https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1919538616797155830

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48907622)

All the points she makes are good ones.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48907744)

Sure, if you're a fucking retard who support Trump.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908330)

lol kike u mad

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908346)

Whoa... you seem pretty mad on the internet, my Jewish friend!

lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908622)

and your insults are supposed to hurt me because you are Jewish as well....?

I'm confused, can someone ELI5 TBF's comedic routine?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908635)

Yes, you're hilariously Jewish, my man.

Oh wow, wait... it turns out we're all Jewish! Guess none of that matters and everyone should just stop talking about this Jew stuff now!

Lmao good luck with this, Ari. :)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908641)

I thought it was because TBF and his alts are just unfunny faggots.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908791)

it’s an official letter from SecEd to Harvard that threatens to completely upend the college’s finances

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908048)

IIRC, one of them just shows people that you're MAF about Harvard on the internet, and the other one potentially cuts Harvard off from receiving billion$ in additional federal funding in the years to come. IDK seems like that's an important distinction, but I'm retarded.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908560)

Crazy New Business Idea (Sit Down For This It's Fucking Looney Tunes Batshit Insane And Probably Also Totally Illegal And Highly Evil According To All Of The Most Highly Respected Political Science Scholars Who Are Employed At The Very Finest Institutes Of Higher Education):

What if Drumpfth flooded the zone and tried to push everything he'd like to accomplish as quickly and as aggressively as possible, and by doing that, he forced Dems to expend a ton of time and money and manpower fighting him simultaneously on every single front, and the rest of us could just sit back and lol at the total shitlib meltdown and then we'll all see what ends up sticking on the back end when the dust settles in a year or two?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908389)

Translation: I'm a fucking retard who supports an even BIGGER retard and I have no choice but to watch as shit falls apart.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908629)

Me: Not even remotely mad on the internet today.

You: A P O P L E C T I C on XO about many things.

Yeah, you're probably winning and I'm just too dumb to realize it... anyway, have a blessed day my Jewish friend! :)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908648)

https://archive.ph/sXh9l

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48909328)

the elite foreign students are in phd programs and are among the best in the world at a school like harvard. yes, we pay to educate them and many stay on to work in the US. they're not displacing elite american workers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908684)

Did you forget who is currently in office?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908749)

It's not a separate problem, it's the entire reason for the existence of almost every masters' program.

Harvard being Harvard has some actual elite foreign students that we may want to bring in, but this is the main systemic problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908993)

this is one of the few areas where trump and has taken a good approach. let's see if they actually enforce it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48909351)

We know what India is like, there are "high-IQ" Indians there too. It's a shithole.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48909584)

"ZOMG, thith ith thoooo unprofethional!"

*twerks on social media 4 Kokonut Kween Kamala*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908423)

"Yassss Kween, Yassss!"

*air snaps and does a dance on TikTok to celebrate DEI and MLK Day*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908434)

You're literally Jewish, my man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908557)

and the courts have been very unfair to the WH so far, so probably smart to start chipping away at sure things for now while ratcheting up the pressure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48908933)

https://x.com/dougwahl1/status/1919871292875973114?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48909344)

Wow... money spigot turned BACK ON!

Drumpfth takes another L!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48909406)

If Trump really wanted to kill the universities he'd try to get a bill passed that (i) created mandatory post-university testing for each major and (ii) forbid applicants from mentioning their schools on their resumes and (iii) forbid employers from taking any action which gives preference to one school over another.

How quickly would tuition drop at Cornell law if you could pay for a cheap state school and in the end what mattered was your bar score?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48909647)

2. I have heard rumors that Harvard's endowment is massively overstated at $50BB. They had all kinds of issues with the trees they owned South America, if you will recall, and I hear they are in the works to sell $1B of illiquid investments at a valuation that could cause serious markdowns across their portfolio--the majority of which is invested in highly illiquid investments with infinite return timelines. I also have heard that they have $8B in debt which is unusual for a school with such an endowment. Suffice it to say, Harvard is not running out there to say we don't need federal aid. To the contrary, Garber was in the WSJ saying "oh, we are doing all this research at the government's request and think it's important to serve our country curing diseases, etc." This is obviously bullshit, but the reality is Harvard and most similar elite research institutions are highly dependent on government funds. As you know, only some parts of the grants (as low as 50%) have to go to the actual target research whereas the rest can be diverted to indirect costs (i.e., slush fund). These indirect cost rates are negotiated between universities and the government. They will be fucked if they lose these, and uber fucked if they lose tax exempt status (which is unlikely to ever happen).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48909659)

===

Trump’s Executive Order Is a Positive Step for Higher Education

Ultimately, however, legislation is the president’s best bet for dealing with accreditors who encourage violations of the law.

