The president of George Mason University said he will not comply with a demand by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to apologize for alleged discriminatory hiring practices.
The Department of Education accused the university’s first Black president, Gregory Washington, of implementing “unlawful DEI policies” at the institution.
Douglas Gansler, an attorney representing Washington, is accusing the Education Department of carrying out a shoddy investigation. He said in a letter to GMU’s board that the OCR investigators only spoke to two university deans before coming to the conclusion that discriminatory hiring practices were taking place at the school.
“OCR’s letter contains gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington and outright omission,” Gansler wrote in the letter.
He also accused the OCR investigators of selectively interpreting comments made by Washington, Inside Higher Ed reports.
“To be clear, per OCR’s own findings, no job applicant has been discriminated against by GMU, nor has OCR attempted to name someone who has been discriminated against by GMU in any context. Therefore, it is a legal fiction for OCR to even assert or claim that there has been a Title VI or Title IX violation here,” he wrote.
As part of its findings, the Department of Education has demanded changes at the college and called on the university president to apologize.
“In 2020, University President Gregory Washington called for expunging the so-called ‘racist vestiges’ from GMU’s campus,” Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement last week. “Without a hint of self awareness, President Washington then waged a university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. You can’t make this up.”
Gansler argued that GMU has been responsive and quick to implement changes brought by President Donald Trump‘s executive orders, pointing out that at least 17 positions associated with diversity or inclusivity have been eliminated or restructured, and that several diversity-focused programs and initiatives have been shuttered since Trump took office.
“Well before the federal government turned its attention to GMU, the university, under Dr. Washington and the Board’s leadership, undertook a robust effort to stay ahead of the curve and make many of the changes now being demanded of universities,” Gansler wrote in the letter.
He said that if Washington were to apologize, it would undermine the school’s record of compliance.
“If the Board entertains OCR’s demand that Dr. Washington personally apologize for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes, it will undermine GMU’s record of compliance,” he wrote. “An apology will amount to an admission that the university did something unlawful, opening GMU and the Board up to legal liability for conduct that did not occur under the Board’s watch.”
We thought Betsy DeVos, with her complete lack of credentials, was the worst pick for Secretary of Education. Then came Linda McMahon, the queen of World Wrestling Entertainment. But does this woman have any credentials worth mentioning, or are we justified in laughing her out of the building?
1. Professional Background: Businesswoman, Not Educator
Linda McMahon boasts a high-profile resumé as the co-founder and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), helping to transform it into what is referred to as “a global entertainment powerhouse.” She also served as the head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term.
As far as direct experience in education, however, there isn’t much. McMahon briefly sat on Connecticut’s State Board of Education from 2009 to 2010 and serves as a trustee at Sacred Heart University, but with limited policy leadership.
2. Educational Credentials: Claim vs. Reality
Although McMahon studied to become a French teacher, she never actually taught anything, ever. She graduated from college with a bachelor’s degree in French, not education. Yet, during a vetting questionnaire for the Connecticut Board of Ed., McMahon “misstated” this fact, implying she held a degree in education.
3. Gaps in Policy Knowledge, Basic Knowledge, and Sensitivity
Critics of McMahon point out several concerning things:
- In an interview with The Ingraham Angle, McMahon admitted she didn’t know what IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) fully stands for, vaguely describing it as “programs for disabled needs.”
- During her confirmation hearing, she was uncertain about whether schools could legally offer a Black history class or support ethnic identity clubs, stating she would “want to know what the clubs are doing.” These show foundational gaps in understanding educational law and policy, especially in areas that are essential to student diversity and civil rights.
- While speaking at a panel recently, McMahon confused artificial intelligence, also known as AI, with A1, the same name as the popular sauce brand. She used the term “A1” instead of A.I. multiple times.
4. Dismantling Over Developing
McMahon’s appointment aligns with an agenda less focused on educational advancement and more on structural dismantling. She was tasked with closing or drastically reducing the Department of Education—a mission she is entirely on board with.
Supporters claim that her private-sector leadership is an asset in “upending the education bureaucracy.” But educators warn that the department desperately needs someone who can champion students and teachers, not dismantle the very agency that supports them.
5. Public Concerns and Controversies
McMahon’s nomination has faced pushback from civil rights groups and teachers’ unions. The National Education Association condemned her focus on dismantling public education and diverting funds to private, less accountable institutions.
Other critics have raised ethical concerns. A civil lawsuit alleges that WWE, while under McMahon’s leadership, ignored the sexual abuse of minors within the organization.
While McMahon denies any wrongdoing, the allegations raise questions about her capacity to lead a department responsible for children’s education and welfare. (Also, don’t forget that she doesn’t know the difference between A1 and AI…)
The Qualifications That Are Not There
- Lack of deep educational experience: McMahon’s background in entertainment and business does not compensate for hands-on experience in classroom instruction, curriculum design, or educational policy.
- Questionable credibility: Misstating her academic background undermines trust at the outset of her public service role.
- Policy blind spots: Her uncertainty on disability law and race-based programming suggests she may lack the understanding required to support vulnerable student groups.
- Mission conflict: Her mandate centers on dismantling, not improving, the Department of Education. This stands in direct conflict with the traditional role of a secretary tasked with enhancing student learning and equity.
- Secretary Linda McMahon brings political loyalty and business acumen, but educational expertise is notably absent. Her appointment raises serious concerns about leadership that champions dismantling over development, especially during a time when educational equity and federal support are critical. Plus, the whole A1 versus AI thing…
For quick reference, here’s a comparative analysis of Linda McMahon’s qualifications (or lack thereof) relative to recent U.S. Secretaries of Education …
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careers/linda-mcmahon-falsely-claims-education-degree/ar-AA1KEbFL
The Department of Education is reportedly experiencing operational challenges due to staffing cuts and new regulatory requirements, now challenged with meeting demands with fewer resources.
Staffing cuts of over 50% have most notably impacted Federal Student Aid and Civil Rights divisions. The Supreme Court has allowed the staff reductions amid ongoing legal proceedings.
Department leaders claimed they’re prepared to enforce new rules, but educators doubt their capacity. Shutting down the department requires Congress, though both parties have resisted the move.
President Donald Trump has supported reducing the federal role in education, though the department still offers aid and enforces standards. The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act has changed student loan repayment programs, expanded Pell Grant eligibility, and tightened college accountability.
Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Education Ellen Keast said, “Just within President Trump’s first six months, the Department has responsibly managed and streamlined key federal student aid features.”
Keast added, “We will continue to deliver meaningful and on time results while implementing President Trump’s OBBB (‘One Big Beautiful Bill’) to better serve students, families, and administrators.”
A new law limits new borrowers to two repayment options and sets a 2028 deadline to shift specific income-driven plans. American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Beth Akers said, “I do have significant concerns that the speed of the cuts will have left us with a department that is unable to effectively implement this legislation.”
Melanie Storey, President of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said, “With significantly more work on the horizon to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we reiterate our concerns that the Trump administration has not shared the details of a plan to redistribute the Department’s work in a way that does not cause significant disruption for America’s college students.”
Pell Grants now cover short skill-based courses with departmental approval. A “do no harm” rule links federal aid to positive student outcomes, requiring collaboration with schools and agencies.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-ruling-backfires-on-trump-admin/ar-AA1KEjSs
President Donald Trump’s administration has adopted an aggressive posture toward Minnesota in his second term, launching a series of investigations into the state’s laws, canceling federal dollars with no warning and conducting sweeping law enforcement raids without any advance word to local authorities.
A probe into Minnesota’s affirmative action laws, announced last week, is the latest salvo in an escalating battle between the White House and the Democrats who run the state. The relationship is noticeably more hostile than in Trump’s first term.
The Justice Department’s newest challenge to Minnesota hinged on a policy issued by the state Department of Human Services requiring supervisors to provide justification if they hire a non-diverse candidate. The protocol has been in place since 2002, tied to a state law passed nearly four decades ago, according to the state agency.
The White House has been aggressive in challenging blue-state policies out of step with its agenda. Since Trump returned to office in January, his administration has launched investigations and court challenges to Minnesota’s laws. It also has made moves that directly affected the day-to-day operations of the state, including canceling funding without warning and slowing or halting communication between agencies.
“They are actively against us,” said DFL Gov. Tim Walz, who has become a prominent foe to Trump since his stint on the national Democratic ticket last year.
Walz avoided public clashes with Trump’s first administration but now openly admonishes the president and his allies.
The DOJ is pursuing four probes in Minnesota ranging from state laws surrounding transgender athletes, college tuition rates for undocumented students and, on the local level, a policy instituted by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office directing prosecutors to consider race in charging decisions and plea deals.
In announcing the probe of Minnesota’s diversity hiring policy, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said last week the Civil Rights Division “will not stand by while states impose hiring mandates that punish Americans for their race or sex.”
