Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Coalition of faculty unions prevails against Trump’s attacks on the UC

UC administration is still laying low and not joining the fight

By Roberta Millstein

This is just meant to be a quick follow up to my earlier article, “Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally).” On Friday, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs in AAUP v. Trump, including the Davis Faculty Association, a preliminary injunction. By temporary court orderthe federal government is prohibited from holding federal funds hostage in an effort to coerce the University of California into imposing policies that would violate our First Amendment rights.

The judge’s decision is a rebuke of the “Demand letter” I wrote about in the earlier article (and I believe its arguments would likewise apply to the “Compact” that has been presented to other U.S. universities).  Judge Rita Lin writes:

Plaintiffs have submitted overwhelming evidence. Across 74 declarations and more than 700 pages of supporting documents, Plaintiffs show that the Administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge “woke,” “left,” and “socialist” viewpoints from our country’s leading universities. Agency officials, as well as the President and Vice President, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the Administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this.

In her article on the decision, Davis Enterprise journalist Monica Stark helpfully explains that the order will stay in place until all of the required procedures under Title VI and Title IX are followed — in other words, the procedures that the Trump administration should have followed instead of simply declaring guilt and trying to impose an outrageous $1.2B fine with illegal conditions.  (See Stark’s article or the judge’s order for the list of required procedures).  The Trump administration’s conditions included, the judge states, “conditions on continued federal funding that impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights” (p. 74).

Judge Lin offered examples of conditions on the granting or continuance of federal funding that would violate the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs’ members (meaning that the Trump administration is prohibited from doing the following):

  • Requiring the UC to make hiring, firing, or funding decisions on the basis of Plaintiffs’ members’ protected speech or freedom of assembly.
  • Requiring the UC to restrict its curriculum, scholarship, or research based on the Defendants’ preferred viewpoints.
  • Requiring the UC to screen international students based on “anti- Western” or “anti-American” views and/or “socialize” international students to favored “norms.”
  • Requiring the UC to institute reporting requirements concerning Plaintiffs’ protected speech or freedom of assembly.
  • Requiring the UC to adopt specific definitions of “sex,” “male,” and “female,” or adopt Defendants’ favored views as to gender or gender affirming care and disallowing inconsistent speech by its faculty, staff, or students.
  • Restricting how the UC decides scholarship awards, hiring, or admissions, beyond what current constitutional or statutory law requires.

As for the UC administration, who played no role in this lawsuit other than to resist revealing the demand letter that it had received from the Trump administration, it has neither supported nor criticized the ruling.  The UC spokesperson response said only that the UC remains “remains focused on our vital work to drive innovation, advance medical breakthroughs and strengthen the nation’s long-term competitiveness” and “remains committed to protecting the mission, governance, and academic freedom of the university.”

In other words, the UC administration is still keeping its head down while the faculty fight the battle for the UC.  It is time for President James Milliken and the UC Board of Regents to stand with UC faculty.

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

44 responses to “Coalition of faculty unions prevails against Trump’s attacks on the UC”

  1. Alan C. Miller

    One issue is that there is open Jew hate on campus that the chancellor and his team are doing their best to keep out of the media and public awareness, and it’s going to take a big stick such as this package to reverse that. Not that we can do anything about the haters, but we can reverse the chancellor’s tacit policies that have lead to this type of hate being both in the open yet unreported and the opposition low key delegitimized. I wish this issue wasn’t wrapped up in this giant package and tied with an orange ribbon resembling the locks of our much-locally-hated national leader, but this is one area I appreciate the orange intervention. Is it the best tactic? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer – and probably not, but at least it’s a big stick for a problem that requires such. The anti-Jew-bigotry acceptance needs be dealt with, and I hope that part of the big stick isn’t lost if the whole of this Trump initiative is killed in the courts.

    1. I don’t disagree with you that UCD and UCLA (and much of the world) has a problem with antisemitism, and I agree that there have been specific incidents at UCD and UCLA that haven’t been addressed properly. But what Trump tried to do wasn’t a big stick — it was a nuclear bomb. It applied across the entire UC, with $500K withheld from UCLA funding and an eyepopping $1.2B in fines. And in case that wasn’t enough, there was a long list of unconstitutional and anti-education mandates, which Judge Lin called out in her decision — most of which wouldn’t do a damn thing for antisemitism at the UC. When you add to that all of the antisemitism coming from the Trump administration, it becomes clear that the administration is just using antisemitism as an excuse to try to impose its political will on the UC — as Judge Lin also called out.

      I don’t claim to have an answer to what would properly address the issue, but destroying the UC (as this would have done) isn’t it. And no, I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.

  2. Dan Ovadya

    The Lin ruling was expected and political. Yes it buys UC a little time but may just prolong UCs tough decision. Upholding Title 7 (Hostile workplace) and Title 6 are requirements for all public universities in the United States. UC must adhere to federal law and comply with 1964 Civil Right Act in order to receive Federal funds.

