Princeton confesses its embedded racism; Education Dept reviews its compliance with the law

[Metaphor]

Given that the second error entirely invalidates your contention that "for-profit, multi-million dollar corporations make announcements that they want to dismantle capitalism", yes you were in error.

Very well. I withdraw my earlier statement, and replace it with:

"for-profit, multi-million dollar corporations make announcements that they want to resist capitalism"

I don't care whether you correct me or not, your apparent unwillingness to discuss a significant portion of this topic, that is reflected in the thread title, the president's comments, and the DoEd response to that, speaks volumes as to why you are actually here.

I could not have made plainer why I am 'here'. I wanted to document Eisgruber's corporate virtue-signalling, an unexpected consequence of it, and the general disconnect in the language and concepts around what 'racism' means now and what 'racism' meant say, five years ago.

 

[ZiprHead]

He was also in error that the company itself made the statement. It was a yoga instructor under contract with the company to promote it's products that made the statement.

Of course it was made by Lululemon - it was advertised on Lululemon's official Instagram. It is simply a sign that Lulelemon is so desperate to display its woke credentials that it didn't vet the content of its ambassador.

(I wonder if Lululemon still wants to decolonise gender?)

I have no idea how instagram works but if it's like most other social media, others are allowed to post on people's accounts. Maybe it's differant in Australia.

 

[Metaphor]

He was also in error that the company itself made the statement. It was a yoga instructor under contract with the company to promote it's products that made the statement.

Of course it was made by Lululemon - it was advertised on Lululemon's official Instagram. It is simply a sign that Lulelemon is so desperate to display its woke credentials that it didn't vet the content of its ambassador.

(I wonder if Lululemon still wants to decolonise gender?)

I have no idea how instagram works but if it's like most other social media, others are allowed to post on people's accounts. Maybe it's differant in Australia.

You can post a comment on someone's account/post. You can't make an 'original' post.

This is the best screenshot I can find of what it looked like:


For this to pop up on Lululemon's official Instagram, somebody at Lululemon had to have made the post.

 

[J842P]

He was also in error that the company itself made the statement. It was a yoga instructor under contract with the company to promote it's products that made the statement.

Of course it was made by Lululemon - it was advertised on Lululemon's official Instagram. It is simply a sign that Lulelemon is so desperate to display its woke credentials that it didn't vet the content of its ambassador.

(I wonder if Lululemon still wants to decolonise gender?)

I have no idea how instagram works but if it's like most other social media, others are allowed to post on people's accounts. Maybe it's differant in Australia.

You can post comments on other peoples instagram posts, but not as a post on the Lululemon instagram. They aren't denying that, they just say it was done by a "brand ambassador".

 

[ZiprHead]

I have no idea how instagram works but if it's like most other social media, others are allowed to post on people's accounts. Maybe it's differant in Australia.

You can post comments on other peoples instagram posts, but not as a post on the Lululemon instagram. They aren't denying that, they just say it was done by a "brand ambassador".

I know. I posted a quote saying exactly that. She's a US based yoga instructor.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have no idea how instagram works but if it's like most other social media, others are allowed to post on people's accounts. Maybe it's differant in Australia.

You can post a comment on someone's account/post. You can't make an 'original' post.

This is the best screenshot I can find of what it looked like:
View attachment 29483

For this to pop up on Lululemon's official Instagram, somebody at Lululemon had to have made the post.

That's not an instagram screenshot. That's a separately created graphic used to illustrate the point.

I guess right-wingers are now beyond parody.

 

[KeepTalking]

I am damned if I do and I am damned if I don't. I deliberately made the thread title as 'non-sensational' as possible, and I wanted to include the two major beats to the story: Princeton's letter and the Education Department's response. But, whatever your expectations of what the thread would be about, my OP, and then my four clarifications on it, ought have made that clear to you by now.

You want to talk about the letter? How is that possible when you refuse to talk about what the letter is about (embedded racism)?

"The racism" is not intrinsic to the topic. The topic--the topic I intended--was woke virtue-signalling by institutions, an unexpected consequence of it, and the complete disconnect between what 'racism' meant five years ago and what it 'means' now.

Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about racism or not? You just spent several posts detailing how you will not talk about racism in this thread, yet here you are talking about racism in this thread, and the thing you bring up about racism, some inane idea that the meaning of racism has changed over the last 5 years, is not even connected to the letter being discussed. Embedded racism certainly is, but we can't talk about that.

You have decided, despite the evidence in the OP and four clarifications, that the topic is whatever you want it to be.