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the DOJ’s investigations “garbage” and “nonsense” pursuits without merit during an interview Monday with the Minnesota Star Tribune. He said he believes the Trump administration is targeting predominantly Democratic states.
“We’re probably more targeted than a red state,” Ellison said.
Another major blow to Minnesota by the feds came in late May when the same Justice Department division moved to dissolve Minneapolis’ federal consent decree, the long-awaited agreement brokered between the DOJ under the Biden administration and Minneapolis meant to usher in sweeping changes to the city police department. In their dismissal, DOJ officials under Trump described such court-enforceable agreements as federal overreach and anti-police.
Some city officials and advocates decried the timing of the announcement, just days before the fifth anniversary of George Floyd’s death.
Such major decisions have sometimes come with no warning at all. The Trump administration abruptly froze and canceled some funding streams to Minnesota earlier this year, including grants to track measles, provide heating assistance and prevent flooding.
On Monday, Ellison joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking to unfreeze more than $70 million for Minnesota schools. Ellison said Trump’s Education Department recently cut the funding “without warning.”
“They don’t cooperate,” Ellison said. “Even during Trump [term] one, it was common for us to be in touch with federal partners. Now, they don’t. It’s like they want to catch you by surprise.”
The hostilities go beyond investigations and court challenges to Minnesota’s laws. The state’s communication with the federal government has ground to a halt, Walz said. When state officials asked for a meeting with a local Veterans Affairs official, they were told it would take six to eight weeks to get an answer.
“If I want to talk to him now or my administration wants to talk to him, we have to put in a request to D.C. It has to be approved by the White House in addition to the VA, before he is able to engage in any meaningful conversation with us,” Walz said.
Federal law enforcement agencies didn’t warn state officials before they raided a Mexican restaurant in south Minneapolis in June, Walz said. That raid prompted confrontations between protestors and law enforcement on E. Lake Street after misinformation spread that an immigration sweep was under way.
An exception is the local U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI, which worked with state law enforcement to arrest suspect Vance Boelter after the assassination of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband last month. Walz said the state has “fantastic relationships” with those two agencies.
But Trump refused to call Walz after the assassinations of the Hortmans and the serious wounding of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. Trump said it would be a waste of his time and then proceeded to insult the DFL governor. Vice President JD Vance did speak with Walz, however.
For his part, Walz also has been outwardly antagonistic toward Trump, comparing his administration to “wannabe dictators and despots” and accusing him of using federal immigration agents as a “modern-day Gestapo.” The Department of Homeland Security referred to Walz’s comments as “sickening.”
The broader breakdown in communication with the federal government is a notable change from Trump’s first term, when Walz could more easily reach administration officials. Walz told a group of States Newsroom editors in June that Vice President Mike Pence called him every couple of weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic to try to deliver masks and other relief.
Walz said he worries about how the federal government would treat Minnesota in a natural disaster. Critics have noted a contrast in how Trump treats blue and red states; he promised full support for Texas following deadly flash floods but criticized elected Democrats in California who sought federal help after wildfires devastated Los Angeles.
“The way California was treated on wildfires, that worries all of us,” Walz said. “How are we going to be treated when these things happen?”
Stephen Miller, the front man for Donald Trump’s deportation campaign against immigrants, took to the airwaves the other day to explain why native-born Americans will just love living in a world cleansed of undocumented workers.
“What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?” he asked on Fox News. “Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problems. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who have special needs would get all the attention that they needed. … There would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug deaths.” Etc., etc.
No one can dispute that the world Miller described on Fox would be a paradise on Earth. No waiting at the ER? School districts flush with cash? No drug deaths? But that doesn’t obscure that pretty much every word Miller uttered was fiction.
Trump aide Stephen Miller concocts a fantasy about L.A.
The gist of Miller’s spiel — in fact, the worldview that he has been espousing for years — is that “illegal aliens” are responsible for all those ills, and exclusively responsible. It’s nothing but a Trumpian fantasy.
Let’s take a look, starting with overcrowding at the ER.
The issue has been the focus of numerous studies and surveys. Overwhelmingly, they conclude that undocumented immigration is irrelevant to ER overcrowding. In fact, immigrants generally and undocumented immigrants in particular are less likely to get their healthcare at the emergency room than native-born Americans.