    UC is now fully aware that they are in violation of Federal Civil Rights Law and knows they are in a tight spot. If UC settles with the DOJ, they will be attacked by the very activist “professors” that they hired. If they don’t settle, this goes to the Supreme Court where other universities have already lost on similar cases. UC is risking funding rather than upholding Civil Rights of its staff and students. The squeeze is on and everyone knows it.

    1. It’s pretty easy to lob the accusation that the ruling was “expected and political,” but I note that you don’t mention any mistakes in Judge Lin’s reasoning.

      You also don’t mention all the steps that I mention and link to in the article that would be required to uphold the Trump administration’s accusations, so I will copy and paste them here. It’s a long way before this goes to the Supreme Court. And, btw, I’d be interested to know which higher ed cases that the Trump administration has succeeded with in front of the Supreme Court, because I am not aware of any (and I’ve been following these issues pretty closely).

      Here you go:

      1. Defendants must not deny or slow federal funding to UC, including its campuses, labs, and medical centers, because of any allegations of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or sex. This rule remains in effect until the defendants have completed all required steps for terminating federal financial assistance, as outlined in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the relevant regulations, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. This includes the following steps:

      a. Determining if UC is not complying with Title VI or Title IX.

      b. Trying to get UC to voluntarily comply.

      c. If that fails, providing notice to UC and any relevant staff about the proposed actions, the legal basis for these actions, and the chance for a hearing.

      d. Holding a hearing at least 20 days after the notice is given, allowing UC to present evidence and letting others participate as amici curiae.

      e. Allowing UC and interested parties to submit written statements.

      f. Ensuring an impartial fact-finder issues a clear ruling of noncompliance, specifying the affected program or activity.

      g. Submitting a full report to the relevant Congressional committees detailing the circumstances and reasons for any action.

      h. Waiting 30 days after the report is filed.

      i. Keeping any funding termination limited to the specific program where noncompliance is found.

      2. Defendants cannot demand payments, impose fines, or seek any other payments from UC or its campuses and medical centers regarding civil rights investigations or alleged violations under Title VI, VII, or IX.

      3. Defendants must not threaten or refuse federal funding to UC to force UC into actions that would violate the First or Tenth Amendments.

      4. Defendants cannot require UC to agree to measures that would violate the rights of the Plaintiffs’ members under the First Amendment in order to receive or continue federal funding.

      5. The terminations of research grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Department of Energy (DOE) to UCLA researchers, which occurred around July 30, 2025, are cancelled and are not in effect. Defendants are prohibited from implementing or enforcing these terminations. Future funding terminations by defendants that meet the mentioned criteria are also cancelled upon issuance.

      1. Dan Ovadya

        Thanks for the reply. The data is quite clear on these partisan rulings by the lower courts against this administration. A Harvard Law Review study found that over 50% of nationwide injunctions since 1963 targeted the Trump administration, making it the highest number for any administration during that timeframe by far. Just like Judge Rita Lin, 92% of these were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. This partisan ruling will immediately be appealed and it will proceed to the next phase unless UC settles first.

        The Title 7 approach by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at the DOJ is a smart legal approach regarding the Civil Rights abuses at UC. The hostile workplace standard was set by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago and has been upheld many times since. What has occurred at UC Davis to Jewish faculty and students alone, far exceeds the Title 7 standard. Easy case to win for the DOJ.
        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/510/17/

        Regarding the systemic Civil Rights abuses at our universities, surely you are familiar with Students For Fair Admissions vs Harvard.
        “The Supreme Court found that Harvard’s admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause because they use race as a factor in admissions. The ruling also stated that these policies violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race in programs that receive federal funding.”

        https://www.ncsl.org/resources/details/supreme-court-rejects-use-of-race-in-college-admissions-process

        I suspect that the University of California is fully aware of the legal precedence here, and is carefully considering their chances in a legal fight. What UC, and you, may not be aware of, is the breadth and quality of the evidence that may soon show that UC knowingly permitted widespread criminal civil rights abuses in a place of work and learning. Time will soon tell how badly UC has misjudged this moment.

      2. Yes, the number of court cases under the Trump administration has dramatically increased with the administration’s repeated failures to follow the law, as it did when it issued the Demand letter to UCLA. I would be extremely surprised if the Supreme Court upheld the legality of that letter, as it tramples all over the First Amendment.

  3. –>KeiTh

    Judge Rita Lin, a Democrat appointed by Joe Biden. Color me surprised.
    SCOTUS will likely overturn her biased ruling.

