universities might have been pushing the boundaries. Was the discrimination required or just allowed? The court for Grutter seemed to say it was "required" and for Bakke a "compelling state interest", but I might not understand the meaning of that properly. There are universities that don't discriminate (UC?) and they somehow get away with it. If you were running Harvard and trying your best to comply with the law, would you feel it's legally safer to discriminate or to not discriminate? The answer to that points to whether they were operating in bad faith or not. Title VI seems to clearly say "don't discriminate" but again I might not understand how exceptions are allowed.