I am a participant in this thread, and I will talk about whatever I feel is related to the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, just don't fucking respond instead of shitting all over your own thread because someone disagrees with you.

And despite our disagreement on what this thread is (or was meant to be) about, I disagree that the Education Department was trolling.

Okay, we are making progress. I wouldn't really call what the DoEd did trolling either, but I do think their letter was sent in bad faith, and was politically motivated, just like everything else the Trump administration does. I find it interesting, however, that since you disagree, you did not make that disagreement known to Trausti, who posted that they were trolling, and seemed to be happy about it. You don't seem to be one to let slide the things you disagree with in your threads .

We were discussing Federal Financial aid, and you brought up Federal Financial Aid that is not related to admissions. I asked you what Federal Financial Aid other than admissions aid Princeton receives, since you seemed to be knowledgeable. You then admitted ignorance on the topic you broached, and that is the pertinent info, not your subsequent attempt to pretend it doesn't matter. Regardless, I did pose a question regarding that second half of the sentence that is preserved below, so I don't see how I did anything dishonest.

You brought up 'federal financial aid', not me. The Education Department has jurisdiction wherever federal funding/assistance/grants is given to universities, not just student 'financial aid'. You dishonestly tried to narrow the scope of the Education Department's interest.

Allow me to address your second sentence first. I was in no way trying to narrow the scope, and have not been dishonest. As far as I am aware, financial aid with regards to admissions is what the DoEd would be concerned about. Discrimination in hiring practices would be under the purview of the EEOC, as noted previously, and since grants come from a variety of federal agencies, I am not sure which would be concerned about that. Grants are a much different thing anyway, not exactly financial aid, and I am not sure if any federal laws would pertain to Princeton University racism in regard to awarding grants, as the University does not award grants, the government does. As far as other federal funding goes, that is what I was asking you about. You say the DoEd is concerned about racism with regard to this other funding, but you don't know what that funding is. I would also like to see some evidence supporting your contention, as I am not sure that it is correct. Mind you, I am not trying to limit discussion, I am trying to see if you have anything to back up your claim. If it turns out you are correct, I will certainly concede that fact.

So, I am wondering what specific comments the University President made that would lead to DoEd investigation. If there were no specific comments that should concern the DoEd, then their launching an investigation, rather than simply asking for clarification seems excessive. When coupled with an administration that doesn't give a fuck about racism, including the cabinet head leading the DoEd, then it seems to me that as put forward by your fellow right-wingers, they are likely just trolling. I don't think that is a proper thing for the DoEd to be doing.

I have already stated how Princeton might have avoided a letter or inquiry from the Education Department. But including such a sentence would have marred the aesthetic of Eisgruber's confessional.

My apologies, I must have missed that in the dust up. Now that we are a bit more on track with the discussion, perhaps you can restate that point, or link to the post were you made it.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't care whether you correct me or not, your apparent unwillingness to discuss a significant portion of this topic, that is reflected in the thread title, the president's comments, and the DoEd response to that, speaks volumes as to why you are actually here.

I could not have made plainer why I am 'here'. I wanted to document Eisgruber's corporate virtue-signalling, an unexpected consequence of it, and the general disconnect in the language and concepts around what 'racism' means now and what 'racism' meant say, five years ago.

Awesome, let's talk about that. Can you clarify what you believe the differences are between "the language and concepts around what 'racism' means now and what 'racism' meant say, five years ago"?

 

[Metaphor]

You want to talk about the letter? How is that possible when you refuse to talk about what the letter is about (embedded racism)?

Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about racism or not? You just spent several posts detailing how you will not talk about racism in this thread, yet here you are talking about racism in this thread, and the thing you bring up about racism, some inane idea that the meaning of racism has changed over the last 5 years, is not even connected to the letter being discussed. Embedded racism certainly is, but we can't talk about that.

If you want to talk about embedded racism, talk about it. That doesn't mean I have to talk about (though I may). Nor does it mean that talking about the letter means talking about embedded racism. You can talk about a book without mentioning a single character in it. Like "'Jurassic Park' was a popular bestseller and was adapted into a film released worldwide in 1993". And that sentence didn't even mention dinosaurs.

I am a participant in this thread, and I will talk about whatever I feel is related to the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, just don't fucking respond instead of shitting all over your own thread because someone disagrees with you.

So talk about it. But don't try to tell me what I intended my thread to be about, or that I misled you about what it was about.

