Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon issued a blanket condemnation of universities across the country, averring that virtually none of them have acted in accordance with federal law regarding non-discrimination in admissions.
Dhillon and her law firm joined the Alliance Defending Freedom to represent The Daily Wire when it <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/daily-wire-v-occupational-safety-and-health-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">became</a> the first major company to file a lawsuit against the emergency vaccine mandate implemented by the Biden administration in 2021. Other groups later joined the case, which was consolidated into National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of The Daily Wire and its fellow plaintiffs.
Dhillon <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/07/01/assistant-a-g-almost-every-school-violated-federal-discrimination-law/">said</a> with regard to Harvard University, “even if they never took a penny of federal funding again in the future, they’ve taken billions annually over the past many years. And so, the United States has jurisdiction over discrimination that has occurred during the time. And, to be very clear, every time a vendor like a university like Harvard takes federal money, they sign certifications saying that they’re compliant with federal law. Except they aren’t.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial&amp;_gl=1*r8odly*_gcl_au*MTQ5MDUzNjQ0NC4xNzQ1ODQ0MzMyLjEwNDAyMzM0NDQuMTc0NzY1MzIxNy4xNzQ3NjUzMjE3*_ga*MTM1OTk4Njg2NS4xNzA2NzE2NTAy*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NTEyOTIzMDQkbzMyJGcxJHQxNzUxMjkyOTI5JGo1NyRsMCRoMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-75638">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
“Almost no university in the United States has been compliant with federal law when it comes to anti-discrimination in admissions, and particularly the most elite ones,” she said, widening the argument. “They have quotas. They have discrimination. This sort of wave of antisemitism on American campuses, which I believe stems from foreign funding, but is absolutely allowed and exacerbated by callousness or even reckless disregard by these universities, is making life miserable for students, and the American government’s not going to put up with it. So, we have a choice as to where the federal money goes. And a minimum criterion is you can’t be in violation of federal law.”
According to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964<span data-ccp-props="{&quot;134233117&quot;:false,&quot;134233118&quot;:false,&quot;134245418&quot;:true,&quot;134245529&quot;:true,&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335551550&quot;:6,&quot;335551620&quot;:6,&quot;335559738&quot;:320,&quot;335559739&quot;:80,&quot;335559740&quot;:279}">, universities and colleges that receive federal financial aid are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. A student cannot be prevented from any educational opportunities or subjected to discriminatory treatment based on their color or ethnicity. Those anti-discrimination laws are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a division of the U.S. Department of Education.
In 2019, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) released the results of a seven-year study into illicit funding of U.S. universities by foreign governments. The study <a href="https://isgap.org/follow-the-money/">found</a> “substantial Middle Eastern funding (primarily from Qatar) to US universities that had not been reported to the Department of Education. &#8230; ISGAP has uncovered and established that the foreign donations from Qatar, especially, have had a substantial impact on fomenting growing levels of antisemitic discourse and campus politics at US universities, as well as growing support for anti-democratic values within these institutions of higher education.”
ISGAP followed that report with another titled, “<a href="https://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Ongoing_Failure_Report_Yale.pdf">The Ongoing Failure to Report: Yale, Qatar, And Undisclosed Foreign Funding</a>.”

US-POLITICS-REPUBLICANS-RNC

DOJ Warns: Almost All U.S. Universities Are Breaking Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws

American Universities

Civil Rights Division

Department of Justice

Discrimination

Education

Harmeet Dhillon

U.S.

When Naomi Best began a counseling psychology master&#8217;s program last year at Santa Clara University, she did not expect her professor to ask her what she disliked about her genitals.
As a required part of Professor Chongzheng Wei&#8217;s &#8220;Human Sexuality&#8221; class, students were asked to submit a &#8220;sexual autobiography&#8221; that could include talking about their genitals, sharing when they first began masturbating, or discussing their &#8220;personal sexual aspirations,&#8221; Best said.
The syllabus said students need not answer questions that &#8220;make you feel extremely uncomfortable,&#8221; but that was easier said than done.
At one point, a trans-identifying male psychologist was invited to be a guest speaker for the class, she said. When Best asked him what he meant by &#8220;gender euphoria,&#8221; he allegedly told her that he &#8220;almost came&#8221; when he saw himself in the mirror as a woman for the first time, she said.
The trans-identifying psychologist also allegedly told students, “trans women have the only p***ies that can blow up the world,” Best said.
Then there was the day when Professor Wei, who goes by &#8220;he/they/ta&#8221; pronouns, allegedly shared that he had bought a device at a kink festival to elongate his foreskin, Best said. The professor also allegedly showed the class an instructional video on how to tie someone up who was wearing a slave “gimp suit” to an X-shaped cross.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
ICYMI: Therapy student <a href="https://twitter.com/naomieppsbest?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@naomieppsbest</a> blows the whistle on mandatory training in smut. <a href="https://twitter.com/maireadelordi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@maireadelordi</a> reports. <a href="https://t.co/xf5PmTcxGo">pic.twitter.com/xf5PmTcxGo</a>
&mdash; Morning Wire (@MorningWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/MorningWire/status/1938247484267970876?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He also allegedly had students watch a video of a BDSM dungeon tour that featured a female influencer being flogged, electroshocked, ball-gagged, put in a guillotine, subjected to knife “play,” and wrapped in plastic and made to jump up and down as a &#8220;humiliation tactic,&#8221; all with no warning, Best said.
Afterwards, Wei smiled and asked if students wanted to try it themselves. Best walked out of class that day, and ended up dropping the class altogether.
&#8220;There&#8217;s an argument to be made that therapists should be aware of the breadth of human sexual practices, including BDSM, and I am not contesting that, but the manner in which this material was presented was promotional,&#8221; Best told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;There was no clinical framing,&#8221; Best said. &#8220;I want to be able to talk with clients about sex if they want to talk about it. If a client comes to me and brings it up that they get sexual gratification from inflicting pain upon somebody, I think that therapists should be trained to have curiosity about that association &#8230; not for the reason of telling them they&#8217;re a bad person. Therapists don&#8217;t do that. But to have a conversation about it, if they bring it up.&#8221;
She had dropped the &#8220;Human Sexuality&#8221; class once before when she was asked — and declined — to discuss her &#8220;masturbation history&#8221; in a group of four students that included a man, she said.
Best, a 26-year-old married mother of a toddler, believed that revealing her personal sexual history would be a violation of her Christian beliefs. So, she requested the same accommodation she had heard female Muslim students were offered, which was to take the course remotely. Instead, Professor Wei asked to meet with her and promised there would be no personal sexual disclosure in his class, but that turned out to be wrong, she said.
&#8220;It&#8217;s just clearly a hostile learning environment, and I don&#8217;t know how to explain that to somebody who just doesn&#8217;t inherently understand it,&#8221; she said.
Best took her complaints about the course all the way up the chain at Santa Clara University, exhausting every official avenue from the Title IX office to the school&#8217;s president. She explained her issues with the class — the invasive sexual autobiography, a swath of &#8220;gratuitous&#8221; sexually titillating course material, and alleged unprofessional behavior from the professor and guest speakers.
But she said her concerns were not taken seriously. The school dismissed her Title IX claim, and when she asked for a refund for the class, a school representative called her request &#8220;astonishing,&#8221; according to emails shared with The Daily Wire.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The time is now to take on ideological capture of therapy. I’m just getting started. <a href="https://t.co/BTm4OrHUFM">pic.twitter.com/BTm4OrHUFM</a>
— Naomi Best (@naomieppsbest) <a href="https://twitter.com/naomieppsbest/status/1935170217090629938?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Ideological capture is near complete in the field of psychology. Schools, training grounds, accreditation bodies, and professional guilds are all complicit.
&mdash; Naomi Best (@naomieppsbest) <a href="https://twitter.com/naomieppsbest/status/1935140122296725918?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Blew the whistle in <a href="https://twitter.com/WSJopinion?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WSJopinion</a> on ideological rigidity in therapy training. A week later, I am fired from my internship with the regret of my boss. This field is in crisis. The public needs to know. <a href="https://t.co/EldOjq0hOG">pic.twitter.com/EldOjq0hOG</a>
&mdash; Naomi Best (@naomieppsbest) <a href="https://twitter.com/naomieppsbest/status/1933292756765716743?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Last week, Best received a letter from Sabrina Zirkel, dean of the School of Education and Counseling Psychology telling her that, &#8220;we do not agree with your interpretation or characterization of what the syllabus required&#8221; and &#8220;based on input from others who were present, we also do not agree with your assertions about and characterization of what occurred during the class.&#8221;
The dean argued that &#8220;the class requires internal self-reflection which is the type of work that therapists ask of their clients,&#8221; but that &#8220;under no circumstances were you required to disclose sexual memories, sexual experiences, or any other personal information that you did not wish to share.&#8221;
The school said Best still has the opportunity to &#8220;complete this content through approved continuing education classes offered by a third-party provider.&#8221;
Professor Wei and the heads of the Education and Counseling Psychology school all referred requests for comment to Santa Clara University&#8217;s media office.
In a statement to The Daily Wire, Santa Clara University said that &#8220;no student is expected to or required to reveal or disclose private sexual information they do not want to share&#8221; and &#8220;self-disclosure of an intensely personal nature is not required.&#8221;
The school said the class has been taught with a similar approach and similar assignments since the mid-1990s.
&#8220;We do not agree with many of the student’s public assertions about the class,&#8221; the university said. &#8220;People who were present dispute statements being made by the student and her characterization of classroom discussions and course content, including the readings, speakers, and assignments.&#8221;
Best says one of the books the class studied was &#8220;The Guide To Getting It On,&#8221; a book with explicit cartoons of sexual acts, whose author <a href="https://ucsdguardian.org/2004/06/01/summer-reading-heats-up-with-sex-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> he wrote the book as &#8220;revenge for eight years in Catholic school.&#8221; Santa Clara University is a Catholic Jesuit school.
The school said it could not comment on the details of Best&#8217;s complaint but said the Title IX office may sometimes conclude that &#8220;course requirements or classroom content are protected by the principles of academic freedom.&#8221;
Best believes her experience points to a deeper problem in the counseling psychology world.
&#8220;What happened at Santa Clara University was unethical and will be remedied,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I want to bring awareness to the fact that psychology and counseling has been ideologically captured. That means that there is one permissible worldview for upcoming therapists to hold, and it is grounded in critical theory.&#8221;
Earlier this month, Best came out publicly with her concerns and <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/santa-clara-universitys-crazy-idea-of-human-sexuality-therapy-licensing-higher-education-44e744ce?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAijGcRg9HzkiSNcp-aiyabuI168QfQHcSgOG8e-CkmVRCiDtuKx8MB3kTfwXg%3D%3D&amp;gaa_ts=685389bf&amp;gaa_sig=eP2Ptw3OgBEwcKj5AHvObMjHZ8FfWvgADp2XkRUWKX2-oX7ISvVUM9iI5v2Uu5eER1jBPWtyOlwX7tbFI52J0A%3D%3D" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.
After her op-ed ran, Best said she was fired from her required therapy internship — unrelated to the school — after she was called into a meeting with over a dozen colleagues where she said she was &#8220;attacked for what I wrote.&#8221;
&#8220;I think I just blew up my career,&#8221; she told The Daily Wire.
However, since going public with her allegations, Best has received an outpouring of support.
An alumnus of Santa Clara University <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/santa-clara-an-alumnus-would-like-a-word-human-sexuality-course-69440035?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAjukHLV0uaBwUu8n-oX1QMhkeRjH8Ez31nLAlhKctGAqw03SqRFKZCS4c-l4g%3D%3D&amp;gaa_ts=685389bf&amp;gaa_sig=o5uKqr-rOlgMrQUZTfxPe0JGPDTiE42klL79rBZwsXHDNKT43B1L3mdU0QFNkpZ7MS2E1T6JxiUunxEld0LrPg%3D%3D" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> Best&#8217;s experience with her graduate class &#8220;gobsmacking, sordid and sad&#8221; in a letter to the editor The Journal published.
Her social media videos discussing the situation have been viewed millions of times, and many people have reached out in support, including lawyers and other students with similar experiences, she said.
&#8220;Two weeks ago, I was living a private life with a great career path,&#8221; Best said. &#8220;I am putting that on the line to bring this issue to the public&#8217;s attention because I think it is important and I think people will be harmed if it is not addressed.&#8221;

