• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Columbia University to fork over $220 million to resolve antisemitic discrimination claims

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,251
5,812
Minnesota
✟327,589.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,672
15,121
Seattle
✟1,168,793.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married

Columbia was wise to settle. It sends a message to all that the Trump administration will not put up with discrimination.
Wisdom is not to be found in acceding to the wishes of this administration. The law firms who capitulated and now face further demands can attest to the true cost.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,098
16,992
Here
✟1,461,566.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Extortion is the name of the game.

Withholding money for research has noting to do with protecting Jewish students from antisemitism.

...but I think that the "you're stripping money away from medical research" angle is often invoked from the same disingenuous place as the "if you deny money to Israel, you're engaging in antisemitism" angle


Basically, it's been a "we'll engage in these other 20 controversial and divisive things as an organization, but because we also do some medical research, you can't touch us, and if you do threaten to withhold the checks, then we'll just say you don't care about cancer research" type of thing.

slightly adjust that statement, and it's not far off from the kind of rhetoric the Israeli government uses "We'll do these other 20 divisive things, but since we also provide a safe haven for a large Jewish population, if you threaten to withhold the checks, we'll just say you don't care about Jews"


Or more succinctly
There's been an effort to make "Modern Academia and all that goes with it" synonymous with "medical research", much like there's been an effort to make "Israeli government" synonymous with "protecting Jews" -- both done with the aims of creating a criticism and accountability shield.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,251
5,812
Minnesota
✟327,589.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Wisdom is not to be found in acceding to the wishes of this administration. The law firms who capitulated and now face further demands can attest to the true cost.
The most important part, as reported by the New York Post, was "The school committed to reversing its racially discriminatory practices and also agreed to submit to independent monitoring to ensure it is complying with merit-based hiring and admissions requirements." People need to stop having DEI and CRT rammed down their throats and instead have the dangers of racism explained to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hentenza
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,672
15,121
Seattle
✟1,168,793.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The most important part, as reported by the New York Post, was "The school committed to reversing its racially discriminatory practices and also agreed to submit to independent monitoring to ensure it is complying with merit-based hiring and admissions requirements." People need to stop having DEI and CRT rammed down their throats and instead have the dangers of racism explained to them.
Yay big government controlling what we can say and how we hire.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,251
5,812
Minnesota
✟327,589.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yay big government controlling what we can say and how we hire.
A core purpose of the federal government is to protect the rights of all. Jewish kids have every right to attend school without being bullied and harassed. They have just as many rights as those of other beliefs. At schools like Cornell, the number of students who felt comfortable expressing their political views dramatically dropped under the Biden administration. Trump is seeing that the Civil Rights Act is being enforced, and that means stopping the discrimination which has become systemic.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,672
15,121
Seattle
✟1,168,793.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
A core purpose of the federal government is to protect the rights of all.
Except those who espouse DEI or CRT. That first amendment right is apparently no longer protected.

Jewish kids have every right to attend school without being bullied and harassed.
If that was what was being accomplished. OI would fully support it.
They have just as many rights as those of other beliefs.
Unless you are here on a visa of course.
At schools like Cornell, the number of students who felt comfortable expressing their political views dramatically dropped under the Biden administration.
Citation needed.
Trump is seeing that the Civil Rights Act is being enforced, and that means stopping the discrimination which has become systemic.
That should be handled through the proper channels. Not arm twisting by an authoritarian government bent on subduing and punishing centers of learning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,251
5,812
Minnesota
✟327,589.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Except those who espouse DEI or CRT. That first amendment right is apparently no longer protected.
People have the right to openly speak about and even promote discrimination on their own time, that comes under freedom of speech, but they don't have a right to violate the rights of others under the law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission distinguishes between the two:

7. When is a DEI initiative, policy, program, or practice unlawful under Title VII?

Under Title VII, an employer initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic.[13]

Among other things, Title VII bars discrimination (“disparate treatment”) against applicants or employees in hiring, firing, compensation, or any term, condition, or privilege of employment.[14] The prohibition against discrimination applies to a wide variety of aspects of employment. In order to allege a colorable claim of discrimination, workers only need to show “some injury” or “some harm” affecting their “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment.[15] The prohibition against disparate treatment, including DEI-related disparate treatment, includes disparate treatment in:
  • Hiring;[16]
  • Firing;[17]
  • Promotion;[18]
  • Demotion;[19]
  • Compensation;[20]
  • Fringe benefits;[21]
  • Access to or exclusion from training[22] (including training characterized as leadership development programs);[23]
  • Access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking / networks;[24]
  • Internships (including internships labeled as “fellowships” or “summer associate” programs);[25]
  • Selection for interviews,[26] including placement or exclusion from a candidate “slate” or pool;
  • Job duties or work assignments.[27]
Title VII also prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities.[28] This prohibition applies to employee activities which are employer-sponsored (including by making available company time, facilities, or premises, and other forms of official or unofficial encouragement or participation), such as employee clubs or groups.[29] In the context of DEI programs, unlawful segregation can include limiting membership in workplace groups, such as Employee Resource Groups (ERG), Business Resource Groups (BRGs), or other employee affinity groups, to certain protected groups.[30]