Okay, we are making progress. I wouldn't really call what the DoEd did trolling either, but I do think their letter was sent in bad faith, and was politically motivated, just like everything else the Trump administration does. I find it interesting, however, that since you disagree, you did not make that disagreement known to Trausti, who posted that they were trolling, and seemed to be happy about it. You don't seem to be one to let slide the things you disagree with in your threads .

I don't think it was bad faith either, since I think the only correct response was to open an investigation.

I don't comment on every single thing I disagree with. Sometimes it just does not matter. I've let hundreds of things 'slide' in threads.

if you only knew how much I want to say and don't, you'd give me some credit for it.”

Allow me to address your second sentence first. I was in no way trying to narrow the scope, and have not been dishonest. As far as I am aware, financial aid with regards to admissions is what the DoEd would be concerned about. Discrimination in hiring practices would be under the purview of the EEOC, as noted previously, and since grants come from a variety of federal agencies, I am not sure which would be concerned about that. Grants are a much different thing anyway, not exactly financial aid, and I am not sure if any federal laws would pertain to Princeton University racism in regard to awarding grants, as the University does not award grants, the government does.

Huh? Of course Princeton doesn't award the grants, it gets them, and if it gets federal grants those grants are surely conditional on certain representations made by the university.

As far as other federal funding goes, that is what I was asking you about. You say the DoEd is concerned about racism with regard to this other funding,

No, I said it could be with regard to any federal funding.

but you don't know what that funding is. I would also like to see some evidence supporting your contention, as I am not sure that it is correct. Mind you, I am not trying to limit discussion, I am trying to see if you have anything to back up your claim. If it turns out you are correct, I will certainly concede that fact.

No, I am not Princeton's bookkeeper and I don't know what federal funding it receives. I refer you to the letter, which I have already posted a link to, which specifies why the ED is investigating. The letter does not confine itself to concern about discrimination in admissions.
https://www.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2020/09/Princeton-Letter-9-16-20-Signed.pdf

Based on its admitted racism, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false. The Department is further concerned Princeton perhaps knew, or should have known, these assurances were false at the time they were made. Finally, the Department is further concerned Princeton’s many nondiscrimination and equal opportunity claims to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false, misleading, and actionable substantial misrepresentations in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1094(c)(3)(B) and 34 CFR 668.71(c). Therefore, the Department’s Office of Postsecondary Education, in consultation with the Department’s Office of the General Counsel, is opening this investigation.

My apologies, I must have missed that in the dust up. Now that we are a bit more on track with the discussion, perhaps you can restate that point, or link to the post were you made it.

I have included links to the ED letter to Princeton as well as quoted it directly above. It is specifically investigating Program Participation Agreements and the paragraph I quoted implies it is not solely concerned with discrimination in admissions. But even if that's what it was solely interested in, the ED has good reason to launch the investigation.

 

[Metaphor]

They say when trouble comes close ranks, and so the white people did.
--Jean Rhys, Wide Sargasso Sea.

Eighty university presidents have signed a letter describing the ED's investigation of Princeton 'outrageous'.

https://www.amherst.edu/amherst-story/president/statements/node/780574

 

[KeepTalking]

So talk about it.

We are discussing it now, despite your protestations.

But don't try to tell me what I intended my thread to be about, or that I misled you about what it was about.

I did not try to do either. I merely pointed out how I came to believe that racism in general, and embedded racism at Princeton specifically would be a topic of discussion in this thread. I am confused why you continue to harp on the issue, when you seem perfectly willing to discuss that portion of the topic at this point.

Okay, we are making progress. I wouldn't really call what the DoEd did trolling either, but I do think their letter was sent in bad faith, and was politically motivated, just like everything else the Trump administration does. I find it interesting, however, that since you disagree, you did not make that disagreement known to Trausti, who posted that they were trolling, and seemed to be happy about it. You don't seem to be one to let slide the things you disagree with in your threads.

I don't think it was bad faith either, since I think the only correct response was to open an investigation.

And I disagree, as I think the appropriate thing to do in this case, given the generality of the comments made by the University President, would be to ask for clarification. Opening an investigation seems premature, and politically motivated, given how the administration has otherwise shown how little it cares about combatting racism.

if you only knew how much I want to say and don't, you'd give me some credit for it.”

I can only imagine, as I often have to edit myself before clicking the post button.

Allow me to address your second sentence first. I was in no way trying to narrow the scope, and have not been dishonest. As far as I am aware, financial aid with regards to admissions is what the DoEd would be concerned about. Discrimination in hiring practices would be under the purview of the EEOC, as noted previously, and since grants come from a variety of federal agencies, I am not sure which would be concerned about that. Grants are a much different thing anyway, not exactly financial aid, and I am not sure if any federal laws would pertain to Princeton University racism in regard to awarding grants, as the University does not award grants, the government does.