In California, according to a 2014 study from UCLA, “one in five U.S.-born adults visits the ER annually, compared with roughly one in 10 undocumented adults — approximately half the rate of U.S.-born residents.”
Among the reasons, explained Nadereh Pourat, the study’s lead author and director of research at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, was fear of being asked to provide documents.
The result is that undocumented individuals avoid seeking any healthcare until they become critically ill. The UCLA study found that undocumented immigrants’ average number of doctor visits per year was lower than for other cohorts: 2.3 for children and 1.7 for adults, compared with 2.8 doctor visits for U.S.-born children and 3.2 for adults.
ER overcrowding is an issue of long standing in the U.S., but it’s not the result of an influx of undocumented immigrants. It’s due to a confluence of other factors, including the tendency of even insured patients to use the ER as a primary care center, presenting with complicated or chronic ailments for which ER medicine is not well-suited.
While caseloads at emergency departments have surged, their capacities are shrinking.
According to a 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences, from 1993 to 2003 the U.S. population grew by 12%, hospital admissions by 13% and ER visits by 26%. “Not only is [emergency department] volume increasing, but patients coming to the ED are older and sicker and require more complex and time-consuming workups and treatments,” the report observed. “During this same period, the United States experienced a net loss of 703 hospitals, 198,000 hospital beds, and 425 hospital EDs, mainly in response to cost-cutting measures.”
President Trump’s immigration policies during his first term suppressed the use of public healthcare facilities by undocumented immigrants and their families. The key policy was the administration’s tightening of the “public charge” rule, which applies to those seeking admission to the United States or hoping to upgrade their immigration status.
The rule, which has been part of U.S. immigration policy for more than a century, allowed immigration authorities to deny entry — or deny citizenship applications of green card holders — to anyone judged to become a recipient of public assistance such as welfare (today known chiefly as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF) or other cash assistance programs.
Until Trump, healthcare programs such as Medicaid, nutrition programs such as food stamps, and subsidized housing programs weren’t part of the public charge test.
Even before Trump implemented the change but after a draft version leaked out, clinics serving immigrant communities across California and nationwide detected a marked drop off in patients.
A clinic on the edge of Boyle Heights in Los Angeles that had been serving 12,000 patients, I reported in 2018, saw monthly patient enrollments fall by about one-third after Trump’s 2016 election, and an additional 25% after the leak. President Biden rescinded the Trump rule within weeks of taking office.
Undocumented immigrants are sure to be less likely to access public healthcare services, such as those available at emergency rooms, as a result of Trump’s rescinding “sensitive location” restrictions on immigration agents that had been in effect at least since 2011.
That policy barred almost all immigration enforcement actions at schools, places of worship, funerals and weddings, public marches or rallies, and hospitals. Trump rescinded the policy on inauguration day in January.
The goal was for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents “to make substantial efforts to avoid unnecessarily alarming local communities,” agency officials stated. Today, as public shows of force and public raids by ICE have demonstrated, instilling alarm in local communities appears to be the goal.
The change in the sensitive locations policy has prompted hospital and ER managers to establish formal procedures for staff confronted with the arrival of immigration agents.
A model policy drafted by the Emergency Medicine Residents Assn. says staff should request identification and a warrant or other document attesting to the need for the presence of agents. It urges staff to determine whether the agents are enforcing a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) or administrative warrant (issued by ICE). The latter doesn’t grant agents access to private hospital areas such as patient rooms or operating areas.
What about school funding? Is Miller right to assert that mass deportations will free up a torrent of funding and cutting class sizes in half? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Most school funding in California and most other places is based on attendance. In California, the number of immigrant children in the schools was 189,634 last year. The total K-12 population was 5,837,700, making the immigrant student body 3.25% of the total. Not half.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the estimated 30,000 children from immigrant families amounted to about 7.35% of last year’s enrollment of 408,083. Also not half.
With the deportation of immigrant children, the schools would lose whatever federal funding was attached to their attendance. Schools nationwide receive enhanced federal funding for English learners and other immigrants. That money, presumably, would disappear if the pupils go.
What Miller failed to mention on Fox is the possible impact of the Trump administration’s determination to shutter the Department of Education, placing billions of dollars of federal funding at risk. California receives more than $16 billion a year in federal aid to K-12 schools through that agency. Disabled students are at heightened risk of being deprived of resources if the agency is dismantled.
Then there’s fentanyl. The Trump administration’s claim that undocumented immigrants are major players in this crisis appears to be just another example of its scapegoating of immigrants. The vast majority of fentanyl-related criminal convictions — nearly 90% — are of U.S. citizens. The rest included both legally present and undocumented immigrants. (The statistics comes from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.)
