Trump administration launches probe into University of California system
The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced an investigation into hiring practices at the University of California (UC) system, the latest instance of his feud with higher education.
The Department of Justice said on Thursday that it would investigate efforts by the UC system to increase the diversity of staff, accusing the school of employing practices that 'openly measure new hires by their race and sex'.
The Trump administration has previously depicted diversity initiatives as a form of discrimination.
'Public employers are bound by federal laws that prohibit racial and other employment discrimination,' Harmeet Dhillion, the head of the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.
'Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law.'
In a letter of notice to the University of California, the Justice Department noted that it had 'reason to believe' unlawful actions occurred on some of the school's campuses. But it added that it had not 'reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigation'.
The University of California system is one of the most prominent public university systems in the US, with 10 campuses and more than 299,000 enrolled students.
The school defended its hiring practices on Thursday in response to the investigation announcement.
'The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws,' a spokesperson for the UC system said in a statement. 'The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported.'
President Trump has yet to weigh in on the investigation, but his administration has repeatedly clashed with US universities during his second term in the White House.
Prestigious universities, such as Harvard and Columbia, have had federal grants and contracts cancelled over allegations that they have not done enough to crack down on campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
The Trump administration said those protests were anti-Semitic and created an unsafe environment for Jews on college campuses.
Trump and his allies have also portrayed universities as hotbeds of left-wing ideas and political dissent. In the case of Harvard University, the Trump administration sent a letter on April 11 with a list of demands for changes.
One required Harvard to submit to an external audit of its enrollment and staff, to evaluate 'viewpoint diversity' with the aim of implementing 'reforms' to its admissions and hiring practices. The external party, the letter noted, would have to 'satisfy the federal government'.
Harvard has resisted those demands, citing the need to protect academic freedom. The Trump administration has since threatened its tax-exempt status and sought to restrict its ability to enrol foreign students.
In response, Harvard has filed lawsuits to restore its federal funding and block the Trump administration's attempts to bar foreign students.
On Thursday, the school also unveiled an agreement with the University of Toronto that would allow foreign students to continue their Harvard studies in Canada if Trump's visa restrictions affected their ability to attend classes.
Critics have described Trump's actions as an effort to pressure schools into greater conformity with the political views and priorities of the White House.
One particular flashpoint for the Trump administration has been efforts to promote diversity in university hiring and enrolment.
Proponents say those initiatives help counter the legacy of discrimination in higher education, but the Trump administration has said they are a form of discrimination themselves.
In a news conference on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not weigh in on the specifics of the UC investigation, but reaffirmed Trump's commitment to dismantling diversity initiatives.
'It's the position of this president that we want to restore a merit-based society and culture in the United States of America where people are not hired, nor are they promoted, based on the colour of their skin or their gender,' she said.
On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order ending 'diversity, equity and inclusion' (DEI) programming in the federal government. He called those programmes a source of 'immense public waste and shameful discrimination'.
But critics have argued that Trump's efforts have served as their own form of discrimination, violating the constitutional rights of those he disagrees with.
The government, for instance, has sought to deport several foreign students who took part in pro-Palestine activities on college campuses, raising free speech questions.
They include a Turkish graduate student named Rumeysa Ozturk, who was arrested by immigration agents for co-authoring an article in the school newspaper calling for an end to the war in Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Senate Republicans vote to advance Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill'
The Republican-controlled Senate of the United States has voted to take President Donald Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' into the next phase of discussion, making it more likely to pass in the coming days. The measure, which is Trump's top legislative goal, passed its first procedural hurdle in a 51 to 49 vote on Saturday, with two Republican senators joining all Democrats in voting against it. The result came after several hours of negotiation as Republican leaders and Vice President JD Vance sought to persuade last-minute holdouts in a series of closed-door negotiations. Trump has pushed his party to get the bill passed and on his desk for him to sign into law by July 4, the US's Independence Day. He was monitoring the vote from the Oval Office late into the night, according to a senior White House official. One Big Beautiful Bill Act Al Jazeera's Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, DC, said the 940-page 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' was released shortly before midnight on Friday, and senators are still attempting to understand exactly what it means. 'One of the clear things in the bill is that it provides a $150bn boost to military spending. It also adds funding for mass deportations and building that border wall. Now, in order to get this money, what has happened is that there are cuts to Medicare, as well as to the Clean Energy funding programme,' he said. 