    1. In what way is Judge Lin’s ruling biased? She lays out the reasoning very clearly and thoroughly.

  4. South of Davis

    Roberta, did you miss where Dan says: “Upholding Title 7 (Hostile workplace) and Title 6 are requirements for all public universities in the United States. UC must adhere to federal law and comply with 1964 Civil Right Act in order to receive Federal funds.” Almost ever college in Ameraca has been a “Hostile Workplace” for (non Jewish) white males for almost 50 years. When a teacher would come down hard on my Jewish friends they would let the professor know they were Jewish and they would beg for forgivness knowing that one call to the ADL would probably end their career in acedemics. I had a (very white looking) fraternity brother of hispanic descent and he literally had a female professor crying when he threatened to have his friends in MEChA call her out as a racist (for treating him the way she treated all the white non Jews in her class).

    1. I suspect I have more experience of what it is like to be a Jewish student (undergrad, grad) and a Jewish professor than you do. And if say “but you agree with majority view on Palestine, etc.,” well, that would be a false inference. And yet, I have not experienced any more antisemitism in the university than I have outside the university. It exists, yes. But none of it justifies the Trump administration’s egregious overstep with withdrawing funding, levying a massive fine, and seeking to control how the university runs. It’s illegal, way out of scale, and doesn’t address any problems that might exist.

      1. Dan Ovadya

        At some point, the First Amendment runs into Civil Rights Law, especially in a place of work. UCD is not Central Park. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that having a pinup girl calendar on the wall in the workplace was sufficient to create a hostile workplace for women. Was the owner of the calendars First Amendment rights infringed upon?

        On Oct 7th 2025, a proxy group of Students for Justice in Palestine sent 30 masked people to the UCD campus. Dressed with Hamas styled kaffiyeh and holding signs with kalishnakov rifles, they approached a Jewish faculty group holding a vigil for the victims of Oct 7th and chanted “Al Qassam (=Hamas) you make us proud, kill another hundred now.” UCD knew in advance about this group’s previous actions including criminal assault of a Jewish alum on April 23 2024 and decided it ok to allow the mob to harass the Jewish faculty group.

        Roberta: In your view, does this event create a hostile workplace for Jews?

        UC has a long history of regulating speech on campus but refuses to do so when it involves harassment of Jewish faculty and students. This means massive liability for UC.

      2. My opinion is that nothing that happened at UCD justifies the withdrawing of science funding, the outrageous fine, and the intervention in the running of the university that was contained in the “Demand” letter. I also maintain that nothing in that Demand letter would have helped antisemitism at UCD or anywhere else. You can try to change the subject all you like, but that is the subject of my post. I won’t be drawn down another path.

      3. Alan C. Miller

        RM say, “I have not experienced any more antisemitism in the university than I have outside the university.”

        Really? In my entire life up until Oct. 7 2023 I’ve only twice personally experienced an outright Jew-hate incident. On October 7th 2025 on the UCD campus I heard masked protestors shouting for Hamas to “kill another 100 (Jews) now!”. And another student get up near a memorial gathering of Jews and shout “Death to Israel!” (at least he had the respect to show his face).

        I’m not arguing one way or the other what the best strategy is to get UC Davis to stop trying to keep this out of the news and to stop allowing this sort of anti-Jew speech without at least calling out perpetrators, not allowing them to do this masked like the KKK, and most of all making the hate statements known in the press and then condemning it.

        Again this isn’t about the letter/judge thing. I’m just surprised with your statement, as I experienced more in-person Jew-hate on just 10/7/2025 on the UC Davis campus then in the entire rest of my life combined. Something is quite off with UC Davis being so passé with masked persons calling for the death of Jews on campus.

        Remember when speaking a ‘micro-aggression’ could get you cancelled? Now, yelling for the mass murder of a People (with masks/megaphone) is just another day on the Quad . . . and attracts no media coverage.

        Oi Vey

      4. I was not on campus that day, and yes, personal experiences are going to differ, quite widely. I am speaking only of my own personal experience, in which I have experience antisemitism both within the UCD and outside of UCD. What you report is horrifying, but as I am sure you know, those kinds of horrifying actions are not limited to UCD. So yes, I personally have not experienced any more antisemitism in the university than I have outside the university.

        You say that we need to be “calling out perpetrators, not allowing them to do this masked like the KKK, and most of all making the hate statements known in the press and then condemning it.” And I agree with this 100%.

  5. South of Davis

    When Roberta says, “I have not experienced any more antisemitism in the university than I have outside the university.” I’m wondering if she is “openly” Jewish. I have friends with kids who are “out and proud” (yarmulke wearing) Jewish and he said things are bad and getting worse for his kids (currently at Brown and UCLA). My wife has Jewish first cousins that are “super orthodox” and report that young people today have never seemed so anti-Jewish (and seem to think that every Jewish family in America supports every air strike in Palestine).