How A California Psychology Student Exposed The Dark Side Of Therapy Education

How A California Psychology Student Became A Whistleblower For Smut In Therapy Education

California

College

Gender

higher education

LGBT

LGBTQ

Transgender

Every year, millions of high school students across the country dream of attending America’s most selective colleges. In California, that goal may be harder to reach as pro-affirmative action lawmakers push for new ways to give certain groups a leg up in admissions.
As a high school junior in San Jose, I will be applying to college next year. Students like me are taking AP classes, building their profiles, and doing everything we’ve been told to help us get into the schools of our choice.
The system is far from perfect but the basic premise is that colleges will then, in good faith, try to weigh each applicant based on merit and context. No group receives an unearned advantage at the expense of others.
<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB7/id/3029617">California Assembly Bill 7</a> (AB7) blows a hole in that idea.
The bill, which recently passed in the Assembly by a 54–17 vote, would allow California public universities to consider whether an applicant is “a descendant of a chattel enslaved person of American chattel slavery.” It’s part of <a href="https://blackcaucus.legislature.ca.gov/news/california-legislative-black-caucus-introduces-2024-reparations-legislative-package">a broader reparations push</a> and now headed to the state Senate.
The bill’s author, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, says it’s not about race but historic harm. “For decades, universities gave preferential admission treatment to donors, and their family members, while others tied to legacies of harm were ignored and at times outright excluded,” Bryan <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-universities-slavery-descendants-admissions-4b0e84c27b40725a9f7929b230a591ca">told the Associated Press</a>. 
He’s right about history. The legacy of slavery has shaped socioeconomic outcomes for Black Americans. But that doesn’t mean all descendants of slavery are disadvantaged — or that ancestry should now serve as some kind of admissions shortcut.
That distinction seems to be missing from the conversation. What we’re left with is a bill that awards preference based on ancestry.
This bill proposes an eligibility line drawn by lineage. To be clear, the text does not use the words “Black” or “African American” but rather delineates a specific historical category, “descendants of U.S. chattel slavery,” without using racial language. It’s designed to sidestep Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in 1996, and the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions that struck down affirmative action nationwide.
Legal scholars describe such policies as “race proxies”: mechanisms that dodge explicit racial language but preserve race as the decisive factor in practice. Courts have repeatedly scrutinized such end-runs: in Parents Involved v. Seattle, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-908">the Supreme Court warned</a> against policies that look constructive but act as racial stand-ins.
The legal system has long treated ancestral classifications with the same suspicion as racial ones. In Hirabayashi v. United States, the 1943 case on Japanese-American internment, <a href="https://edge.sagepub.com/epsteinpowers11e/student-resources/chapter-5-interbranch-interactions/hirabayashi-v-united-states">the Court held</a> that “distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Moreover, the express text of Proposition 209 includes “ethnicity” in its enumeration of protected categories as well as race.
The bill defines a “descendant of slavery” as someone whose ancestors were enslaved specifically in the United States, meaning it would exclude many Black students whose families came from Africa or the Caribbean after abolition. Meanwhile, someone who identifies as white but has traced a distant enslaved ancestry through DNA testing could, in theory, qualify. And we know these terms circle a ridiculously arbitrary line. African American activist Angela Davis <a href="https://www.today.com/popculture/tv/angela-davis-finding-your-roots-mayflower-ancestors-rcna71700">went on PBS’s</a> ancestry show Finding Your Roots only to find out she’s a descendent from Mayflower colonists. She was mortified.
But even if Bryan turns out to be right on the legal question, does the technical distinction between race and ancestry suddenly make it fair to those it excludes?
No. Ancestry-based preferences would still have effectively all the same downsides as other affirmative action policies: lack of individual assessment, blunt group categorization, and fairness concerns for everyone else. As Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf">wrote in the SFFA majority opinion</a>: “College admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter.”
Even if preference is framed as reparative, someone else is paying the price.
There are better options to help marginalized students. California lawmakers could index Cal Grants to local cost of living. They could strengthen the UC/CSU admission guarantees for top students at public high schools. They could improve outreach around community college transfer guarantees or pass bills like <a href="https://www.padilla.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/BASIC-Act-One-Pager.pdf">the BASIC Act</a>, which would give colleges resources to help students cover food, housing, and health care.
This bill, by contrast, like other affirmative action-adjacent legislation before it, assumes inherited identity stands in for “lived struggle.” It doesn’t.
We don’t need another lecture on systemic inequality. We see the results of it in classmates of all backgrounds who stop aiming high because they don’t think college is for them, or can’t imagine paying for it.
The California Senate should reject this bill and pursue fairer solutions, rather than advancing a measure the Supreme Court is likely to strike down.
* * *
William Liang is a student journalist living in San Jose, California.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Stanford Graduate School of Business

I’m Preparing For College. California’s New Slavery Bill Could Change Everything.