Huh? Of course Princeton doesn't award the grants, it gets them, and if it gets federal grants those grants are surely conditional on certain representations made by the university.

We will examine those conditions below.

As far as other federal funding goes, that is what I was asking you about. You say the DoEd is concerned about racism with regard to this other funding,

No, I said it could be with regard to any federal funding.

Why would the DoEd be concerned about federal funding not under their purview? I could see them drawing the attention of other federal agencies like the EEOC to investigate, but if it is not something under their purview, then opening an investigation would just be a wast of time and money.

but you don't know what that funding is. I would also like to see some evidence supporting your contention, as I am not sure that it is correct. Mind you, I am not trying to limit discussion, I am trying to see if you have anything to back up your claim. If it turns out you are correct, I will certainly concede that fact.

No, I am not Princeton's bookkeeper and I don't know what federal funding it receives.

Why are you not interested in backing up your claim? It is the only way you are going to get me to believe or understand your point of view. I am not going to believe you just because you make a claim, especially when you admit ignorance regarding the substance of that claim.

I refer you to the letter, which I have already posted a link to, which specifies why the ED is investigating. The letter does not confine itself to concern about discrimination in admissions.
https://www.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2020/09/Princeton-Letter-9-16-20-Signed.pdf

Based on its admitted racism, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false. The Department is further concerned Princeton perhaps knew, or should have known, these assurances were false at the time they were made. Finally, the Department is further concerned Princeton’s many nondiscrimination and equal opportunity claims to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false, misleading, and actionable substantial misrepresentations in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1094(c)(3)(B) and 34 CFR 668.71(c). Therefore, the Department’s Office of Postsecondary Education, in consultation with the Department’s Office of the General Counsel, is opening this investigation.

Let's examine that statute, and it's definitions, then.
20 U.S. Code § 1094.Program participation agreements
Searching this document, I find no instances of the words race, racism, or racial. Not a good start.
34 CFR § 668.71 - Scope and special definitions.
Nothing about race or racism in the definitions either.

Let's go back and look at the relevant section of the statute, linked above:

(3)
(A)Upon determination, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing, that an eligible institution has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its educational program, its financial charges, or the employability of its graduates, the Secretary may suspend or terminate the eligibility status for any or all programs under this subchapter of any otherwise eligible institution, in accordance with procedures specified in paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, until the Secretary finds that such practices have been corrected.
(B)
(i)Upon determination, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing, that an eligible institution—
(I)has violated or failed to carry out any provision of this subchapter or any regulation prescribed under this subchapter; or
(II)has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its educational program, its financial charges, and the employability of its graduates,
the Secretary may impose a civil penalty upon such institution of not to exceed $25,000 for each violation or misrepresentation.
(ii)Any civil penalty may be compromised by the Secretary. In determining the amount of such penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the institution of higher education subject to the determination, and the gravity of the violation, failure, or misrepresentation shall be considered. The amount of such penalty, when finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to the institution charged.

Regarding "(I)has violated or failed to carry out any provision of this subchapter or any regulation prescribed under this subchapter", there is no mention of race or racism anywhere in the document, so this doesn't seem to be applicable.

So that only leaves "(II)has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its educational program, its financial charges, and the employability of its graduates". I think the key here is the word substantial, and I don't think the general nature of the University President's comments come close to showing this. The appropriate thing to do in my opinion would be to ask for clarification of the comments.

The DoEd letter is also asking for the University to do their bookkeeping for them, something you balked at doing for your own argument just above. The DoEd certainly has the records regarding those agreements, and can contrast them with the comments made. I would think they would note any specific discrepancies between the two in the letter, had they done their own bookkeeping. Otherwise, it does seem like a bad faith endeavor on their part.

My apologies, I must have missed that in the dust up. Now that we are a bit more on track with the discussion, perhaps you can restate that point, or link to the post were you made it.

I have included links to the ED letter to Princeton as well as quoted it directly above. It is specifically investigating Program Participation Agreements and the paragraph I quoted implies it is not solely concerned with discrimination in admissions. But even if that's what it was solely interested in, the ED has good reason to launch the investigation.

Thanks for providing the information, it has solidified my opinion that the DoEd is acting in bad faith here.

 

[KeepTalking]

They say when trouble comes close ranks, and so the white people did.
--Jean Rhys, Wide Sargasso Sea.