    1. I love the question about whether I am “openly” Jewish coming from someone who has been anonymous here for years.

      Yes, I am openly Jewish. My last name is a common Jewish name and there are a number of famous Jewish Milsteins/Millsteins (who I am not related to). I “look” Jewish, or so I have been told by other Jews. I have an East coast accent. When I am wished a Merry Christmas, I typically reply and say that i don’t celebrate because I am Jewish. And in case my colleagues were in any doubt, when I called them out for the Christmas parties, that probably sealed it. I have likewise called out various UCD bodies for the same.

      So no, I don’t wear a yarmulke (that is still a bit gendered). I am not a religious Jew. But when the subject arises, I always say what I am, as I am doing now, as I have done before on the Davisite. I have never hidden what I am. Can you say the same? No, you cannot.

  6. South of Davis

    From comments made over the years I’m guessing that Roberta (and Alan and Keith) are all about (+/- 5 years) my age in my early 60’s. I don’t get to know as many college students as a “college professor” but working with college students in Davis for the past 20 years I have met a lot of them. One of the things I have noticed in getting to know all the college students (and my kids friends over the past 20 years) is that while “most” people our age in the 70’s could tell you the race “and” religion of their classmates and teachers (but had no idea of their classmates or teacher’s political party) today few kids know the race and/or religion (unless the person is black or Muslim) but know almost everyone’s political views (including if they hate Trump more or less than they do). The reason I asked about Roberta if she is “openly” Jewish is I’m betting if I asked ten college students to guess the religion of a guy named David with a last name that ended with “berg” only a couple would guess Jewish where in the 70’s 90% would (while today almost every High School and college kid knows what “political party” people are in). Few kids and young adults today are religious, or go to religious services or are aware of the religion of the people around them so unless you are going out of your way to let people know your religion you should not expect any antisemitic (or anti Catholic or anti Baptist) behavior from people on “or” off campus.

    1. You conveniently ignored the part of my comment where I indicated that my colleagues and superiors did in fact know that I am a Jew. Setting that aside, in general my students did as well. Not because I announced it at the beginning of class — that would be weird — but because in the course of a conversation about philosophical topics it could become relevant, and as I said already, I’ve never tried to hide who I am, unlike a person who posts anonymously on blogs and who thinks they know more about being Jewish than I do, even though they are (apparently) not Jewish themselves.

      But let me get back to the actual topic at hand. There is nothing in the Demand letter that would have helped with antisemitism in the UC, and that’s because that wasn’t the actual goal of the letter. Rather, the goal of the letter was to force Trump’s political viewpoints on the UC, as Judge Lin correctly identified.

      1. Dan Ovadya

        Roberta: The question at hand is did UC knowingly violate Federal Civil Rights Law and fail to protect Jewish staff and students from discrimination on their campuses?

        The DOJ has been investigating UC on this very question for months. Many believe UC is likely in criminal violation of Title 7 and allowed a hostile workplace to become pervasive and severe. UC is also in violation of Title 6 and allowed students to be harmed on campus based on religion and national origin. Finally, UC has a major liability with race and gender based admissions and hiring. That data on that is also compelling.

        All of this is illegal under the U.S. Constitution and well as several California statues. Compliance with U.S. Civil Rights law is a REQUIREMENT for receiving Federal Funds of any kind. Judge Lin is ignoring the Civil Rights issue. Are you ok with Jewish civil rights being violated at UC?

      2. Since you seem to have missed it the first time, I will re-paste the steps that the Trump administration would need to go through in order to substantiate the claims that you are making. We are still a nation of laws and precedents, and I expect accusations to be treated in accordance with those laws and precedents.

        The UC was not on trial here; the federal government was. If the federal government wants a ruling against the UC, it needs to bring it to the courts properly, not act as judge and jury. Same goes for any individuals who believe that their rights were violated.

        This is why Judge Lin issued a temporary injunction, to allow for the administration to go about this properly. The ball is in their court.

        The list again:

        1. Defendants must not deny or slow federal funding to UC, including its campuses, labs, and medical centers, because of any allegations of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or sex. This rule remains in effect until the defendants have completed all required steps for terminating federal financial assistance, as outlined in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the relevant regulations, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. This includes the following steps:

        a. Determining if UC is not complying with Title VI or Title IX.

        b. Trying to get UC to voluntarily comply.

        c. If that fails, providing notice to UC and any relevant staff about the proposed actions, the legal basis for these actions, and the chance for a hearing.

        d. Holding a hearing at least 20 days after the notice is given, allowing UC to present evidence and letting others participate as amici curiae.

        e. Allowing UC and interested parties to submit written statements.

        f. Ensuring an impartial fact-finder issues a clear ruling of noncompliance, specifying the affected program or activity.

        g. Submitting a full report to the relevant Congressional committees detailing the circumstances and reasons for any action.

        h. Waiting 30 days after the report is filed.

        i. Keeping any funding termination limited to the specific program where noncompliance is found.

