Last week, the U.S. Department of Education informed Princeton it was under investigation for violating the Civil Rights Act. It would seem the Department of Education had little choice. After all, the president of Princeton University, which annually collects $300 million in federal research funding and millions more in federal student financial aid, recently declared that his university is systematically racist.
The U.S. Department of Education announced last week that it is investigating Princeton University … [+]
On September 2, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber issued a letter announcing that racism and oppression “persist at Princeton” and that this is “sometimes by conscious intention.” Eisgruber asserted that “racist assumptions from the past” remain “embedded in structures of the University itself.”
The problem here may be even bigger than is immediately apparent, given that Princeton’s leadership has consistently assured federal officials that racism is not “embedded” in the institution. Indeed, as a condition of receiving federal aid, the U.S. Department of Education asserted—and Princeton spokespeople later agreed—that, on multiple occasions since Eisgruber assumed the presidency in 2013, Princeton “has repeatedly represented and warranted to the US Department of Education” that it is in “compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.” That Act, of course, stipulates that no one, “on the ground of race, color, or national origin,” will be “subjected to discrimination.”
Princeton has long assured job applicants that “employment decisions in all University departments” are made without “discriminating against individuals on the basis” of race. Prospective students are likewise promised that Princeton doesn’t discriminate “in any phase of its admission or financial aid programs, or other aspects of its educational programs or activities.”
The U.S. Department of Education reasonably posits that Princeton officials “knew, or should have known, these assurances [of compliance with civil rights laws] were false at the time they were made.” The Department also raised the possibility that the university’s assurances of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity to potential employees and students may have run afoul of false advertising laws.
If President Eisgruber’s publicly issued, official statement is taken at face value–and it’s hard to quarrel with federal officers feeling obliged to take it just that way–then Princeton has been engaging in persistent racist conduct and lying about it, all in order to collect federal funds, attract potential employees, and recruit students. In short, Eisgruber seems to concede that Princeton has been violating federal law and engaging in fraudulent conduct.
Appropriately enough, the Department of Education is requiring that Princeton “produce each record” Eisgruber used to conclude that racism remains “embedded in structures of the University itself.” The Department also expects Princeton to produce a spreadsheet “identifying each person” who’s been “excluded from participating” in federally funded education programs due to Princeton’s racism. And the Department wants a transcribed interview, under oath, with President Eisgruber and at least one of his staff.
Remarkably, the Department’s move has been met by outrage by many on the left and in media. The American Council on Education’s senior vice president, Terry Hartle, called the investigation “a taxpayer-funded, politically motivated fishing expedition.” Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of Vox, labeled the investigation a “horrifying threat to free speech” and an “illustration of conservative hypocrisy.” Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a Princeton professor and contributor to the New Yorker, said “the federal government is just a tool of the Trump thugs to harass and intimidate” and called the Trump administration the “White Power presidency.”
Yet, remarkably, the Department’s move has been met by outrage by many on the left and in media. The American Council on Education’s senior vice president, Terry Hartle, called the investigation “a taxpayer-funded, politically motivated fishing expedition.” Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of Vox, labeled the investigation a “horrifying threat to free speech” and an “illustration of conservative hypocrisy.” Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a Princeton professor and contributor to the New Yorker, said “the federal government is just a tool of the Trump thugs to harass and intimidate” and called the Trump administration the “White Power presidency.”
The reaction is hard to fathom. Imagine, for a moment, that the head of a for-profit college or a Christian elementary school that participates in a publicly-funded voucher program were to issue a letter that declared that racism persists at their school “by conscious intention.” The state attorney general, the ACLU, assorted public interest lawyers, and the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights would be filing lawsuits and launching investigations before the chyron went up at MSNBC. It seems obvious that the same standard should apply here.
Once one gets past all the spluttering, it becomes clear that the complaint is that Eisgruber doesn’t really mean that Princeton is legally guilty of discrimination. They think it’s obvious (and exculpatory) that he’s just virtue signaling and engaging in the now-expected ritual genuflection to “anti-racist” dogma. Indeed, given that he confessed Princeton’s crimes with such ardor, they seem to think Eisgruber should be lauded for saying he runs an avowedly racist institution. And, in their telling, as Princeton conveniently asserts, all the racist dynamics that Eisgruber alludes to apparently stop before they become legally suspect.
Inconveniently for those angry at the Department’s announcement, their grievance is less with the Department of Education than with the framework of American law. Constitutional rights and federal law are rooted in a notion of racial justice and due process that treats discrimination as a legal matter grounded in individual rights. Sweeping assertions of discriminatory conduct are just empty verbiage, they’re serious charges that deserve evidentiary support. If the Eisgrubers of the world want discrimination to mean something else, they should be transparent about what they have in mind.
In either case, Betsy DeVos’s Department of Education has reasonably decided to take Princeton’s president at his word and duly investigate in accordance with federal law. It’s hard to imagine proponents of equality or justice taking issue with that.
