Two weeks ago, UCLA was optimistic.
For months it has successfully avoided conflicts with President Trump as university leaders refused to publicly criticize him for fighting for remakes of American higher education, first against several Ivy League schools.
On the morning of July 29, UCLA announced it had settled a federal lawsuit with students accused of discrimination, paid more than $2 million to Jewish civil rights organizations and received millions of dollars in legal fees. University leaders called the action “real progress” to combat anti-Semitism. They privately pointed out that the Trump administration reached a deal that was eager to convince federal officials to do good for the Jewish community.
The high lasted for several hours and hit 14 days of rapid charges, findings and a massive federal freeze on UCLA research funding. On Friday afternoon, when Gov. Gavin Newsom released angry remarks in response to a series of federal charges against UCLA: anti-Semitism on campus, illegal use of race in admissions and policies, allowing transgender athletes to compete based on their gender identity, illegal use of campus, and fined $100 million for anti-Semitism on campus.
“Unless we bid, he threatens us by extorting billions of dollars in fines,” Newsom said. “We are not accomplices in this academic freedom attack on this extraordinary public institution.”
A spokesman for the Justice Department did not answer questions about the news and about legal threats on Sunday.
The escalating incident led to a decisive moment this week, beginning with an emergency meeting held by the UC Board of Trustees Monday afternoon. A federal court hearing will take place Tuesday in an established case, which could lead to some (but not all) UC grants being restored.
These developments bring the struggle for higher education institutions in the United States to the most powerful and most acclaimed public university system in the United States.
“We are in an unknown territory,” said Ted Mitchell, chairman of the U.S. Board of Education. “We have seen the government follow Columbia, Brown, Harvard and others. But now, it’s a test. Will UCLA become a defender of public universities? Will this be a deal?
California faces a president whose goal is to curb what he calls the goal of “Marxist” universities, which he sees as a bastion of liberalism that has acted too little to protect Jewish students, too soft to pro-Palestine protests, and too dependent on the dollar for international students.
His administration accuses a range of elite colleges nationwide — Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Stanford and three UC campuses — of illegally considering admissions and programming races that harm white and Asian American students. In response to pro-Palestinian protests, Trump said the university has activated “jihadists” and called the protesters “family” terrorists.
“UCLA is not a random choice,” Mitchell said. “The government has been having a time with the governor of California. It’s part of a bigger fight between the government and California.”
What to endanger
Since July 30, UCLA president Julio Frenk has begun receiving notices from the federal government’s announcement of grants (total of nearly $500 million), as UCLA leaders scramble to assess the impact on their described life-saving, groundbreaking research. The dean and department have been told to continue preparing for layoffs for layoffs.
Without federal funding, the research lab of professors of science and medicine would not exist and they have solicited private donations. Tuition and living expenses for PhD and postdoctoral students are often funded by grants in exchange for lab work, who are eager to speed up their graduation plans before the allowances run out.
“The federal government claims anti-Semitism and prejudice are the causes. This far-reaching penalty is provided for life-saving research,” Frenke said of information from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.
UC as a system, especially UCLA has been conducting several federal investigations over the past few months:
- Alleged discrimination against Jewish employees and job seekers.
- Civil rights complaints between Israeli and Jewish students.
- The so-called racial considerations in admissions practice.
- UCLA is also on the shortlist of 10 campuses including UC Berkeley and UC Berkeley, a federal task force that picked out anti-Semitism in February.
The ongoing investigation was initiated by the Education, Justice and Health and Public Services sectors.
UCLA leaders believe that sharing internal records in months with government lawyers and making progress on quiet negotiations on the allegations, senior UCLA officials said.
They hoped the government took notice of efforts that could appear the president: a new campus initiative to combat antisemitism, the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine groups, a UC-wide ban on student government boycotts of Israel, quick shutdowns of pro-Palestinian campus protects, and strict discipline of pro-Palestinian students accused of time, place and manner violence during demonstrations.