I’m Preparing for College. California’s New Slavery Bill Could Change Everything.

Affirmative Action

High School

Opinion

Sacramento

Slavery

In 2025, American students from kindergarten through law school are dumber than they’ve ever been, and we needn’t look beyond the nation’s abysmal math and English literacy <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NAEP scores</a> to prove it. Now, more than 200 California bar exam takers have had their failing scores <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/more-than-200-california-bar-exam-takers-move-from-fail-pass-after-new-scoring-adjustment?intcmp=tw_fnc&amp;taid=683e94171dc732000173e032&amp;utm_campaign=trueanthem&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter">adjusted</a> to “pass,” indicating that the newest crop of California lawyers are dumber than they’ve ever been, too. What’s more, under simultaneous consideration by the state bar is a rule allowing students who registered for — but withdrew from — taking the bar exam altogether, to practice law under the supervision of “qualified” attorneys, bar exam be hanged.
Something nefarious is afoot, and its name is equity.
Public schools in Arlington, Virginia, <a href="https://ednewsva.org/arlington-public-schools-lowers-grading-standards-in-the-name-of-equity/">allow</a> students to redo assignments, turn in late work, and reduce the weight given to homework and quizzes. Georgia public schools went more than <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/georgia/articles/2022-06-10/no-a-to-f-grades-for-georgia-public-schools-for-third-year#:~:text=Georgia%20will%20go%20a%20third,of%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.&amp;text=June%2010%2C%202022%2C%20at%202%3A30%20p.m.">three</a> years without assigning A-F grades to any student in the state.
Portland, Oregon public schools have <a href="https://lawenforcementtoday.com/portland-school-district-launches-initiative-to-ban-teachers-from-giving-zeros">implemented</a> grading practices that bar teachers from assigning &#8220;zeros&#8221; to students who cheat or fail to turn in assignments — a process ostensibly geared toward eliminating &#8220;racial disparities&#8221; and &#8220;inequities&#8221; in grading and instruction.
Education failures like these bear a direct relationship to “equity” — a principle geared toward equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity — and its ruinous impact on every aspect of American learning. Equitable grading for example, a concept popularized by <a href="https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/19/05/grade-expectations">Joe Feldman</a>, author of the book “Grading for Equity,” seeks to replace traditional grading concepts which use measurable inputs and outcomes (like class attendance and participation, test scores, and completed assignments) with “equitable grading” techniques that rely on “accuracy,” “bias resistance,” and “motivation.” This noxious trend has replaced what little academic rigor American educational institutions do impart with practices that dumb down all students and guarantee the equivalent of academic participation trophies.
If you think that this sounds unfair, lowers the expectations of all students, or weakens academic rigor, you’d be right on all accounts. 
If you think that it might cause confusion for teachers, students, and parents, or reduce clear metrics by which students can be measured, or give students a false sense of security as they approach higher education and the workforce, you’d be right again.
Among popular “equitable grading” practices are “minimum grading” policies, which prevent teachers from assigning students less than 50% credit. Common, too, are prohibitions on grade penalties for late work and bans on grading homework and class participation. But not only do these exercises risk removing both discretion from teachers and crucial incentives for students to study hard, they dilute expectations and are nearly guaranteed to harm students they are purportedly meant to help.
Equitable grading policies are also big business, as our <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/equitable-grading-consultants/">research shows</a>.
In fact, a small research cohort yields evidence of expenditures of $9 million in American tax dollars spent on equity consultants since 2014, with California as the biggest offender. Our survey of 39 school districts across seven states in the past 11 years is proof positive that many educational institutions are more concerned with race essentialism and progressive, <a href="https://defendinged.org/resources/understanding-equitable-grading-jargon/">jargon-laden</a> social experimentation than they are with preparing their students for the real — and often intellectually challenging — world.
When activists demand “equity,” what they’re really saying is that the basic American value of color-blind equality of opportunity, with the rules applying equally to everyone, regardless of race — is itself, racist, because equality of opportunity doesn’t always produce equality of results. But “equity,” or attempting to achieve equality of results, requires the discrimination of one group over another — even though both started from the very same place, with the very same teachers, tools, resources, and tests at their disposal. “Equity” flies in the face of the Constitution’s guarantee that all Americans receive “equal protection” of the laws, with none garnering more or less.
Only <a href="https://citizensandscholars.org/resource/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/">36%</a> of Americans can pass a multiple-choice test consisting of items from the U.S. Citizenship Test. An 8th grade <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/79470/1895-8th-grade-final-exam-i-couldnt-pass-it-could-you">final exam</a> from 1895 has stumped even the brightest of today’s scholars. As rigor falls, so do standardized test scores — hence the decision of many colleges and universities to make college applications “test-optional,” and eschew the traditionally required ACT or SAT exam scores.
State and local education institutions must focus on rigorous instruction and strong family-community ties that build trust, not on ensuring every student is pushed forward, no matter their readiness, in order to meet an unspoken social, equity-driven metric. This is how employment — and ultimately, economic — crises are made.
American students need more rigor, more discipline, more accountability, and more stringent grading systems.
And please, for Heaven’s sake, let’s get better lawyers.
* * *
Sarah Parshall Perry is vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. 
Correction: We have corrected the spelling of the word &#8220;afoot.&#8221;

Setting the page on fire with some hard work

American Students Are Dumber Than Ever, Thanks To ‘Equity’

American Students Are Dumber Than Ever, Thanks To 'Equity'

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Equity

Students

CNN&#8217;s chief data analyst Harry Enten revealed on Monday that most Americans agree with the Trump administration’s assessment that higher education needs &#8220;a kick in the rear end,&#8221; with confidence in colleges plummeting to just 36%.
The decline in Americans&#8217; confidence in higher education has been dramatic over the past decade, Enten explained, citing a recent Gallup poll.
&#8220;You go back a decade ago, 57% of Americans had high confidence in higher education. &#8230; That number has plummeted &#8230; down to 36%,&#8221; Enten explained, speaking with Kate Balduan, adding that 68% of Americans believe higher education is &#8220;on the wrong track.&#8221;
The perception of ideological bias on college campuses is widespread, with Enten revealing that a plurality of Americans agree colleges have a liberal bias, while only a small minority disagree.
“So, do colleges have a liberal bias? I think that&#8217;s really the question here. What we see in polling after polling after polling is that the plurality say yes. Overall, look at that. 45% of Americans overall agree with the idea that colleges have a liberal bias. Just 24% disagree with that idea.”
Among Republicans, the sentiment is even stronger, with “67% of Republicans&#8221; agreeing that &#8220;colleges have a liberal bias,” reflecting why many conservatives have long criticized academia.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“This is why Donald Trump is so emphatic and so wanting to take on this fight because he knows that Republicans hate universities, hate the administrations, believe they have a liberal bias, and in fact the plurality of Americans overall agree with the idea, agree with Donald Trump, that colleges are in fact a place where bias reigns.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
A lot of Americans agree with Trump: higher ed needs a kick in the rear end. Those with high confidence in higher ed has collapsed: 57% in 2015 to 36% now. 68% (!) say higher ed is on the wrong track.
Also, a plurality of Americans &amp; the GOP agree: colleges have a liberal bias. <a href="https://t.co/JZtup3BoGV">pic.twitter.com/JZtup3BoGV</a>
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1928088903279358015?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
According to Enten, it&#8217;s no longer much of a question of if there is bias, but rather, “it’s a question of whether or not people agree with Trump’s tactics,” although they “definitely agree with him on the idea that there is a problem with higher ed overall.”
These poll results come as Trump has attempted to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-freezes-all-new-student-visa-interviews-in-major-blow-to-elite-universities?author=Nathan+Gay&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Admin+Freezes+All+New+Student+Visa+Interviews+In+Major+Blow+To+Elite+Universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">crack down</a> on universities such as Harvard, which receive billions in federal funding and grants despite rampant DEI initiatives and tolerance of antisemitism on campus.
Trump&#8217;s tough stance on higher education may already be having an impact internationally. Webpage views for U.S. university courses from potential students abroad have plummeted by 50% between January and April, according to Enten, suggesting foreign students are looking elsewhere for their education.