        2. Defendants cannot demand payments, impose fines, or seek any other payments from UC or its campuses and medical centers regarding civil rights investigations or alleged violations under Title VI, VII, or IX.

        3. Defendants must not threaten or refuse federal funding to UC to force UC into actions that would violate the First or Tenth Amendments.

        4. Defendants cannot require UC to agree to measures that would violate the rights of the Plaintiffs’ members under the First Amendment in order to receive or continue federal funding.

        5. The terminations of research grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Department of Energy (DOE) to UCLA researchers, which occurred around July 30, 2025, are cancelled and are not in effect. Defendants are prohibited from implementing or enforcing these terminations. Future funding terminations by defendants that meet the mentioned criteria are also cancelled upon issuance.

    2. Alan C. Miller

      SOD say, “Few kids and young adults today are religious, or go to religious services or are aware of the religion of the people around them so unless you are going out of your way to let people know your religion you should not expect any antisemitic (or anti Catholic or anti Baptist) behavior from people on “or” off campus.”

      SOD, I agree with some of your take on this matter, but on the above you would be quite wrong. For two reasons:

      1) You fall into the trap that many do of not understanding what a Jew is. The Jewish people are a tribe, an ancient tribe, and that tribe has an associated religion, Judaism. Along the lines of how photons and other molecular entities display characteristics of both particles and waves (wave/particle duality), Jewish-ness can display characteristics of ethnicity and religion (ethno-religious dualty). Unlike other major religions, one retains their identity even as secular. If you quit Judaism, you are still a Jewish person, of the Jewish people. In contrast, if you quit Islam, you are not a Muslim anymore, and if you quit the Catholic church, you are not a Catholic anymore (though you may retain the guilt). Many, many Jews, both here and in Israel, are secular. And many, many Jews who are secular and diasporic believe in the inextricable Jewish bond to Israel, even if not religious. This has of course dwindled a bit since October 7th, 2023, especially among the segment of Jews whose far-left, or even far-right, political beliefs dominate internally over their religious beliefs and/or sense of identity.

      2) In the most severe of Jew-hate experiences I have experienced personally, both on and off campus, the haters didn’t know or care who was around as they spewed their hate at Jews, they just spewed their hate. Since the majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi, they/we ‘appear white’ to many people (though those with well-honed ‘Jewdar’ can often spot me as Jewish). That hidden-in-plain-sight-ness is the basis for what I yelled at a Jew-hater loudly spewing anti-Jew-bigotry that I drove out of a coffee shop in Long Beach: “That’s the thing about Jews, you never know when there might be one around!”

      So those haters on campus, they knew there were Jews around. Many were Jews gathered for October 7th memorials. Haters don’t have to know you are Jewish or have to identify who is Jewish individually before spewing their hate to a crowd that might have Jews in it. Jewish hate incidents are not often one-on-one interactions like “oh, you’re Jewish? Well, f*ck you”. No, they are like being on the Quad on October 7th, 2025 and experiencing a group chanting “kill another 100 now!”, or that one f*ck-face shouting “Death to Israel!” next to those mourning and honoring the hostages (still not returned at the time). That’s how we Jews often experience anti-Jewish hate.

      So, SOD, your statement, ” . . . you should not expect any antisemitic . . . behavior from people on “or” off campus.” is true only so far as I don’t ‘expect it’, but NO ONE should *ever* in their lives go to a public campus and experience an anonymous group of masked persons shouting through a megaphone for the massacre of “another 100” of our People.

  7. Dan Ovadya

    Thanks, I have read these along with many accomplished legal minds in Davis.

    Point #3 alone reveals a remarkable gap in legal reality by Judge Lin.

    The DOJs job is to ensure public institutions comply with our civil rights laws. Any and all Federal funding to UC is contingent with compliance with our civil rights laws. Like it or not, this administration is 100% able to withhold funding until UC decides to stop allowing Jews to be systematically discriminated and threatened on campus. There are at least 18 different anti-Israel student and faculty groups at UCD alone targeting Jews. The body of evidence is overwhelming but I’m guessing Judge Lin hasn’t seen it yet.

    “Federal funding civil rights requirements prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in programs receiving federal funds. These requirements are enforced through laws like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and include obligations such as providing civil rights training to employees and ensuring programs are accessible to all. Recipients of federal funds must comply with these mandates to avoid penalties, including potential termination of funding.”

    What’s really cool about the mostly Democrat oriented Jewish community in Davis, is their intellectual and legal consistency regarding civil rights enforcement. Jews generally believe in civil rights for all.

    BTW: UC is already capitulating quietly behind the scenes. The changes are already happening. It’s a great thing.

    1. I don’t normally like to use AI, but I don’t have the time to dig out all of the lawsuits where it has been determined that in fact, it is NOT true that “this administration is 100% able to withhold funding”. As for “until UC decides to stop allowing Jews to be systematically discriminated and threatened on campus,” I will say again that it is not their job to determine guilt or to exact payment without following the proper procedures.