Unlawful limiting, segregating, or classifying workers related to DEI can arise when employers separate workers into groups based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic when administering DEI or any trainings, workplace programming, or other privileges of employment, even if the separate groups receive the same programming content or amount of employer resources.[31]

Employers instead should provide “training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well, and to ascend to upper-level jobs.”[32] Employers also should ensure that “employees of all backgrounds . . . have equal access to workplace networks.”[33]

8. Can an employer excuse its DEI-related considerations of race, sex, or another protected characteristic, provided that the protected characteristic wasn’t the sole or deciding factor for the employer’s decision or employment action?

No. For there to be unlawful discrimination, race or sex (or any other protected characteristic under Title VII) does not have to be the exclusive (sole) reason for an employer’s employment action or the “but-for” (deciding) factor for the action. An employment action still is unlawful even if race, sex, or another Title VII protected characteristic was just one factor among other factors contributing to the employer’s decision or action.[34]
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
24,931
20,995
✟1,738,281.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
People have the right to openly speak about and even promote discrimination on their own time, that comes under freedom of speech, but they don't have a right to violate the rights of others under the law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission distinguishes between the two:

7. When is a DEI initiative, policy, program, or practice unlawful under Title VII?

Under Title VII, an employer initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic.[13]

Among other things, Title VII bars discrimination (“disparate treatment”) against applicants or employees in hiring, firing, compensation, or any term, condition, or privilege of employment.[14] The prohibition against discrimination applies to a wide variety of aspects of employment. In order to allege a colorable claim of discrimination, workers only need to show “some injury” or “some harm” affecting their “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment.[15] The prohibition against disparate treatment, including DEI-related disparate treatment, includes disparate treatment in:
  • Hiring;[16]
  • Firing;[17]
  • Promotion;[18]
  • Demotion;[19]
  • Compensation;[20]
  • Fringe benefits;[21]
  • Access to or exclusion from training[22] (including training characterized as leadership development programs);[23]
  • Access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking / networks;[24]
  • Internships (including internships labeled as “fellowships” or “summer associate” programs);[25]
  • Selection for interviews,[26] including placement or exclusion from a candidate “slate” or pool;
  • Job duties or work assignments.[27]
Title VII also prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities.[28] This prohibition applies to employee activities which are employer-sponsored (including by making available company time, facilities, or premises, and other forms of official or unofficial encouragement or participation), such as employee clubs or groups.[29] In the context of DEI programs, unlawful segregation can include limiting membership in workplace groups, such as Employee Resource Groups (ERG), Business Resource Groups (BRGs), or other employee affinity groups, to certain protected groups.[30]

Unlawful limiting, segregating, or classifying workers related to DEI can arise when employers separate workers into groups based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic when administering DEI or any trainings, workplace programming, or other privileges of employment, even if the separate groups receive the same programming content or amount of employer resources.[31]

Employers instead should provide “training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well, and to ascend to upper-level jobs.”[32] Employers also should ensure that “employees of all backgrounds . . . have equal access to workplace networks.”[33]

8. Can an employer excuse its DEI-related considerations of race, sex, or another protected characteristic, provided that the protected characteristic wasn’t the sole or deciding factor for the employer’s decision or employment action?

No. For there to be unlawful discrimination, race or sex (or any other protected characteristic under Title VII) does not have to be the exclusive (sole) reason for an employer’s employment action or the “but-for” (deciding) factor for the action. An employment action still is unlawful even if race, sex, or another Title VII protected characteristic was just one factor among other factors contributing to the employer’s decision or action.[34]

Where is the evidence of discrimination at Colombia University?
Where is the evidence of antisemetism?

Has the DOJ released any findings?
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,251
5,812
Minnesota
✟327,589.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Where is the evidence of discrimination at Colombia University?
Where is the evidence of antisemetism?

Has the DOJ released any findings?
Columbia settled. That avoids court and a formal presentation of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
24,931
20,995
✟1,738,281.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Columbia settled. That avoids court and a formal presentation of evidence.

You mean it avoids the embarrassment of not having any evidence.

