Harvard: We’re a private university and the federal government cannot tell us what to do!
Also Harvard: We demand that the federal government continue to give us money!
There’s a gaping hole right there. Do you see it?
Harvard is not being told what they can and cannot do. They’re being told that if they want taxpayer money, they have to change their policies.
If Harvard wants to receive grants of taxpayer money, they have to modify their policies so that they follow the law.
Harvard’s DEI policies violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ignoring that is a violation of the law. If they don’t like the law, then they should work to change it rather than ignore it.
They have a fairly large pulpit and many people who very vocally support them. These policies are popular, right? Getting DEI policies codified into law so universities are free to pursue them shouldn’t be a problem.
Except that California tried this via direct ballot in 2020 with Prop 16 to repeal prop 209.
And failed.
The people of California opted to keep in place the amendment to the state constitution, from which I’m quoting:
“government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.”
If the majority liberal people of California chose civil rights over DEI, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the people of Massachusetts, where Harvard is located, might choose the same.
Which would explain why Harvard has chosen this route, rather than the legal route. If Harvard made a push for DEI over civil rights and it failed, then it would be much harder for them to get away with promoting these policies.
Not to mention that people might see that DEI isn’t as popular as they’d like you to believe, and then where would they be?
Leave a Reply