But the federal government’s position is now clear: It believes UCLA is guilty of all charges.
The NSF letter said that UCLA “engages racism in the form of illegal affirmative action, and the UCLA failed to promote a research environment that is not anti-Semitism and prejudice by allowing men to allow men in women’s sports and the only female space.”
What Trump wants
Federal lawyers want UC installments to pay a $1 billion fine for UCLA and donate $172 million to Jewish students and others suspected of violating civil rights.
Settlement requirements include ending scholarships focusing on race or race, forcing UCLA to share more admission data than is published publicly with the government and changes to campus protest rules, such as banning overnight camps.
In addition to sticker fines, some requirements have plagued UCLA leaders – because the UC system has greatly reformed many of the practices outlined by the federal government.
It ends the use of “diversity statement” in recruitment. Last fall, UCLA announced a “zero tolerance” policy for the camp. The government wants trans women to be separated from the women’s sports team. However, as a member of the National University Track and Field Association, the university has been asked to comply with new association rules to ban transgender players on the women’s team.
“It feels like a job cut,” a senior UC official said of Trump’s proposal. The official has no right to talk openly about the negotiations. “Like they were pieced together like they gave part of the Ivy League letters, and added the word “UCLA”. Transparent
What will happen next
The 24-member UC Board of Trustees must approve the board of directors that approve any settlement or payment to the federal government and will be involved in the lawsuit and convene an emergency closed meeting Monday afternoon. It is not clear whether Newsom, a former member of the board, will participate.
Another crucial moment was held Tuesday in the San Francisco Federal District Court. There, Judge Rita F. Lin ordered the Justice Department to explain why the UCLA cuts did not violate the June order, in which she blocked the termination of certain scientific grants from all UCs.
The case filed by researchers at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco was brought by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and constitutional expert. If the judge is in favor of UC, it can be applied to about half of the NSF cuts in UCLA.
Chemerinsky said in an interview that the actions against the UCLA were clearly “illegal” because “the president lacks constitutional power to refuse to spend money.”
He outlined what might be California’s argument in the lawsuit: The administration’s actions violated the Seizure Control Act of 1974, which limited the president’s ability to stop spending authorized by Congress.
“The cutoff for funds is due process without federal law and constitutional requirements,” Chemerinsky said. “Agencies that cut funds such as NIH and NSF are violating the Administrative Procedures Act because these actions are ‘arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion’. The cutoffs for many funds violate the First Amendment based on the viewpoint.”
Negotiation is still possible
However, if California filed a lawsuit against the government’s order, there was a risk.
The Trump administration beat the university with extra expensive funding kickbacks and ending its ability to host foreign students, further litigation when Harvard delayed billions of dollars earlier this year with similar cuts.
Time and politics – not on the UCLA side, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
“At some point, you have to prepare for fall classes and international students, and the campus tries to cope with uncertainty and loses all grants,” Tobias said. The lawsuit can take months, if not years, he said. California “maybe in the District Court and then do a great job in the 9th Circuit, but I don’t know what will happen to the Supreme Court.”
After Newsom threatened lawsuits, UC Regents chairman Janet Reilly told the Times that the negotiations were still on the table, but were not in line with the current “unacceptable” terms.
“The university remains willing to have constructive and good dialogue with the federal government, but the University of California will always be firm in protecting the integrity and values of our institutions,” Riley said.
Former UC chairman Mark Yudof, who led the system between 2008 and 2013, believes negotiations are still likely.
“While litigation is certainly a possibility, my feeling is that both parties will try to negotiate a solution first,” Yudoff said. He said the UCLA reached an agreement with Jewish students in late July, “probably the initial framework for these discussions. It’s hard to say where to get from there. The fact that UC is a public university system adds complexity.”
Mitchell, chairman of the U.S. Board of Education and former senior executive of the Western Academy, said the quick resolution would benefit both sides. The months-long process — between Harvard and Trump — will have the potential for “huge damage.”
“The longer they continue these things, the worse they are,” he said.