      But really, you give yourself away when you cheer that “UC is already capitulating quietly behind the scenes.” As I said already, as Judge Lin showed, what the Trump administration is asking for has the goal of instituting Trump’s agenda, not of addressing antisemitism. So if you are cheering that on, that reveals your real motivations. And for what it’s worth, the UC administration just the other day backed off from cutting its PPFP program, perhaps in light of faculty pushback and the court decision. They can expect more of the same, so perhaps there will be less backroom capitulation and more legal conversations that include relevant stakeholders in the light of day.

      Here’s the AI:

      The Trump administration has lost several lawsuits and has been blocked by federal courts from withdrawing or freezing funds from higher education institutions
      . These court decisions have largely centered on the administration’s failure to follow proper legal procedures and the conclusion that the actions violated universities’ First Amendment rights or other federal laws.
      Key cases where the Trump administration lost or was blocked include:

      Harvard University: A federal district court judge issued a significant ruling blocking the administration from withholding more than $2 billion in federal research grants from Harvard. The court determined the administration unlawfully targeted the university’s funding in retaliation for protected First Amendment activity and failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
      University of California (UC) System: In multiple rulings, federal judges ordered the restoration of hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen research grants to UC campuses, including UCLA. One judge issued a preliminary injunction that broadly prevents the administration from withholding or threatening to withhold federal funding to the entire UC system based on viewpoint discrimination, calling the administration’s actions a “concerted campaign to purge” disfavored viewpoints.
      State-led Lawsuits: Numerous states, led by their Attorneys General, filed lawsuits over the unlawful termination or freezing of various education grants, including those for K-12 teacher preparation programs and other specific initiatives. In some instances, the administration agreed to release the previously impounded funds rather than defend its actions in court, such as the release of over $900 million in funding to California schools.
      Specific Grant Programs: Courts issued preliminary injunctions in lawsuits challenging the freeze and termination of previously awarded federal grants related to specific executive orders targeting areas such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

      In most of these cases, the courts have found that the Trump administration did not follow the required statutory processes for terminating funds, which include requirements for notice, hearings, and reporting to Congress, as stipulated by civil rights laws and administrative procedures.

      1. Alan C. Miller

        I’m not a lawyer and I don’t think like one; and I’m not a MAGA and I don’t think like one; and I’m not a progressive and I don’t think like one, BUT . . .

        You both (RM & DO) might be “right”.

        Part of what the judge had to say was essentially, you can’t do “that”, “this way”, “at this point in the process”. Trump is often a very effective strategist for his cause. He will purposefully go forward with actions or law-fare like a bull in a China shop as a strategic move, knowing he’ll get shut down, but getting attention and riling up and getting his opponents to believe they have the upper hand. Then he swoops in with his actual legal or implementation strategy with some of the most effective minds for his actual goal so that he can achieve his way.

        So my suspicion is that he did this as he did for publicity and strategy, but ultimately will get many of his goals met, both those having to do with civil rights, specifically those of Jews on campus which I suspect will ultimately be upheld, and the many other things the administration threw under the same umbrella, some of which may not be. I suspect the funding will ultimately not be pulled in whole and not to an extent it will destroy the UC, but will be used as a massive and effective legal hammer to get UC to comply.

        I’m a bit unhappy that the Jewish civil rights issue is lumped in with all these other issues, because those fighting against Trump’s take on any of these issues may therefore come to view the civil rights issues as not valid because they’ll view the whole package as from Trump and therefore not valid; and clearly UCD has a major problem regarding these civil rights violations.

        But what the flying F do I know?

  8. South of Davis

    Roberta writes:

    > But really, you give yourself away when you cheer that “UC is
    > already capitulating quietly behind the scenes.”

    Without realizing that she “gives herself away” buy saying she wants her funding even if UCD allows “masked protestors shouting for Hamas to “kill another 100 (Jews) now!”…

    It is sad tht less and less people can steb back from party politics and personal financial gain and call out bad behavior.

    It has been funny to hear my Democrat friends defend Larry Summers for emailing a convited pedofile to ask for tips on cheating on his wife with a young employee…

    P.S. I think Trump is an even bigger slimeball than Larry Summers and I’m happy to call him out for his (LONG list of) bad behavior “and” also agee with him that a University getting federal funding should not allow people to approach a Jewish faculty group and talk about killing Jews.

    1. Perhaps you can explain to me how some of the things that Trump was proposing, like insisting on the language of “only men and women” and banning trans surgeries at UC hospitals, would do ANYTHING to rectify what Palestine protestors have said and done. Hint: they wouldn’t do a damn thing. Now, maybe you and others like Trump imposing those things, but that’s not the point. The point is that Trump’s demands don’t help with antisemitism and they are illegal interference with how universities are run.