Pro-Palestinian Protests Continue At Columbia University In New York City

Even CNN Analyst Has To Admit ‘Americans Agree With Trump’ On Broken Higher Ed System

Bias

Harry Enten

Polls

The Trump administration is blocking all new student visa interviews in preparation for upcoming social media vetting requirements for all international students.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a cable on Tuesday directing U.S. embassies to &#8220;not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, and J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued &#8230; which we anticipate in the coming days,&#8221; according to a document POLITICO <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/trump-team-orders-stop-to-new-student-visa-interviews-as-it-weighs-expanding-social-media-vetting-00370501" target="_blank" rel="noopener">obtained</a>.
The pause affects all applicants for student visas while the administration reportedly prepares guidance for expanded social media vetting requirements.
This represents yet another blow to the finances of dozens of elite universities from the Trump administration, which has cut billions in federal grants for Ivy League institutions such as Harvard and Yale, in addition to threatening their tax-exempt status over free speech violations and DEI initiatives.
The more than 1 million international students in the United States represent a significant revenue source for many American higher education institutions, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/25/international-students-harvard-trump/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">constituting</a> nearly 30% of Harvard’s student body.
Several prestigious institutions have faced <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-apologizes-for-inaction-after-students-antisemitic-abuser-pleads-guilty?author=Kassy+Akiva&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=46&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=University+Apologizes+For+Inaction+After+Student%E2%80%99s+Antisemitic+Abuser+Pleads+Guilty">accusations</a> of tolerating antisemitism and allowing foreign influence to spread unchecked on their campuses, issues that gained heightened attention after Hamas&#8217; October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and subsequent campus protests.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
This directive broadens the scope of the administration&#8217;s previous social media vetting, which had primarily focused on students returning to the U.S. after potentially participating in pro-Hamas protests.
The Department of Homeland Security <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/homeland-security-to-screen-immigrants-and-foreign-students-social-media-for-anti-semitism?author=Kassy+Akiva&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=43&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Homeland+Security+To+Screen+Immigrants+And+Foreign+Students%E2%80%99+Social+Media+For+Anti-Semitism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> in early April that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would begin screening foreign students&#8217; social media for antisemitic content and any history of physically harassing Jews.
In the screening process, USCIS is considering any social media content that “indicates an alien endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefit requests.”
The Tuesday cable references executive orders aimed at keeping terrorists out of the country and combating antisemitism, though it doesn&#8217;t explicitly detail what the future vetting would screen for.
The State Department has not provided additional details about when the expanded vetting requirements will be implemented or how long the pause on new visa appointments might last, at the time of writing.
The Trump administration has consistently prioritized national security concerns in its immigration policies, with particular focus on identifying potential threats before they enter the country and addressing what it views as ideological bias in academic institutions.
“I think it’s crazy to invite students into your country that are coming onto your campus and destabilizing it,” Rubio <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/homeland-security-to-screen-immigrants-and-foreign-students-social-media-for-anti-semitism">said</a> in April. “Every country in the world has a right to decide who comes in as a visitor and who doesn’t.&#8221;

Supreme Court Rules Affirmative Action Is Unconstitutional In Landmark Case With Harvard And UNC

Trump Admin Freezes All New Student Visa Interviews In Major Blow To Elite Universities

Anti-Semitism

foreign students

Free Speech

Hamas

Harvard

Israel

Politics

Visa

Foreign donations to American universities surged during the Biden administration, with Qatar, the largest source of such funding in the past 40 years, and China, the second-largest, significantly ramping up their donations.
According to a new report from the Network Contagion Research Institute shared exclusively with <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/explosion-in-foreign-funding-for-american-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Free Press</a>, the amount of foreign funding for American universities during the Biden administration — $29 million —  equaled the total over the last forty years.
“The floodgates opened during the Biden era,” NCRI’s co-founder Joel Finkelstein told The Free Press. &#8220;This isn’t just a financial issue—it’s a national security crisis. Hostile powers are buying influence on American campuses at an industrial scale.”
Last week, President Donald Trump signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/transparency-regarding-foreign-influence-at-american-universities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executive order</a> that required institutions of higher education to “report significant sources of foreign funding,” while noting, “But, because section 117 has not been robustly enforced, the true amounts, sources, and purposes of foreign money flowing to American campuses are unknown. From 2010 to 2016, according to one study, universities failed to disclose more than half of reportable foreign gifts. Even when foreign funding is reported, its true sources are often hidden.”
Trump pointed out that during his first term, “the Department of Education opened investigations on 19 campuses from 2019-2021, which led universities to report $6.5 billion in previously undisclosed foreign funds. Yet the prior administration undid this work, moving the Department of Education’s specialized investigatory work on foreign funds to a unit ill-equipped to perform it, undermining investigations, and hindering public access to information on foreign gifts and contracts.”
The order authorized the Secretary of Education to “take appropriate steps to require universities to more specifically disclose details about foreign funding, including the true source and purpose of the funds,” while adding that the “Secretary and the Attorney General shall hold accountable higher education institutions that fail to comply with the law concerning disclosure of foreign funding.”
“<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/10/american-universities-continue-to-underreport-foreign-money/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A 2024 study</a> published by the National Association of Scholars found that universities failed to disclose at least $1 billion in foreign funding since Biden took office, the majority of which came from authoritarian countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey,” The Free Press reported, adding, “While Qatar holds the designation of a <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2917336/major-non-nato-ally-designation-will-enhance-us-qatar-relationship/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">major non-NATO ally</a> of the United States, the country is also known for <a href="https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/12/19/10-things-to-know-about-hamas-and-qatar/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">harboring the leaders</a> of Hamas and <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/article/qataris-are-exporting-political-islam-to-west-vgcs9fnsv?region=global" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exporting political Islamism</a>, including by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, across the Middle East.”
The NCRI analysis examined donations disclosed to the federal government, as required by law for donations of more than $250,000. This means that a significant amount of undisclosed funds may also be being donated. The Free Press <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/campus-rage-middle-eastern-roots-qatar" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously reported</a> that 200 or more American colleges and universities illegally withheld information regarding an estimated $13 billion in undisclosed contributions from foreign countries.
“An official on Trump’s antisemitism task force told The Free Press that they are actively investigating ‘alleged connections between foreign malign actors and student groups on campus.’” The Free Press revealed. “The official said the task force was scrutinizing connections between both student groups and faculty who have ties to universities such as Birzeit in the West Bank, which Israeli officials have <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-arrests-8-palestinian-students-suspected-of-planning-terror-attack/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously accused</a> of having <a href="https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sjhksv5o0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ties to Hamas</a>.”
Last year, an NCRI <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/social-psychology/articles/10.3389/frsps.2024.1408913/full">study</a> in Frontiers of Social Psychology found “providing massive financial support to campuses with ascendant illiberalism serves the interests of foreign actors hostile to the U.S. in particular or liberal democracy in general.”
“It is notable that the universities exploding with anti-Israel protests have the strongest relationships with governments whose national interests are at direct odds with the United States,” The Free Press concluded.

five hundred riyal qatari banknotes stacks isolated on white background, 3d render, qatar money 500 riyal

Foreign Funding Of U.S. Universities Surged During Biden Admin, New Report Says

China

Foreign Funding

Qatar

World

You will not find a legal theory that&#8217;s done more damage to this country in the last half century than the idea of &#8220;disparate impact.&#8221; Whether you realize it or not, this is a legal concept that has almost certainly impacted your life at some point, along with the lives of millions of other people. In short, disparate impact allows people to sue whenever a policy — whether it&#8217;s a government policy, or the policy of a private business — has a disproportionate effect on certain demographics. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the policy is intended to be discriminatory. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the policy is completely neutral, on its face. All that matters is whether the policy affects some demographics more than others.
To give just one example: If a written test for a police academy contains basic math questions — questions which are not racist in any way — the test is still considered to be illegal under the disparate impact theory if, say, 80% of black applicants fail it. The only way to survive a lawsuit under this theory is to prove that, in reality, the disparate impact is strictly necessary for some important purpose of the business or organization. 
In practice, especially in places like New York and California, this is extremely difficult to prove. After all, we&#8217;ve been told meritocracy is now a racist concept. Why do police officers need to understand that two plus two equals four, anyway? A lot of jurors actually think like this, especially the ones who won&#8217;t venture outside unless they&#8217;re wearing two masks and a portable ventilator. Therefore, most companies and government agencies, in the end, have decided to simply water down their standards, in order to avoid the possibility of litigation. Disparate impact was the precursor for affirmative action and &#8220;equity&#8221;, as it&#8217;s called today. Mediocrity has become the norm because it&#8217;s enforced by law.
We&#8217;ve all been conditioned to accept this status quo since the 1960s, even though it&#8217;s obviously contrary to basic principles of fairness and morality. Several administrations have come and gone, both Democrat and Republican, and disparate impact has remained untouched. But very abruptly, that changed yesterday, when the Trump administration issued an executive order formally <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/">ending</a> disparate impact in this country, in all contexts.
The order is called &#8220;RESTORING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND MERITOCRACY&#8221; and, among other things, states: &#8220;disparate-impact liability has hindered businesses from making hiring and other employment decisions based on merit and skill.&#8221;
Therefore, according to the order signed by the president:
<blockquote>It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.</blockquote>
Yes, there will be inevitable legal challenges to this executive order. Yes, Congress should immediately pass this executive order into law in order to insulate it, as much as possible, from Obama-appointed judges in Washington. But even as it stands, already, this executive order is a major step towards reforming America&#8217;s failing institutions. It&#8217;s part of a broader effort by this administration to end the era of racial grievance, which has made a husk out of everything it touched. In particular, it&#8217;s helped destroy the educational system in this country, which is now fixated on spreading propaganda instead of teaching students the skills they need to survive and function in society. Universities currently spend most of their time administering affirmative action programs, and teaching students about the evils of white supremacy and colonialism. It&#8217;s a complete waste of time — actually, it&#8217;s even worse than a waste of time — and everyone knows it.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1582-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Now the Trump administration, with this executive order on disparate impact, is doing something about it. And it&#8217;s clear that the administration had the education system in mind yesterday when they issued this executive order, because on Wednesday, the administration also took several other actions aimed at reforming America&#8217;s colleges. One of those executive <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reforming-accreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">orders</a>, for example, is called &#8220;REFORMING ACCREDITATION TO STRENGTHEN HIGHER EDUCATION.&#8221; 
The text of this order points out that the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate in this country currently stands at just 64%. Yes, just 64% of undergraduates currently finish college on time.
Additionally, roughly 25% of undergraduate programs and 40% of graduate programs ultimately yield a negative return on investment for students. The Trump administration is therefore requiring an overhaul of the process through which schools are accredited. If schools can&#8217;t demonstrate a commitment to merit, instead of racial discrimination, then they won&#8217;t be accredited anymore. And for many universities, that would be a death knell. They&#8217;d immediately lose access to billions of dollars in federal funding for Pell Grants and student loans.
This is why, during the campaign, Donald Trump <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-accreditors-executive-order-universities-4e4366cc?mod=hp_lead_pos1">referred</a> to the accreditation process as his &#8220;secret weapon.&#8221; It&#8217;s a way to use the established powers of the federal government to compel schools to start upholding basic educational principles. For generations, the government hasn&#8217;t used these powers. We&#8217;ve allowed pretty much every school — from community colleges to Harvard — to get away with scamming their students, discriminating along racial lines, and teaching useless classes about &#8220;decolonizing Shakespeare&#8221; or whatever. At the same time, tuition has increased exponentially because the federal money has kept flowing, in the form of easy student loans. Then, to make matters worse, college students — many of them Left-leaning — have taken this loan money and refused to repay it. In other words, people who didn&#8217;t go to college are directly subsidizing people who spent four years earning useless degrees, and then became deadbeats who are unable (or unwilling) to pay their debts.
This fraud was enabled by the Biden administration, as you probably remember. In fact, even when the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration was breaking the law, they still refused to compel college graduates to pay off their loans.
Yesterday, however, the Trump administration ended this state-sanctioned fraud. They&#8217;re now beginning the collections process on these deadbeats — including federal employees who are about to have their pensions frozen. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
White House press sec. Karoline Leavitt on defaulted student loan payments being sent to collections on May 5: “The government can and will collect defaulted federal student loan debt by withholding tax refunds, federal pensions and even their wages.” <a href="https://t.co/40ymqY435M">https://t.co/40ymqY435M</a> <a href="https://t.co/NbEgvs9o2h">pic.twitter.com/NbEgvs9o2h</a>
&mdash; ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1914736600547746069?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
It&#8217;s a simple principle that everyone understands: If you borrow money, you should repay it. But Democrats attempted to suspend this principle during the last election campaign because they thought it would resonate with voters. And in some areas of the country, it did resonate. There&#8217;s a reason Joe Biden won the state of Virginia, where all of the so-called &#8220;public servants&#8221; live. But as it happens, the rest of the country wasn&#8217;t happy about assuming the debts of these alleged &#8220;public servants.&#8221; So they won&#8217;t have to assume those debts anymore.
There were other executive orders and actions that the Trump administration took yesterday concerning universities. For example, one order <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/transparency-regarding-foreign-influence-at-american-universities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">requires</a> that universities disclose any foreign funding they might be receiving. The attorney general is tasked with overseeing compliance with this requirement as a matter of &#8220;national security.&#8221; This is a measure that&#8217;s obviously long overdue, especially after we learned that Joe Biden was stashing classified documents in his office space at the University of Pennsylvania&#8217;s &#8220;Penn-Biden Center,&#8221; which was funded extensively by the Chinese. Everyone knows that, for a long time, major universities in this country have been openly operating like de facto embassies for various countries that hate us. And now they could face criminal prosecution for doing so.
Another order that the president signed yesterday implements new procedures to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/white-house-initiative-to-promote-excellence-and-innovation-at-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">improve</a> the quality of education at so-called &#8220;historically black colleges and universities,&#8221; which have struggled significantly in comparison to most other schools in the country. For many years, the federal government has simply flooded these schools with money, without any concern for how they&#8217;ve been wasting it. Now, pursuant to this executive order, the Trump administration will seek to &#8220;increase the private-sector role, including the role of private foundations&#8221; in funding these schools. In other words, the taxpayers won&#8217;t have as big a role.
All of these changes are necessary because, under the current arrangement, the university system in this country is failing. As a result, a lot of people — myself included — have made the rational decision to forgo college altogether. Bloomberg just published a lengthy report on this trend. Their report focuses on an 18-year-old student who just graduated from high school in Madison, Ohio, which is 45 minutes east of Cleveland. According to this student, neither he nor any of his male classmates will attend a four-year-university. They&#8217;re <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-04-21/why-american-men-think-it-s-not-worth-going-to-college-anymore?embedded-checkout=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opting out</a> of going to college, for one reason or another.
<blockquote>In this corner of the Midwest—where the median household income is $78,000 and the largest city is 47,000-strong Mentor—the share of men age 18-24 enrolled in college dropped by more than 15 percentage points in the decade through 2023, the biggest decline in any large county in the US. The average slide, by comparison, was about 3 percentage points. In 2013 half of the young men in Lake County were enrolled in college; 10 years later, that number was only 1 in 3, according to a Bloomberg Businessweek analysis of US Census Bureau data. Men opting out of college isn’t a new phenomenon: Women have outnumbered men in undergraduate enrollment for about 40 years, and the gap continues to widen. Almost half of women age 25-34 have earned a bachelor’s degree, according to Pew Research Center data; for men the rate is 37%. Between 2011 and 2022, the number of Americans attending college dropped by 1.2 million, with men accounting for almost the entirety of that drop. &#8230;. When Jennifer Schuller became president in 2023 of Lake Erie College, the only four-year college in Lake County, the drop in enrollment was palpable: She inherited a $5.6 million deficit. In the previous decade, the student body—which is majority men—had decreased by almost 20%.</blockquote>
As much as I may criticize the university system and as much as I encourage young people to not see college as the necessary default option right out of high school, I still maintain that this is not a decline worth celebrating. It&#8217;s a completely understandable decline, of course. Universities and colleges have done this to themselves. They&#8217;ve wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and all they&#8217;ve done is churn out a useless product that more and more people are foregoing because it&#8217;s too expensive and pointless. It&#8217;s completely rational for millions of students to stop attending these schools. That&#8217;s true. But ultimately, that&#8217;s not the outcome we should want. A functioning country should be able to offer 18-year-olds a variety of good schools to attend, if they want to master some highly specialized skill — whether it&#8217;s engineering or programming or medicine or whatever. That should always be an option for certain students. But we don&#8217;t have that anymore.
We have a system where, even if you&#8217;re a very smart individual who could theoretically become a doctor, you stand a very real chance of being denied admission to a medical school simply because you&#8217;re white, or because you have the wrong political beliefs. And if you&#8217;re confronted with that possibility, and you&#8217;re 18 years old, why would you bother with the whole process? Why not take a guaranteed job where your skills will pay you, right away? Why subject yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and years of indoctrination, especially if it may not pay off — for reasons that are both completely unfair and completely outside your control?
Young people are asking these questions. And the only correct answer is to tell them that this insanity is coming to an end. Otherwise, the education system will continue to fail.
The good news is that finally — for the first time in a very long time — some action is being taken on this front. The other day we <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-lawyers-promoting-child-indoctrination-to-scotus-were-absolutely-humiliated" target="_blank" rel="noopener">talked</a> about efforts by elementary schools to indoctrinate children into the gender cult, and how it looks like the Supreme Court is about to put an end to those policies. Now we&#8217;re talking about how the Trump administration just issued an all-out blitz of executive orders that are designed to restore merit and competence to all of America&#8217;s institutions, including its universities. This is progress. It&#8217;s not a guarantee that these institutions will be saved — Harvard in particular is fighting back, as you&#8217;d expect — but it&#8217;s a start.
The truth is that the education system can either teach students, or it can attempt to brainwash them into the religion of leftism. Those are the options. There is no middle ground. And if there&#8217;s one thing this week has made clear, it&#8217;s that the current administration — unlike every other administration in recent history — understands that choice very well.