/ Eye on the News / Education, Politics and Law

May 06 2025

/ Share

President Trump’s new executive order, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” makes clear that the Trump administration understands the importance of reforming our broken accreditation system. But as the order implicitly recognizes, much will have to happen before its objectives can be realized.

Most executive orders are phrased, at least in part, in general terms. It’s unavoidable. Among other things, this one orders the secretary of education to take “appropriate steps” to ensure that only “high-quality, high-value academic programs” get accredited. It’s hard to imagine anyone arguing with that.

The order offers several specific ways to accomplish this goal—like prohibiting unnecessary accreditation requirements that serve only to burden students with higher costs. That seems sensible enough. Still, it remains to be seen how Secretary of Education Linda McMahon carries out this broad mandate. She has many tools at her disposal. She can step up enforcement of current law, withdraw poorly conceived policies and regulations, promulgate new and better ones, work with Congress to improve the legislative framework for accreditation, and much more.

A few of the policies in the order warrant special comment.

Ending Illegal Race Preferences. In what could end up being its most consequential provision, the order zeroes in on accreditors that encourage institutions to engage in race-preferential admissions that violate the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023).

If I didn’t know better, I might wonder what all the fuss was about. Surely, accreditors know that they should not encourage colleges and universities to violate the law. They can’t possibly be doing that, can they? But, alas, some are. It’s a problem with a long history.

Race-preferential admissions policies have always been in conflict with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But when accreditors began pressuring schools to engage in them, the Supreme Court had not yet mustered the courage to issue a prohibition. The Court’s fractured decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) left colleges and universities enough wiggle room to discriminate by race if they wished. But many accreditors went further. They sought to make such discrimination mandatory.

The first case to come to public attention involved Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and its threat to de-accredit Baruch College, a constituent college of the City University of New York. In 1990, when the threat was issued, there was nothing wrong with Baruch’s library or its student-faculty ratio. Its science labs were tidy and well-equipped, its finances were in order, and its faculty, which included a Nobel laureate in economics, was excellent. Instead, Middle States faulted the school for an alleged failure to hire enough minority faculty members and to try hard enough to retain a racially diverse student body. Fortunately for Baruch, then-Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander came to its rescue by administering Middle States some of its own medicine—deferring the renewal of federal recognition of its status as an accreditor.

Ultimately, however, Secretary Alexander could not prevent this kind of pressure. Other accreditors soon joined in. Martin Trow, a distinguished UC Berkeley sociology professor and former chair of the National Advisory Committee on Accreditation, described the movement as “fiercely evangelical.” In his view, accreditors had adopted “nothing else than a political position which claims moral superiority to alternatives.”

In the mid-1990s, several prominent institutions—including Caltech, Stanford, and USC—publicly objected to the new “diversity” policy of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which they saw as a threat to their institutional autonomy. But most institutions submitted. As the practice became common, the opposition grew quiet.

Worst Offenders. The executive order singles out law school and medical school accreditors for special attention, as evidence shows that they have been the worst offenders. In the late 1990s, in a study conducted by Susan Welch and John Gruhl, 24 percent of medical schools and 31 percent of law schools admitted that they felt pressure from accreditors to engage in this kind of racial discrimination. Since then, the problem has only gotten worse. That’s why the order directs the attorney general and secretary of education to determine whether to suspend or terminate their status as accreditors.

As these accreditors have long understood, when they insist that colleges and universities have a racially diverse student body or faculty, they are mandating that these institutions discriminate on the basis of race. The Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association, which jointly accredit medical schools as the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, or LCME, filed an amicus curiae brief in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). In it, they stated: “[T]here is simply no way to ensure meaningful diversity in medicine without considering race and ethnicity as one factor in the admissions process.” It would be hard to put the matter more bluntly.

Similarly, the American Bar Association, whose Council of the Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is the accreditor for law schools, stated in its Grutter amicus brief that adequate diversity cannot be achieved without preferences.