'The other issue is that there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats in the Senate. Now all the Democrats are opposed to the bill. That means every single Republican vote will count,' Hanna added. The procedural vote on Saturday, which would start a debate on the megabill, began after hours of delay. It then remained open for more than three hours of standstill as three Republican senators – Thom Tillis, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul – joined Democrats to oppose the legislation. Three others – Senators Rick Scott, Mike Lee and Cynthia Lummis – negotiated with Republican leaders into the night in hopes of securing bigger spending cuts. In the end, Wisconsin Senator Johnson flipped his no vote to yes, leaving only Paul and Tillis opposed among Republicans. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans unveiled the bill 'in the dead of night' and are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what is in it. He immediately forced a full reading of the text in the Senate, which would take an estimated 15 hours. 'Future generations will be saddled with trillions in debt. Debt is abstract, but what does it mean for the average American? Raising your costs, raising your costs to buy a home, raising your costs to buy a car, raising your costs on credit card bills. And why are they doing all this?' he asked. 'Why are they doing the biggest Medicaid cuts in history? Now it's getting close to a trillion dollars, just in Medicaid alone, all to cut taxes for the ultra-rich and special interests.' Elon Musk renews criticism If passed in the Senate, the bill would go back to the House of Representatives for approval, where Republicans can only afford to lose a handful of votes – and are facing stiff opposition from within their own ranks. Republicans are split on the Medicaid cuts, which will threaten scores of rural hospitals and lead to an estimated 8.6 million Americans being deprived of healthcare. The spending plan would also roll back many of the tax incentives for renewable energy that were put in place under Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden. Nonpartisan analysts estimate that a version of Trump's tax cut and spending bill would add trillions to the $36.2 trillion US government debt. They also say that the bill would pave the way for a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest 10 percent of Americans to the richest. The bill is unpopular across multiple demographic, age and income groups, according to extensive recent polling. On Saturday, billionaire Elon Musk, with whom Trump had a public falling out this month over his criticism of the bill, again doubled down on his criticism of the draft legislation. The Tesla and Space X CEO called the package 'utterly insane and destructive'. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,' he wrote on X. 'It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' He later posted that the bill would be 'political suicide for the Republican Party.'
Qatar Tribune
12 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Senate Republicans scramble to pass Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
Agencies Washington Senate Republicans were racing to pass a budget bill that is pivotal to President Donald Trump's second-term agenda ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline. Party leadership have been twisting arms for an initial vote on the 'Big Beautiful Bill' by Saturday afternoon, following the release of its latest version - all 940 pages - shortly after midnight. Republicans have been divided over how much to cut from welfare programmes in order to cover the cost of extending some $3.8tn in Trump tax breaks. The sprawling tax and spending measure narrowly passed the House of Representatives two weeks ago. In a memo sent on Saturday to Senate offices, the White House endorsed the latest revisions to the bill and called for its passage. The memo reportedly warned that failure to approve the budget 'would be the ultimate betrayal'. The latest version of the bill is designed to appease some backbench Republican holdouts. It includes an increase in funding for rural hospitals, after some party moderates argued the original proposal would harm their constituents. Another tweak was made to State and Local Taxes (Salt) - a bone of contention for representatives from high-tax states such as New York. There is currently a $10,000 cap on how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they owe in federal taxes. In the new bill, Senate Republicans have raised the Salt limit to $40,000 for married couples with incomes up to $500,000 - in line with what the House of Representatives approved. But the latest Senate version ends the $40,000 cap after five years - when it would drop back to $10,000. The legislation still contains some of its core components, including extending tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017, as well as the addition of new cuts that Trump campaigned on, such as a tax deduction on Social Security benefits and the elimination of taxes on overtime work and tips. More contentious measures are also still in place, including restrictions and requirements on Medicaid - a healthcare programme used by millions of elderly, disabled and low-income Americans. Democrats have heavily criticised this piece of the bill, saying it will limit access to affordable healthcare for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million people would become uninsured due to such Medicaid cuts. Senator Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, took to social media on Saturday to argue the bill contains 'the largest healthcare cuts in history'. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called a possible Saturday vote 'aspirational', and it is still unclear whether Republicans can advance the bill. One Republican senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, told the Fox & Friends programme on Saturday he will be voting 'no', saying he still needed time to read it. 'We just got the bill,' Johnson said. 'I got my first copy at about 01:23 in the morning.'