Trump To Sign Executive Order To Bolster AI Education, Workforce

The Education System Is Failing, But Change Is Coming

Matt Walsh

President Trump

Student Loan Cancellation

Student Loans

Women

As the Department of Education yanks $175 million of federal funding from the University of Pennsylvania for violating Title IX by allowing males into women’s sports, Secretary Linda McMahon should also consider cracking down on other, more common procedural violations of Title IX that have been routinely committed by colleges for over a decade: that is, violations against due process for students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct.
This status quo was created by the Obama Department of Education’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, which gutted protections for the accused in the name of “victims’ rights,” under penalty of losing federal funding. The letter mandated that colleges use the “preponderance of evidence” standard — which only demands that the guilty be deemed over 50% likely to have committed misconduct — as opposed to the stronger “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” standard employed in criminal trials in actual courts. It also allowed alleged victims to appeal the result of a disciplinary hearing — a form of double jeopardy otherwise barred by the legal system. Moreover, it discouraged cross-examination of victims, claiming this would “retraumatize” them, and enabled a single-investigator model, in which the person investigating the sexual misconduct claim would also adjudicate the sexual misconduct claim and decide as to whether or not the accused was guilty — giving the investigator the near absolute power to be “prosecutor, judge, and jury” at once, as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education <a href="https://www.thefire.org/news/breaking-new-title-ix-regulations-undermine-campus-free-speech-and-due-process-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> it.
Having received Obama’s memo, colleges went above and beyond — the Constitution, that is: even after President Trump took office for the first time and then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos rescinded the Obama-era “Dear Colleague” letter in 2017, colleges kept their kangaroo courts — and began to be taken to court themselves. In two notable cases, federal courts determined that accused students at the <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/26/us-appeals-court-finds-student-accused-sexual-assault-was-denied-due-process" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of Cincinnati</a> and the <a href="https://www.thefire.org/news/court-holds-university-michigan-administrators-personally-liable-violating-students-due" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of Michigan</a> had their constitutional rights to due process violated. Per a 2019 <a href="https://nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Harris-Johnson-Campus-Courts-in-Court-22-nyujlpp-49.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> by Samantha Harris and K.C. Johnson, over 500 lawsuits were filed by accused students in the post-2011 period; 340 lawsuits went to federal court; colleges lost over 90 federal decisions; and colleges chose to settle over 70 lawsuits out of court before a decision could be made. This was around the peak of #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen: in that cultural moment, anyone accused of sexual misconduct was essentially presumed guilty until proven innocent, a horrible inversion of the American rule of law.
Eventually, in 2020, DeVos established a rule ensuring Title IX proceedings would respect due process and treat both accuser and accused fairly. Because DeVos used the rulemaking process, rather than ruling by “Dear Colleague” fiat as her predecessor did, her decision was harder to reverse by the Biden administration. As a result, the Biden rule came toward the end of his administration in 2024, and, thanks to the administration’s overreaching attempt to rewrite Title IX to include “gender identity,” was immediately caught up in federal injunctions and barely implemented by the time Trump took office a second time and officially brought back the DeVos rule. That means that despite the change in administrations and attempted changes to Title IX by Biden, most colleges have been subject to the DeVos rule for most of the past five years.
Nevertheless, <a href="https://x.com/kcjohnson9/status/1893051067799060764" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuits</a> over the past several years have continued to be filed by accused students and faculty alleging that their colleges treated them unfairly in Title IX proceedings. Just this month, the Fourth Circuit <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/expelled-unc-student-can-pursue-reinstatement-not-money-in-federal-suit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> in favor of an accused student at the University of North Carolina, noting that due process, live hearings, and cross-examination are crucial in Title IX proceedings. The persistence of lawsuits from the accused suggests that colleges are still not treating the accused fairly, and, as a result, are not only potentially disciplining, expelling, and firing perfectly innocent people — mostly men — they are also undermining the validity of all allegations, which makes it more difficult for real victims — mostly women — to be taken seriously.
College bureaucrats act this way in part because they are concerned with their own interests first: the #MeToo zeitgeist of yesterday still has them convinced that the fallout from blatantly unconstitutional proceedings will be less damaging to them than the possibility of activists calling them “rape apologists” for treating accused students and faculty with fairness. The Department of Education can change this calculus by stripping federal funds from every institution violating the rights of the accused. Only harsh federal action and the potential for penalties where it hurts will show colleges that they will suffer more for presuming guilt and holding unfair proceedings than they will for presuming innocence and treating both parties fairly, as the American rule of law demands.
On a more human note, colleges are often the places where young men and young women form their opinions of the world and of each other. Especially at a time when relations between the sexes are <a href="https://www.economist.com/international/2024/03/13/why-the-growing-gulf-between-young-men-and-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">souring</a>, it is crucial that colleges be expected to follow the law if they are to continue to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars.
* * *
Neeraja Deshpande is a policy analyst and engagement coordinator at Independent Women.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Views Of Yale University As Ivy League Pay Soars