These accreditors have been encouraging unlawful conduct for a long time. In 1996, Californians voted to amend their state constitution to ban race-preferential admissions at state colleges and universities. In subsequent years, several other states followed this example. The ABA responded by declaring: “The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race or ethnicity in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with [our diversity and inclusion standards].” Given that the ABA was well aware that only preferential treatment would yield the racial diversity that it demanded, it’s hard to avoid a cynical interpretation of its directive: Perish the thought that your institution should violate the law by engaging in racial preferences. But by hook or by crook, you must come up with a student body and a faculty that are sufficiently diverse to meet our standards. If you succeed, we won’t ask questions about how you did it. If you fail, you will be de-accredited. Violation of state law was precisely what the ABA was encouraging.

Over the next two decades, a particularly egregious case would occasionally become public. For example, after the Grutter decision—which, like Bakke, declined to hold race-preferential admissions policies to be a violation of federal law—the ABA came close to de-accrediting George Mason University Law School, where several faculty members were known to oppose race-preferential admissions. The law school had no choice but to lower its standards, against the better judgment of its faculty, to admit more black students and thus please the ABA. The results were devasting. Fully 45 percent of black students admitted experienced academic failure, compared with only 4 percent of students of other races. As Dean Daniel Polsby put it in his pointed letter to the ABA: “We have an obligation to refrain from victimizing applicants, regardless of race or color, by admitting them to an educational program in which they appear likely to fail. This obligation is recognized in [the ABA’s accreditation standards] but we believe it exists independently.”

The ABA paid no heed to Polsby’s letter. Extensive freedom-of-information act requests over the last 20 years show that both the ABA and LCME have regularly cited schools for noncompliance with their diversity and inclusion policies. Nor is there reason to think that the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA has led them to change their ways. The only event that seems to have caused the ABA anxiety is the election of Donald Trump. It waited until February 21, 2025, to suspend its “Diversity and Inclusion” accreditation standard—nearly two years after SFFA. LCME’s standard remains in place.

Legislation Needed. The ABA’s use of the word “suspend” highlights a problem. Just as the ABA can revoke its suspension whenever it wishes, a subsequent president can easily revoke the accreditation executive order, along with executive branch action or policies adopted to further its objectives.

Moreover, the Higher Education Act now makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the secretary of education to impose new requirements on accreditors. Presumably, she can go after an accreditor that is actively encouraging lawlessness. But accreditors are likely to insist that their diversity and inclusion standards, as such, do not require violations of the law.

What’s needed is a clean requirement that prohibits accreditors from getting involved in any way in the racial or ethnic composition of student bodies or faculties at any college or university. Legislation is the Trump administration’s best bet for this. President Trump and Secretary McMahon can provide leadership in this regard—but Congress will need to act, too.

Legislation is always hard to pass, but in this case it might be easier than some think. Colleges and universities are caught between Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand, the SFFA decision prohibits race-preferential admissions—and the Trump administration plans to enforce it. On the other, accreditors demand that they produce a racially diverse class and faculty. Legislation restraining accreditors from making such demands throws the schools a lifeline. It won’t require anything from the schools themselves. If they want to take the risk of an aggressive pro-preference stand, they can. The sole effect of the legislation will be to get the accreditors off their backs. They might be quietly grateful for that.

Intellectual Diversity. The part of the executive order that worries me involves intellectual diversity. It directs the secretary of education to take steps toward requiring accreditors to “support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity among faculty.”

Those on the center-right might read this to mean that more classical liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and centrists will be hired. But don’t count on the accreditors or schools seeing it that way. More likely, the mandate for “intellectual diversity” will result in 101 flavors of leftism.

In law schools, for example, there could be no end to the number of “schools of thought” that this will generate. Identity politics will be the driver—and not just the usual critical race theory, feminist theory, and queer theory. We’ll see new variations on the theme. Every savvy aspiring law professor will hold himself out as the champion of some emerging school of leftist or left-leaning thought. I doubt it will result in a single latter-day James Madison being hired.

It’s a mistake to think that current accreditors (or any plausible future ones) will promote a sensible concept of intellectual diversity. The alternative—more direct federal intervention into faculty hiring—is even worse. As vexing as colleges and universities can be, federal control over faculty hiring should be resisted.

Gail Heriot is a professor of law at the University of San Diego, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and a book fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-accreditation-higher-education-executive-order

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721020&forum_id=2Elisa#48910403)