In other words, deport every immigrant in the United States, and you still won’t have made a dent in fentanyl trafficking, much less eliminate all drug deaths.
What are we to make of Miller’s spiel about L.A.? At one level, it’s echt Miller: The portrayal of the city as a putative hellscape, larded with accusations of complicity between the city leadership and illegal immigrants — “the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and criminal aliens,” he said, with zero pushback from his Fox News interlocutor.
At another level, it’s a malevolent expression of white privilege. In Miller’s ideology, the only obstacles to the return to a drug-free world of frictionless healthcare and abundantly financed education are immigrants. This ideology depends on the notion that immigrants are raiding the public purse by sponging on public services.
The fact is that most undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for most such services. They can’t enroll in Medicare, receive premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, or collect Social Security or Medicare benefits (though typically they submit falsified Social Security numbers to employers, so payments for the program are deducted from their paychecks).
A 2013 study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that low-income immigrants use public benefits for which they’re eligible, such as food stamps, “at a lower rate than native-born low-income residents.”
If there’s an impulse underlying the anti-immigrant project directed by Miller other than racism, it’s hard to detect.
Federal Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who last week blocked federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in Los Angeles, ruled that during their “roving patrols” in Los Angeles, ICE agents detained individuals principally because of their race, that they were overheard speaking Spanish or accented English, that they were doing work associated with undocumented immigrants, or were in locations frequented by undocumented immigrants seeking day work.
Miller goes down the same road as ICE — indeed, by all accounts, he’s the motivating spirit behind the L.A. raids. Because he can’t justify the raids, he has ginned up a fantasy of immigrants disrupting our healthcare and school programs, and the corollary fantasy that evicting them all will produce an Earthly paradise for the rest of us. Does anybody really believe that?
A 6-year-old Honduran boy battling leukemia was detained — along with his family — by President Donald Trump’s ICE agents despite following every immigration rule, the boy’s lawyer told Salon.
The family’s nightmare began when they were seized by plainclothes ICE agents after a court hearing in May.
“The boy and his 9-year-old sister cried every night in detention,” attorney Elora Mukherjee told Salon. The government pursued expedited removal while the cancer patient suffered in a Texas detention facility that Biden had shuttered but Trump reopened.
“The Trump administration’s policy of detaining people at courthouses who are doing everything right, who are entirely law-abiding, who are trying to fulfill all the requirements that the U.S. government asks of them — it violates our Constitution, it violates our federal laws,” Mukherjee said. “It also violates our sense of morality.”
The family had fled Honduras after receiving death threats, applied for asylum through proper channels, and waited for permission to enter using a CBP appointment. They never crossed the border illegally, the lawyer said.
“So this particular family did everything right,” Mukherjee emphasized.
During their month-long detention at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, the boy experienced leukemia symptoms including easy bruising and bone pain. He missed a crucial June 5 cancer appointment. His sister barely ate.
Jeff Migliozzi from Freedom for Immigrants blasted Trump’s “aggressivequota of 3,000 daily immigration arrests — a policy pushed by hardliners in the White House like known white nationalist Stephen Miller — is terrorizing communities.”
The administration’s “bait-and-switch tactics” increasingly target people at scheduled check-ins and courthouses, Migliozzi said. “Here you have people doing everything they can to follow the instructions given to them, and then the rug is pulled out from under them.”
The family was released July 2 after public pressure and media coverage, but only after enduring traumatic detention that Mukherjee said “clearly violates both the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.”
“High-level officials in the Department of Homeland Security constantly say that we are targeting the ‘worst of the worst,'” Mukherjee noted. “These are the people who are doing everything right.”
President Donald Trump has defended his decision to send another 2,000 National Guard troops to confront immigration protesters in Los Angeles, as the demonstrations spread to other US cities.
The protests began Friday in downtown LA after federal immigration authorities arrested more than 40 people across the city. Trump on Monday authorized the deployment of 700 Marines and additional National Guard troops to LA as the protests entered a fourth day. It came after an initial 300 troops arrived in the city on Sunday.
The demonstrations spread to other cities including Boston, Houston and Philadelphia on Monday. In Dallas, hundreds of protesters gathered for a rally which police declared was “unlawful.” Authorities said one person was arrested.
https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/la-immigration-protests-live-flash-1195445