‘Prosecutor, Judge, And Jury’: Why Campus Kangaroo Courts Should Lose Federal Funding

'Prosecutor, Judge, And Jury': Why Campus Kangaroo Courts Should Lose Federal Funding

Betsy DeVos

Department of Education

Due Process

Obama Administration

Title IX

University of Michigan

University of Pennsylvania

Columbia University made <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/columbia-u-prez-gets-flak-from-faculty-for-not-fighting-harder-against-trump">headlines</a> for accepting the Trump administration’s <a href="https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/03.21.2025%20Columbia%20-%20FINAL.pdf">demands</a>: in exchange for the restoration of over $400 million in federal funding — which the federal government revoked from Columbia due to its failure to address violent campus anti-Semitism, a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the university will expel disruptive students, increase campus security, review its admissions policy, and place certain departments under academic receivership.
The mainstream is, unsurprisingly, aghast. “Columbia has capitulated to the bullies,” <a href="https://www.nyclu.org/press-release/columbia-university-gives-in-to-trump-admin-demands-eroding-academic-freedom-and-student-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">read</a> a statement from the ACLU of New York.
It’s an interesting choice of word, “bullies,” and, for Columbia, rather convenient. Based on <a href="https://freebeacon.com/campus/what-columbia-university-president-really-told-faculty-members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">leaked internal conversations</a> from Columbia, administrators likely would prefer to seem as though they were rapidly bullied into submission by the big bad Republican President of the United States than be forced to admit the reality: that they had been bullied into submission by their own students and faculty over the course of a decade, and now finally have an opportunity to excise extremism from their ranks.
Indeed, the story of the past 15 years or so of American academic life is a story of profound cowardice: people who should have known better and who, in the case of tenured faculty, had the power to act per their conscience without risking their livelihoods, chose instead to give in to a small group of entitled campus radicals who made increasingly deranged demands — campus inquisitions for the accused, struggle sessions for dissidents, a near-total shutdown of academic freedom — while demonstrating poor behavior and poor scholarship that in a saner era would not only have gotten them expelled or fired, but publicly ridiculed.
Eventually, as the dust from the COVID era began to settle and the failures of liberal orthodoxy became apparent, it became more acceptable to discuss internal problems. By 2022, professors began to admit publicly that their students were <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-stunning-level-of-student-disconnection" target="_blank" rel="noopener">worse off</a> emotionally and academically after the pandemic, and that colleges had tossed out expectations for them, beginning in the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/on-college-admissions-its-the-woke-fringe-vs-everyone-else/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">admissions department</a>; that spring, MIT became the first elite university to <a href="https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bring</a> back its standardized testing requirement after relaxing it during the pandemic.
But the real watershed moment on American campuses was October 7, 2023, as college students across the country cheered for murderous Hamas terrorists. For the first time since the Obama administration, there was real internal debate within the liberal mainstream about what had happened to academia, not just with respect to Israel but with respect to the entire toxic sludge of ideology that long preceded the Hamas attack. In December of 2023, the Chronicle of Higher Education, perhaps the nation’s most prominent academic newspaper, <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-decade-of-ideological-transformation-comes-undone" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> a story titled, “A Decade of Ideological Transformation Comes Undone.” Wrote Lee Gutkin, “College leaders have discovered, maybe too late, that the habit of validation has left them incapable of managing institutions in which real and deep disagreements exist.”
Gutkin was right: when Columbia and other universities were confronted in the spring of the 2023-24 academic year with protests far more objectionable than in the fall, administrators failed to act. At Columbia, things got so bad that even non-Jewish janitors are now filing a Title VI complaint, claiming they were <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/world/columbia-university-janitors-claim-anti-israel-encampment-accused-them-of-being-jew-lovers-and-spray-painted-swastikas-around-campus-aegd9g7s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> “Jew lovers” by an antisemitic mob and forced to scrub swastikas and other antisemitic graffiti.
Columbia, specifically, did too little too late, disciplining only 40 of the hundreds of students involved and then <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/suspension-most-columbia-students-disciplined-over-gaza-protests-is-removed-2024-08-20/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">restoring</a> 38 of them to campus the following academic year. While the university’s schizophrenic actions led to allegations of unfair treatment by both sides, they mostly just showed spinelessness.
It appears now that administrators had been hoping for an out. <a href="https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/03.21.2025%20Columbia%20-%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Columbia’s plan</a> goes far deeper than the Trump administration’s demands of cracking down on anti-Semitism and physical violence: the university is also committing to institutional neutrality, hiring more intellectually diverse faculty, creating spaces for open discourse, and reviewing its admissions practices.
These are not the actions of a university that is begrudgingly complying with a hostile government; they are the actions of administrators who have found an excellent excuse — money — to disregard the activists they were previously beholden to and recommit themselves to the teaching and research that they should have been focusing on all along. As the co-chair of Columbia’s anti-Semitism task force <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/nyregion/columbia-response-trump-demands.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> The New York Times, “What’s fascinating to me is a lot of these are things we needed to get done and were getting done, but now we’ve gotten done more quickly.”
While there is not a single university that actively wants its federal funding revoked, the looming threat of losing federal funding — one that the Trump administration has now made clear it is willing to make good on — may be excuse enough for the saner voices in universities to attempt to deradicalize. Whatever university administrators may say publicly, they may very well silently be thanking the Trump administration.
* * *
Neeraja Deshpande is an education policy analyst at Independent Women’s Forum (iwf.org).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN-CONFLICT-education-COLUMBIA-demonstration