It's obvious Columbia settled to free up Federal funding -- funding the Trump Administration had frozen based on accusations. That's quite the racket....
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,672
15,121
Seattle
✟1,168,793.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
People have the right to openly speak about and even promote discrimination on their own time, that comes under freedom of speech, but they don't have a right to violate the rights of others under the law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission distinguishes between the two:

7. When is a DEI initiative, policy, program, or practice unlawful under Title VII?

Under Title VII, an employer initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic.[13]

Among other things, Title VII bars discrimination (“disparate treatment”) against applicants or employees in hiring, firing, compensation, or any term, condition, or privilege of employment.[14] The prohibition against discrimination applies to a wide variety of aspects of employment. In order to allege a colorable claim of discrimination, workers only need to show “some injury” or “some harm” affecting their “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment.[15] The prohibition against disparate treatment, including DEI-related disparate treatment, includes disparate treatment in:
  • Hiring;[16]
  • Firing;[17]
  • Promotion;[18]
  • Demotion;[19]
  • Compensation;[20]
  • Fringe benefits;[21]
  • Access to or exclusion from training[22] (including training characterized as leadership development programs);[23]
  • Access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking / networks;[24]
  • Internships (including internships labeled as “fellowships” or “summer associate” programs);[25]
  • Selection for interviews,[26] including placement or exclusion from a candidate “slate” or pool;
  • Job duties or work assignments.[27]
Title VII also prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities.[28] This prohibition applies to employee activities which are employer-sponsored (including by making available company time, facilities, or premises, and other forms of official or unofficial encouragement or participation), such as employee clubs or groups.[29] In the context of DEI programs, unlawful segregation can include limiting membership in workplace groups, such as Employee Resource Groups (ERG), Business Resource Groups (BRGs), or other employee affinity groups, to certain protected groups.[30]

Unlawful limiting, segregating, or classifying workers related to DEI can arise when employers separate workers into groups based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic when administering DEI or any trainings, workplace programming, or other privileges of employment, even if the separate groups receive the same programming content or amount of employer resources.[31]

Employers instead should provide “training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well, and to ascend to upper-level jobs.”[32] Employers also should ensure that “employees of all backgrounds . . . have equal access to workplace networks.”[33]

8. Can an employer excuse its DEI-related considerations of race, sex, or another protected characteristic, provided that the protected characteristic wasn’t the sole or deciding factor for the employer’s decision or employment action?

No. For there to be unlawful discrimination, race or sex (or any other protected characteristic under Title VII) does not have to be the exclusive (sole) reason for an employer’s employment action or the “but-for” (deciding) factor for the action. An employment action still is unlawful even if race, sex, or another Title VII protected characteristic was just one factor among other factors contributing to the employer’s decision or action.[34]
I must of missed all those court cases showing DEI to be unlawful. Maybe that is why they put that "may be unlawful". May is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The fact is that it has never been shown to be unlawful and is simply a culture war talking point.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,251
5,812
Minnesota
✟327,589.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You mean it avoids the embarrassment of not having any evidence.

It's obvious Columbia settled to free up Federal funding -- funding the Trump Administration had frozen based on accusations. That's quite the racket....
Columbia indeed wanted more money, the Trump administration wanted to stop discrimination. They came to an agreement.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
24,931
20,995
✟1,738,281.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Columbia indeed wanted more money, the Trump administration wanted to stop discrimination. They came to an agreement.

What discriminiation? Can you point to a single DOJ document that spells out the referenced discrimination?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,251
5,812
Minnesota
✟327,589.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What discriminiation? Can you point to a single DOJ document that spells out the referenced discrimination?
I thought the DOJ made it clear when they initially cancelled the contracts and grants:

“Since October 7, Jewish students have faced relentless violence, intimidation, and anti-Semitic harassment on their campuses – only to be ignored by those who are supposed to protect them,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Universities must comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus. Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

Again, it never went to trial, Columbia decided to settle.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
24,931
20,995
✟1,738,281.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I thought the DOJ made it clear when they initially cancelled the contracts and grants:

“Since October 7, Jewish students have faced relentless violence, intimidation, and anti-Semitic harassment on their campuses – only to be ignored by those who are supposed to protect them,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Universities must comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus. Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

Again, it never went to trial, Columbia decided to settle.

That's a claim. Where is the documented evidence?
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,191
2,582
✟264,925.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Wisdom is not to be found in acceding to the wishes of this administration. The law firms who capitulated and now face further demands can attest to the true cost.
Wisdom is not acceding to antisemitic mobs. Allowing harassment and intimidation to their students certainly is void of wisdom.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,672
15,121
Seattle
✟1,168,793.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Wisdom is not acceding to antisemitic mobs. Allowing harassment and intimidation to their students certainly is void of wisdom.
Indeed. that would not be wisdom either. It's like there is a middle ground we should strive for.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,191
2,582
✟264,925.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Indeed. that would not be wisdom either. It's like there is a middle ground we should strive for.
No middle ground here. The universities allowed it, and thought it was ok to do so. It was not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0