The Trump administration is pushing hard on major issues of academic freedom in universities, using federal funding as a cudgel.
On Sept. 22, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin ordered the restoration of more than $500 million in research funding from the National Institutes of Health to UCLA, which the administration had suspended. That followed her August order reversing 300 freezes in National Science Foundation grants.
CalMatters reported the administration charged the school with “a litany of accusations, including that the campus permits antisemitism.” However, more than 360 Jewish members of the UC community signed a letter saying Trump’s action was “misguided and punitive,” which should count for something.
A key problem is the Trump administration is not following proper procedures in its accusations, Thomas A. Berry, director of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, told us. “Absolutely the federal government can and should fight back against antisemitism on campus,” he said. “But there are specific ways to do that under the law, such as bringing an investigation for specific violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Berry cited the 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, in which the court upheld “decency and respect” as advisory funding criteria. But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the majority opinion, warned against the government using “its power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective criteria into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints.”
Summarizing the current situation, Berry said there’s a difference between categorically canceling all programs, and making charges against specific programs that might, if proved, involve antisemitism.
A similar case is Harvard v. Trump, in which U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs on Sept. 3 overturned a Trump suspension of federal grants. Trump is appealing that decision, and likely will do so with the UCLA decision. Berry says these similar conflicts will ultimately need to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the meantime, instead of taking an overbroad approach, the Trump administration ought to bring only specific charges of misconduct and address them directly. Think scalpel rather than sledgehammer.