      I wouldn’t defend Larry Summers for jaywalking. I learned today that he is still teaching. Appalling. That man shouldn’t be anywhere near a classroom.

      Edit for breaking news: “Summers Will Not Finish Semester of Teaching as Harvard Investigates Epstein Ties” https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/11/20/summers-leaves-teaching-at-harvard/

      I would welcome someone genuinely addressing antisemitism. But that won’t come from the Trump administration, which is quite antisemitic itself and is only using antisemitism as an excuse to impose a political agenda.

  9. Dan Ovadya

    Well, yes, you got me. I admit it. I support Civil Rights for Jews at UC Davis and enforcement of Federal granting requirements. You win!

    The procedural opinion is a logical move and really the only legal option left for opponents of Civil Rights enforcement on campus. Yawn.

    It will be interesting to see how it plays out on our little town. The pro-“resistance” professors on campus are awfully upset, and that’s a good measure on how it’s going.

    1. Supporting Trump’s demand letter doesn’t show that you support civil rights for Jews — which of course I support, and it is offensive for you to suggest otherwise. I don’t, however, support an illegal, university-killing, $1.2B fine and a bunch of impositions on the way the universities are run that won’t do anything to help Jews in the UC.

      Maybe you yawn at procedure, but that is the way in this country we determine guilt and follow the rule of law. The opposite of that is authoritarianism, which of course Trump keeps trying for. Judges with a spine like Judge Lin rightly call him out for that overreach.

      1. Dan Ovadya

        Hi Roberta: the “yawn” is regarding the predictablity of her ruling. It’s going to be appealed. It’s not heroic or brilliant, and doesn’t change the core legal question: Does chanting for the slaughter of Jews at UC Davis create a pervasive and severe hostile environment? You never answered that question.

        Let’s assume the EEOC/DOJ loses their appeal about procedure (possible). How do you think UC should handle the situation on campus? We literally have professors calling for “armed resistance by any means necessary” and who celebrated Oct 7th. What would you tell a Jewish student at UCD?

      2. I think you misunderstand the court case. Here are some of the the allegations that the AAUP made against the Trump administration (I copy and paste from the document here, thus the weird capitalization):

        Defendants [Trump admin] Are Waging a Campaign to Undermine Free Speech and Academic Freedom at America’s Universities.

        Defendants Conduct Pretextual Investigations, Unlawfully Terminate Funding, and Make Extortionate Threats in Attempt to Coerce the UC into Sacrificing the Constitutional and State Law Rights of Its Faculty, Students, Academic Employees, and Staff

        Defendants’ Coercive Attacks Have Harmed and Will Continue to be Irreparably Harm Plaintiffs and Their Members if Not Enjoined

        Those were the allegations that she ruled on. The UC was not on trial — the Trump administration was. I am fairly certain that she would have been out of the scope of the lawsuit brought had she tried to determine what you call “the core legal question” and that such a ruling would quickly be overturned.

        In a similar way, your comments are out of scope to discuss those issues here, and I will ask you to stop. Otherwise I will simply not post them any more.

  10. South of Davis

    Roberta asks:

    > Perhaps you can explain to me how some of the things that
    > Trump was proposing, like insisting on the language of “only
    > men and women”

    People have been fired for saying that there are ony men and woman. I don’t care what people do or what they want to call themselves (I lived in SF in in 1995 and went to Burning Man with a bunch of his mostly gay friends) but it it important that anyone getting Federal funding no fire people who don’t play along with a man who says he is a woman (or someone that says math is not “racist”).

    > and banning trans surgeries at UC hospitals

    As someone who is “pro choice on everything” I don’t want trans surguried banned for “adults” but just like I’m fine with a ban on 12 year olds getting tatoos I don’t think a young girl that thinks she is a boy should get her breasts removed (just like a boy who thinks he is from the planed “one arm” should be able to have his arm removed by UC Davis Med Center.).

    > would do ANYTHING to rectify what Palestine protestors have said and done.

    Did anyone say that pro sanity (not anti-trans) changes would do anyting about Palisting protestors? It is OK to do more than one good thing I’m fine if UC bans guys in KKK hoods for beating down black guys “and” also bans people beating up Jews (despite the fact that the KKK ban will not do anything for the Jews).

    I’m hoping that the people at UC will listen to Bill Mahar and just “give up on some of the crazy” and get their funding:

    1. Antisemitism is the supposed justification for the Demand letter and what you’ve been going after me about in the last couple of comments, so perhaps you can see why I would think that is what we were talking about.

      The federal government should not be strong-arming universities to do their political bidding, no matter how good you think those things are. And again, this is part of why Judge Lin ruled against the Trump administration. The Demand letter was a violation of the law. But I do want to note that the Demand letter itself sought to control people’s language, so if you object to that you should object to at least those parts of the letter.