Columbia University Wanted This

ACLU

anti-Israel

Columbia University

Leftists

New York City

Pro-Hamas

Pro-Palestinian

Protests

Trump Administration

Violence

For two years, my soft voice was drowned out at Columbia University, smothered by deafening roars outside our windows. I was spoken over, screamed past, pushed aside by mobs whose chants turned threats into anthems.
I live with a rare form of muscular dystrophy. My predicted lifespan was four years. While I defied the odds, never has my voice been more silenced.
Throughout my life I have faced immense adversity, yet I have prevailed by becoming the first person with my condition to walk the New York Fashion Week runway (February, 2023), the first person with my condition to climb a mountain (Camelback Mountain in Arizona 2022) — producing an internationally awarded documentary combating disability stereotypes — and most recently setting a Guinness World Record for the fastest swim time in my category.
My limited energy is normally invested in advocating for others, but for the first time, my very means of advocacy was heartlessly stolen from me.
For two years, my faint tones were consumed by a campus that refused to listen, dismissed by an administration that chose appeasement over accountability, ignored by a culture that demanded my silence in the name of supposed progress.
For two years, voices chanted for the destruction of my people, fists raised in protest not merely for justice, but for erasure, all while those in power stood by in cowardice. Mobs that disregarded our accessibility and our right to belong stormed our campus walk as I scooted in search of a single accessible entrance. While I fought for a space to exist, countless others with disabilities, some bound to their wheelchairs, were left navigating a campus that refused to see us, let alone accommodate our basic needs. Our identities became a debate, and our safety an afterthought.
Yet my purpose is not to debate the hostility, prove our right to exist, or even to justify our presence at this university. Rather, my purpose is to emphasize one simple truth: now, at last, my soft voice can be heard. Unfortunately, the silence that once suffocated me, was only exhaled in response to intensified government intervention. This government intervention is nothing new and has brought forth three harsh realities: (a) The freedom of a Jew comes at a troubling cost (b) History is repeating itself and (c) Columbia&#8217;s cowardly silence has perpetuated further hostility and segregation – their indifference must end now.
At an unfortunate cost, the world is now witnessing what it takes for Jewish students to experience basic campus safety and dignity. The Trump administration’s cancellation of $400 million in funding, along with the detainment of a former student protest leader with alleged ties to Hamas, has widened the nation&#8217;s eyes to one chilling truth: Columbia’s failure to uphold the rights of Jewish students was not appropriately corrected by institutional conscience but rather it required external force, exposing the depths of negligence.
Columbia’s government funding was <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/doj-hhs-ed-and-gsa-announce-initial-cancelation-grants-and-contracts-columbia-university">revoked</a> in direct response to “the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” This is a profound failure of humanity, that restoring safety required government intervention at the expense of fundamental freedoms. The price of inaction was paid through imposed financial costs, an obligation that should have been paid through moral courage. It was not.
For a Jew to attend class freely, must a child with cancer lose access to life-saving research?
For a Jew to walk through campus freely, must an international student fear detainment?
For a Jew to learn without threats, must a groundbreaking cure remain locked away due to defunded research?
For a Jew to simply exist, must a first-generation student lose access to financial aid?
Have we truly arrived at another moment in time where, for a Jew to express their identity openly, the future of innovation, education, and opportunity must be compromised? Where an engineering breakthrough must be halted and countless other students must suffer collateral damage simply because Columbia University refused to act until it was forced?
The university administration’s cowardly silence is screaming! While government intervention has never been more necessary, agony pulses through my veins at the realization that this is where campus life has arrived. The university administration had every opportunity to protect its students, yet chose to allow the escalation of intolerance and violence against their Jewish students. And now, that silence has been replaced with an even louder reckoning, one that should never have come at such a cost.
Now, the campus is silent. But this silence has not emerged from understanding or reflection. Campus silence exists only because the cost of inaction became too great — the silence is screaming!
History has proven – that government mandates do not equate to inherent justice. Canceling government funding for needed research and resources is truly an unfortunate crossroads between morality and human equality. Throughout history, intensified government intervention, though imperative, has proven to deepen divisions, inflame resentment, and fuel further segregation.
In 1954, reluctance to properly integrate black children into the school system, following the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling against racial segregation (1954), persisted. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus refused to integrate Little Rock Central High School or to protect Black students from violent mobs, making federal intervention essential. In September of 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent federal troops to forcibly escort nine Black students, known as “The Little Rock Nine,” into the school. While governmental mandates undoubtedly served as one necessary step towards respect for all, one consequence was generational racial strife.
Columbia&#8217;s suffocating silence is the true culprit, forcing external action where institutional courage should have prevailed. The silence on campus will be temporary if Columbia’s leadership refuses to take meaningful action.
Columbia’s administration must summon the courage to acknowledge the undeniable truth, only then will we cultivate true respect for all. One can be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, tall, short, in a wheelchair or running freely. One can come from any faith, culture, or any physical ability but at Columbia one principle must consistently hold true: that all academic thinkers can and should be safely welcomed. When policies are upheld, order will follow.
We must not allow the tides of academic accountability to shift along with the ever changing waves of podcast trends, political climate, public opinion, or what funding is or is not received.
True racial, cultural and ability equality will not persist if Columbia University does not speak up and clearly condemn the open disrespect of students. The current silence is deafening.
Dear Columbia University leadership: dig deep and draw from the depths of your hearts and souls to shatter your indifference and proclaim that respect for all will no longer be up for debate. I urge you to speak out online, in print, and, most critically, stand in person at the Columbia Sundial, a historic gathering place at the heart of campus. The institution’s declaration of justice and respect for all is crucial for both the present and future. Please, replace your silence with a bold message to our diverse, complex world, memorializing it for those not yet born.
Take it from me, someone whose soft voice speaks against the odds – our campus’s silence is screaming.
* * *
Lilian Brasch is an undergraduate student and ability activist at Columbia University, class of 2025.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN-CONFLICT-PROTEST

At Columbia University, The Silence Is Screaming

Disability

Jewish

Radical Islam

The Trump administration’s decisive <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-slashes-columbia-funding-citing-inaction-on-anti-semitic-harassment-on-campus">actions</a> against campus anti-Semitism are commendable and must be reinforced with the implementation of a clear federal code of conduct to prevent future bullying of Jewish university students.
After the administration <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/columbia-university-trump-demands-federal-funding-e94d41ca" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revoked</a> over $400 million in federal funds from Columbia University due to its failure to protect students from anti-Semitism, the university agreed to change its policies. According to The Wall Street Journal, the concessions include adopting an updated definition of anti-Semitism, appointing a new senior vice provost, hiring more campus police officers, and clarifying acceptable times and manners for protests.
This move follows the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-formation-task-force-combat-anti-semitism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism</a>’s announcement last month that it would <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-task-force-combat-antisemitism-announces-visits-10-college-campuses-experienced" target="_blank" rel="noopener">visit</a> ten university campuses that have experienced anti-Semitic incidents since the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. 
The Anti-Defamation League <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/report/campus-antisemitism-one-year-after-hamas-terrorist-attacks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> that anti-Semitism on college and university campuses has “rapidly escalated into a national crisis,” with over 1,200 incidents recorded between October 7, 2023, and September 24, 2024. A staggering 83.2% of Jewish college students surveyed have witnessed some form of anti-Semitism, while 51.4% of non-Jewish students also reported witnessing anti-Semitism during the same period.
There is a strong and consistent correlation between anti-Semitic and hostile anti-Israel attitudes. For instance, former Columbia University graduate student and non-citizen <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/09/us-news/who-is-mahmoud-khalil-the-columbia-university-agitator-detained-by-ice-for-deportation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mahmoud Khalil</a> was taken into custody by federal immigration officials for his role in organizing violent campus protests that resulted in injuries and property damage. Other terrorist sympathizers include <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html">Helyeh Doutaghi</a>, an Iranian academic suspended by Yale University for openly declaring her commitment to fighting the United States.
Badar Khan Suri — a Georgetown foreign exchange student and son-in-law of a Hamas official — is also being deported for his pro-terrorist activities. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin stated in a <a href="https://x.com/TriciaOhio/status/1902524674291966261" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a> on X that Suri “has close connections to a known or suspected terrorist” and is “actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting anti-Semitism on social media.” 
This organized anti-Israel activity on campus goes far beyond what is protected under freedom of speech. Federal law prohibits providing “material support or resources” to any designated terrorist organization. Jewish students at Columbia University reported to The New York Post that a 14-page “<a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/us-news/chilling-step-by-step-manual-for-anti-israel-radicals-to-sow-violent-chaos-is-circulated-among-columbia-students/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">underground manual</a>” is circulating among students, providing details on how to evade law enforcement and commit destructive acts, such as buying sledgehammers with cash and targeting a building’s water or sewer pipes to cause maximum property damage.
The administration’s crackdown on campus anti-Semitism by withholding federal funds and deporting non-citizen students and faculty who engage in organized anti-Israel activism is a strong start. However, it must be followed by the implementation of clear federal guidelines that adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) <a href="https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">working definition</a> of anti-Semitism. Created in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson, the IHRA defines anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” It goes on to list the targeting of the State of Israel as a manifestation, excluding criticism that is similar to that against any other country.
Any foreign student or faculty member seeking the privilege of working at an American institution must pledge to uphold this definition of anti-Semitism.
We have seen how language evolves in response to social awareness. Decades ago, racial slurs were tolerated in public discourse; today, they are recognized as hate speech and rightfully condemned. The same must happen with anti-Semitic slurs and coded anti-Israel rhetoric. Words matter, and education matters. We must teach students, faculty, and administrators that vilifying Jews and dehumanizing Israel are not legitimate political statements; they are expressions of bigotry.
The government must lower the threshold for what constitutes actionable anti-Semitism because Jewish students are already suffering the consequences. Anything less is a green light for hate.
* * *
Bradley Martin is the Executive Director of the Near East Center for Strategic Studies. Follow him on Facebook and X (Twitter) @ByBradleyMartin
Dr. Liram Koblentz-Stenzler is a Senior Researcher at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at Reichman University and a Visiting Scholar at Brandeis University. She is a member of Forum Dvorah, Women in Foreign Policy and National Security. Follow her on <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/drliramkoblentz/">LinkedIn</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trump Draws A Red Line On Anti-Semitism. Will Universities Listen?

Menu