The latest step is a proposed agreement that would include large payouts (more than $1.2 billion in UCLA's case) and a series of terms that would change the university's governance and teaching. These conditions often have little or no connection with anti-Semitism.
While this was ostensibly aimed at combating anti-Semitism, the plaintiffs in the case presented a wide range of quotes from administration officials, including the head of the Anti-Semitism Task Force, claiming that the goal was to suppress certain ideas on campus. “The uncontested record in this case shows that defendants used the threat of investigations and economic sanctions to … force the University of California to root out 'woke,' 'leftist,' 'anti-American, 'anti-Western' and 'Marxist' speech by faculty, staff and students,” Lin said.
And even before any agreement was reached, there was plenty of evidence that people on campus had changed their teaching and research to avoid further scrutiny from the administration. “Plaintiffs express fears that research, teaching, and speaking on objectionable topics will lead to further retaliatory withdrawals of UC funding,” Lin wrote, “and that they will be blamed for retaliation. They also describe fears that UC will retaliate against them in order to avoid further funding cuts or in order to comply with the proposed settlement.”
This is a problem given that teaching and research topics are forms of speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. “This is a classic, foreseeable First Amendment harm, and that is exactly what defendants have publicly stated their intentions,” Lin concluded.
Beyond speech
But the First Amendment is not the only issue here. The Civil Rights Act, especially Title VI, sets out the process for cutting federal funding, including warnings and hearings before cutting off funding. This level of enforcement is also limited to cases where there are indications that voluntary compliance will not work. Any funding cuts must be targeted to specific programs and the money allocated for them. There is nothing in Title VI that allows for the kind of financial payments that the government requires (and in some cases receives) from schools.