Al Jazeera
18 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why manufacturing consent for war with Iran failed this time
On June 22, American warplanes crossed into Iranian airspace and dropped 14 massive bombs. The attack was not in response to a provocation; it came on the heels of illegal Israeli aggression that took the lives of 600 Iranians. This was a return to something familiar and well-practised: an empire bombing innocents across the orientalist abstraction called 'the Middle East'. That night, US President Donald Trump, flanked by his vice president and two secretaries, told the world 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace'. There is something chilling about how bombs are baptised with the language of diplomacy and how destruction is dressed in the garments of stability. To call that peace is not merely a misnomer; it is a criminal distortion. But what is peace in this world, if not submission to the West? And what is diplomacy, if not the insistence that the attacked plead with their attackers? In the 12 days that Israel's illegal assault on Iran lasted, images of Iranian children pulled from the wreckage remained absent from the front pages of Western media. In their place were lengthy features about Israelis hiding in fortified bunkers. Western media, fluent in the language of erasure, broadcasts only the victimhood that serves the war narrative. And that is not just in its coverage of Iran. For 20 months now, the people of Gaza have been starved and incinerated. By the official count, more than 55,000 lives have been taken; realistic estimates put the number at hundreds of thousands. Every hospital in Gaza has been bombed. Most schools have been attacked and destroyed. Leading human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already declared that Israel is committing genocide, and yet, most Western media would not utter that word and would add elaborate caveats when someone does dare say it live on TV. Presenters and editors would do anything but recognise Israel's unending violence in an active voice. Despite detailed evidence of war crimes, the Israeli military has faced no media censure, no criticism or scrutiny. Its generals hold war meetings near civilian buildings, and yet, there are no media cries of Israelis being used as 'human shields'. Israeli army and government officials are regularly caught lying or making genocidal statements, and yet, their words are still reported as the truth. A recent study found that on the BBC, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, despite Palestinians dying at a rate of 34 to 1 compared with Israelis. Such bias is no exception, it is the rule for Western media. Like Palestine, Iran is described in carefully chosen language. Iran is never framed as a nation, only as a regime. Iran is not a government, but a threat —not a people, but a problem. The word 'Islamic' is affixed to it like a slur in every report. This is instrumental in quietly signalling that Muslim resistance to Western domination must be extinguished. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons; Israel and the United States do. And yet only Iran is cast as an existential threat to world order. Because the problem is not what Iran holds, but what it refuses to surrender. It has survived coups, sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage. It has outlived every attempt to starve, coerce, or isolate it into submission. It is a state that, despite the violence hurled at it, has not yet been broken. And so the myth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction becomes indispensable. It is the same myth that was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. For three decades, American headlines have whispered that Iran is just 'weeks away' from the bomb, three decades of deadlines that never arrive, of predictions that never materialise. But fear, even when unfounded, is useful. If you can keep people afraid, you can keep them quiet. Say 'nuclear threat' often enough, and no one will think to ask about the children killed in the name of 'keeping the world safe'. This is the modus operandi of Western media: a media architecture not built to illuminate truth, but to manufacture permission for violence, to dress state aggression in technical language and animated graphics, to anaesthetise the public with euphemisms. Time Magazine does not write about the crushed bones of innocents under the rubble in Tehran or Rafah, it writes about 'The New Middle East' with a cover strikingly similar to the one it used to propagandise regime change in Iraq 22 years ago. But this is not 2003. After decades of war, and livestreamed genocide, most Americans no longer buy into the old slogans and distortions. When Israel attacked Iran, a poll showed that only 16 percent of US respondents supported the US joining the war. After Trump ordered the air strikes, another poll confirmed this resistance to manufactured consent: only 36 percent of respondents supported the move, and only 32 percent supported continuing the bombardment The failure to manufacture consent for war with Iran reveals a profound shift in the American consciousness. Americans remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead and an entire region in flames. They remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction and democracy and the result: the thousands of American soldiers dead and the tens of thousands maimed. They remember the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and the never-ending bloody entanglement in Iraq. At home, Americans are told there is no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but there is always money for bombs, for foreign occupations, for further militarisation. More than 700,000 Americans are homeless, more than 40 million live under the official poverty line and more than 27 million have no health insurance. And yet, the US government maintains by far the highest defence budget in the world. Americans know the precarity they face at home, but they are also increasingly aware of the impact US imperial adventurism has abroad. For 20 months now, they have watched a US-sponsored genocide broadcast live. They have seen countless times on their phones bloodied Palestinian children pulled from rubble while mainstream media insists, this is Israeli self-defence. The old alchemy of dehumanising victims to excuse their murder has lost its power. The digital age has shattered the monopoly on narrative that once made distant wars feel abstract and necessary. Americans are now increasingly refusing to be moved by the familiar war drumbeat. The growing fractures in public consent have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, ever the opportunist, understands that the American public has no appetite for another war. And so, on June 24, he took to social media to announce, 'the ceasefire is in effect', telling Israel to 'DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,' after the Israeli army continued to attack Iran. Trump, like so many in the US and Israeli political elites, wants to call himself a peacemaker while waging war. To leaders like him, peace has come to mean something altogether different: the unimpeded freedom to commit genocide and other atrocities while the world watches on. But they have failed to manufacture our consent. We know what peace is, and it does not come dressed in war. It is not dropped from the sky. Peace can only be achieved where there is freedom. And no matter how many times they strike, the people remain, from Palestine to Iran — unbroken, unbought, and unwilling to kneel to terror. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
