The entire premise of this witch-hunt is utterly preposterous. It is highly likely that it all flowed from the say-so, of two of Tangerine's mega donors, Elon Musk -- and Bill Ackman (a hedgie). There is almost certainly no concrete basis for the government to discriminate against Harvard (a free expression / free association / private educational institution) -- and single out Harvard alone, in this way. [On "viewpoints-discrimination", even if you accept that the below is Harvard's viewpoint. The view alone, would never be unlawful.]
But now Sean Keveney (the guy who wrote the main BS letter!), along with many others, will have to "show his/their cards" -- what concrete documents and stats did they/he rely on -- to come to these preposterously mistaken conclusions? We will soon see -- and I expect the answer will mostly be. . . "well, we just made it up (i.e., assumed it was happening), but Elon Musk, and Bill Ackman say it is happening". Ugh. And in these cases, a lack of a rational documentary basis for the actions, PRIOR to taking them. . . is almost always fatal.
Here's what's teed up, for Monday, next (from Harvard's very capable counsel):
. . .I represent Harvard University in the above-titled case. As you are aware, Harvard has filed suit against the government to challenge the unlawful “freeze” of over $2.2 billion in federal funding to the University.
With the filing of the Complaint, the government is required to preserve all evidence relevant to this matter, including the documents that would be produced in any administrative record. To avoid potential spoliation concerns, and to limit disputes over the scope of the record, I write to outline Harvard’s understanding of what documents the administrative record should contain. We expect the government to begin preparing the record expeditiously.
The record, as you know, should include any and all documents or other information that the government directly or indirectly considered in arriving at its decision to freeze over $2.2 billion in grants to and contracts with Harvard University. In the period leading to the announcement of its decision, the government provided two bases for its action: (1) to enforce the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and (2) to correct “ideological capture” at Harvard.
The first basis for decision, Harvard’s purported violation of Title VI, requires the government to compile the documents it relied upon to reach its decision to allege a statutory violation and halt funding on that ground. This naturally would include materials considered to conclude there was a Title VI violation, and materials considered in concluding that the government action taken—a funding “freeze”—was the appropriate, legally-justified action in response. Harvard expects to see all such documents in the certified administrative record.
The government’s second basis for its action, Harvard’s supposed “ideological capture,” likewise requires the government to compile for the record the materials considered in concluding there was such “capture,” and materials considered in determining, again, that a “freeze” was the appropriate and lawful response.
It should be noted that while the government has cited alleged Title VI violations and “ideological capture” as its grounds for action, there is an additional, closely-related ground: Harvard’s rejection of the government’s offer to continue the funding if Harvard agreed to certain conditions. Naturally the materials considered in presenting the demands and conditions the government did, and in proceeding with the freeze when Harvard declined the conditions, are part of the record. [Ed. Note: all that sounds like. . . blackmail, by the the Trump controlled govt.]
Finally, and as noted, since the government’s announcement of its “freeze,” it has begun issuing grant and contract-specific notices to Harvard. All materials considered in arriving at those notices are also part of the record. . . .
Well, this will be. . . a hoot! Tangerine is dead in the water, on these grounds -- Harvard will walk away with far more money than it started with, the day before Tangerine was inaugurated for a second time. All from our taxpayer pockets. Charming.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment