It is inexplicable that, instead of fighting the Trump administration, which illegally cuts hundreds of millions in research funds, the reports now suggest that the University of California system is trying to negotiate an agreement, potentially yielding to high -level extortion. Harvard University has fought, filed lawsuits and won in the Court until now. It is not too late for the University of California to move away from the negotiating table and take the Trump administration to the courts.
According to a site of the Government Efficiency Department (Doge) at the beginning of June, the Trump administration had already frozen $ 324 million in subsidies for researchers at the University of California. Actually, the figure was probably much greater because the Doge site was incomplete and also did not include critical subsidies. Then, on August 1, the Trump administration illegally suspended additional $ 584 million in federal funds due to UCLA.
The judge of the Federal District Court, Rita F. Lin, in San Francisco, determined that the suspension and termination of these subsidies by several US agencies violated the federal law because it was carried out arbitrarily without any supposed of significant explanation or fair process.
The court also determined that the termination of these subsidies violated the first amendment because the choice to do so was based on the perceived point of view of the investigation, including the scan of documents for the word “diversity” and then cutting subsidies that used it, even cases in which the term tried to explain the diversity of the life of the plants or the microbial colonies. Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion and confirmed the preliminary court order that requires that the funds granted by these agencies be restored.
This is a lawsuit filed by volunteer lawyers, I am co-abogado, on behalf of the researchers. It was not brought by the University of California, which could have sued to challenge the termination of subsidies, even UCLA. School officials have told me that the university did not demand because it did not want to provoke the Trump administration. That seemed naive at that time and, and, as my father would say, a lot of good.
The apparent basis for the Trump administration action is due to anti -Semitism samples on the UCLA campus. But if that really were the reason to cut the money, the law is clear in terms of the procedures that the Government must follow. The institution must receive a notice and a hearing in front of the agency that grants the funds before Any funds are cut. There must be explicit findings that the university, when acting deliberately indifferent to create a hostile environment for Jewish students on the campus, violated title VI of the Civil Rights Law of 1964. The Chamber and the Senate must receive an early warning of 30 days before the funds are cut, and the funds can only be cut for those parties that UCLA is considered violating the law.
The Trump administration has not done any of this, nor would it have probably managed to meet this demanding standard. Even if the Trump administration prevailed, it would not allow the mass cut of the funds that the Trump administration has imposed on UC schools.
The Trump administration is using accusations of anti -Semitism as the pretext to damage universities and coercional changes to advance their ideological agenda. For example, the administration agreement with the University of Brown includes its completion of gender statement care in all its medical care facilities. The rumored settlement with UCLA includes eliminating gender neutral baths and ending the attention affirmed by gender in its facilities. It would be inconceivable to throw students, staff and transgender teachers under the bus like this.
The Trump administration seeks the end of diversity programs. Since 1996, the Constitution of California has banned affirmative action based on race or sex. In 2023, the Supreme Court maintained that the Constitution of the United States also prohibits it. But nothing in the law or decision of the Supreme Court prevents the University of California from pursuing diversity through other legal means. And to be faithful to your mandate and values, you must do it.
Any agreement will imply professing a considerable sum. Brown University has agreed to pay $ 50 million; The University of Columbia has said that it will pay $ 221 million. If the University of California accepts similar terms, each penny will come from funds for education and research, what the university exists to achieve.
And if the University of California Capitula, there is nothing that prevents the Trump Administration from extorting funds again and again in the future. Surely university officials will not trust the hope that the Trump administration will act in good faith in the future. We all learned a long time ago in the patio of recreation that giving in a thug only worsens it. I have no doubt that President Trump chases the most prestigious universities: Harvard, Columbia, Brown, University of California, because he thinks that if they yield, all other schools will also give in.
The Supreme Court can ultimately govern against the University of California if it demands. But the university must at least have the courage to try to fight for its values. Capitula will send the wrong message to other universities and, above all, to its faculty and students.
Being on a UC campus, it seems clear to me that the faculty and the students firmly oppose a settlement. They want university officials and regents to challenge the illegal actions of the Trump administration. I know that I speak for many to say: the University of California should not yield to extortion and make an agreement with the Trump administration.
Erwin Chemendnsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law Faculty, is a writer who contributes to the voices.