      1. Alan C. Miller

        RM say, “The federal government should not be strong-arming universities to do their political bidding”

        Sure if you put it in those terms. But should the federal government be enforcing civil rights law on universities that fail to do so themselves ?

      2. Yes. But not to sound like a broken record — using the proper legal procedure.

  11. South of Davis

    Roberta, when you say “supposed” it sounds like you do not think there is antisemitism at any UC campuses.
    1. Do you think there is any antisemitism that the UC amministrators are looking the other way and not punishing on any of the UC Campuses?
    2. If the UC administrations were not puninising studendents involved in antisemitism do you think the Federal Government should withholding finding to the schools run by people with “from the river to the sea” posters in their offices?
    3. If UC schools were allowing masked KKK members to beat up black kids and spray paint racist grafitti and looked the other way would you say a Democratic president was “strong-arming universities to do their political bidding” if they asked that the KKK members be asked to leave the campus and stop spray painting racist grafitti?
    Just like a broken clock is right two times a day Trump is often right and as the father and grandfater of Jewish kids (with his grandkids heading to college in a few years) I’m pretty sure that this is something that he “really” cares about.
    https://www.newsweek.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/get-know-ivanka-trumps-3-kids-2017949

    1. I have already said there there is antisemitism on campuses, as there is in the rest of the US and the world at large. “Supposed” is the excuse for what the Trump administration is doing. I don’t buy the excuse and their actions belie their words.

      What should be done about it? As I have also said several times on this page, follow the law and the proper procedures. Bring the complaints, hear the evidence, have rulings made. No authoritarian decisions.

      And now, South of Davis, you are done commenting on any of my posts. I have always supported the ability to be anonymous, but you have abused that privilege repeatedly, not just on this post but on many posts on the Davisite over the years. You ask personal questions of me, you refer to my employment, you refer to what you think are my beliefs, and that is all one sided — you without any skin in the game whatever, feel free to say whatever you like and you bear no responsibility for it. That ends here and now. If other authors choose to approve your posts, good for them, but I will not put up with your misbehavior anymore. Goodbye.

      1. Dan Ovadya

        Sorry missed this “follow the law and proper procedures”

        Roberta: UC had failed to enforce civil rights laws for the last 24 months. The black hole of bureaucracy at UC is so bad that Jews have given up filing complaints with HDAPP. It’s not that different than when blacks were calling for help in the south in the 20s and 30s. Fill out a form and get the legal pro forms UC reply. Nothing to see here.

        We are now in the legal phase and I’m convinced that UC is actually incapable of acting to solve this issue without some outside force to give them cover.

  12. Ron O

    I have never hidden what I am. Can you say the same? No, you cannot.

    (Haven’t gotten through all these comments yet, but seems rather disingenuous to allow anyone to post under whatever identifier they might choose, and then complain about it.)

    1. To clarify: I have always thought it was important to allow anonymity, because people can be under genuine threat that requires it (e.g., a tenant complaining about a landlord or some sort of whistleblower. Not an example: someone who says unpopular things that he thinks his neighbors won’t like). However, the privilege can be abused when an anonymous person lobs accusations against a named person, reveals or discusses things about a named person (e.g., doxing), or otherwise puts the named person on the spot. Because one person is anonymous and the other is not, the situation is lopsided and can become abusive over time. Yet the anonymous person can continue without repercussion. That practice stops now, at least for my posts. I can put a clarification in the blog policies, but if it’s too complicated, I will want to think about taking away the privilege altogether — which I would rather not do.

      1. Ron O

        You can certainly take away the “privilege” – as you put it. Though I’m not sure that’s the right word.

      2. It is. That’s one of the differences between a right and a privilege.

  13. Ron O

    Roberta: Seems to me that you voluntarily (and wisely) gave up your “privilege” to comment on the Vanguard a long time ago.

    Sometimes, I view the “privilege” the same way on here.

    1. I didn’t mean privilege to post — I meant privilege to post anonymously. But yes, I chose to stop commenting on the vanguard for this exact issue — I was being doxed and attacked by somebody who was anonymous at that time. and David refused to do anything about it. So now I’m in a situation where I don’t have to put up with that anymore, and I would not let anyone else be subjected to it either. For example, Ron, I’ve deleted several such comments directed at you over the years. Here’s the other thing, though, I have limited patience for these meta-conversations about how blogs are run. They’re not very interesting. I think we’ve pretty much covered this one.

      1. Ron O

        Thanks, Roberta – appreciate that. Though there was that time that a particular commenter was allowed to put forth some rather absurd attacks on here against the “Three Amigos” at the time (me, Keith, and Alan M.). Not a doxing attack, however.

        By “privilege”, I mean that I sometimes view it as more of a “duty” (or compulsion to put forth counter-arguments – especially in regard to housing issues). Not something I always enjoy doing (and hence, doesn’t feel like a “privilege”).

Leave a comment