Eighty university presidents have signed a letter describing the ED's investigation of Princeton 'outrageous'.

https://www.amherst.edu/amherst-story/president/statements/node/780574

Can you blame them? It seems like any generalized comments they make regarding racial issues at their University will earn them an investigation from the DoEd. Unless, of course, they claim that racism is not now, and never has been a problem on campus, something that the administration would very much like everyone to believe about the USA in general.

 

[Metaphor]

They say when trouble comes close ranks, and so the white people did.
--Jean Rhys, Wide Sargasso Sea.

Eighty university presidents have signed a letter describing the ED's investigation of Princeton 'outrageous'.

https://www.amherst.edu/amherst-story/president/statements/node/780574

Can you blame them? It seems like any generalized comments they make regarding racial issues at their University will earn them an investigation from the DoEd. Unless, of course, they claim that racism is not now, and never has been a problem on campus, something that the administration would very much like everyone to believe about the USA in general.

Well, no, I don't particularly 'blame' them, I posted it as an update to the story.

And no, they don't claim racism isn't a problem, they back up Eisgruber. That was the context of the closing ranks quote: you can investigate one of us, but can you investigate 80 of us?

 

[Metaphor]

And I disagree, as I think the appropriate thing to do in this case, given the generality of the comments made by the University President, would be to ask for clarification. Opening an investigation seems premature, and politically motivated, given how the administration has otherwise shown how little it cares about combatting racism.

Well, the ED is asking for clarification.

Why are you not interested in backing up your claim? It is the only way you are going to get me to believe or understand your point of view. I am not going to believe you just because you make a claim, especially when you admit ignorance regarding the substance of that claim.

My claim was that Princeton's federal funding was not limited to student financial aid. And it isn't.

Based on its admitted racism, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false. The Department is further concerned Princeton perhaps knew, or should have known, these assurances were false at the time they were made. Finally, the Department is further concerned Princeton’s many nondiscrimination and equal opportunity claims to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates may have been false, misleading, and actionable substantial misrepresentations in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1094(c)(3)(B) and 34 CFR 668.71(c). Therefore, the Department’s Office of Postsecondary Education, in consultation with the Department’s Office of the General Counsel, is opening this investigation.

Let's examine that statute, and it's definitions, then.
20 U.S. Code § 1094.Program participation agreements
Searching this document, I find no instances of the words race, racism, or racial. Not a good start.
34 CFR § 668.71 - Scope and special definitions.
Nothing about race or racism in the definitions either.

So what? The ED wrote:

the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false.

Are you suggesting that the Program Participation Agreement between Princeton and the ED does not contain statements about nondiscrimination and equal opportunity, and that the ED is flat out lying or mistaken about what is contained in the PPA?

Let's go back and look at the relevant section of the statute, linked above:

Regarding "(I)has violated or failed to carry out any provision of this subchapter or any regulation prescribed under this subchapter", there is no mention of race or racism anywhere in the document, so this doesn't seem to be applicable.

So that only leaves "(II)has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its educational program, its financial charges, and the employability of its graduates". I think the key here is the word substantial, and I don't think the general nature of the University President's comments come close to showing this. The appropriate thing to do in my opinion would be to ask for clarification of the comments.

Are you suggesting that the Program Participation Agreement between Princeton and the ED does not contain statements about nondiscrimination and equal opportunity, and that the ED is flat out lying or mistaken about what is contained in the PPA? The legislation explaining what the PPA must contain ("shall") is not the PPA itself, nor is what specifying what something must contain limit that something to only those things. E.g. there might be legislation that rental agreements must specify the weekly rent to be paid. However, that does not mean the legislation forbids a rental agreement from having a clause about pets.

The DoEd letter is also asking for the University to do their bookkeeping for them, something you balked at doing for your own argument just above.

No, it's not. But, even if it is, so what? Companies are required to 'do the bookkeeping' by law, and the ED is not in a position to examine Princeton's records without Princeton first providing them.

The DoEd certainly has the records regarding those agreements, and can contrast them with the comments made. I would think they would note any specific discrepancies between the two in the letter, had they done their own bookkeeping. Otherwise, it does seem like a bad faith endeavor on their part.

Have you read the ED's letter? It says, in part:

III.Written QuestionsPlease answer these written questions within twenty-one (21) calendar days: A.The President’s Letter admits “Racism and the damage it does to people of color ...persist(s) at Princeton” and racist assumptions “remain embedded in structures of the University itself.” Do these admissions mean Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances and representations to the Department and/or to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates have been false and misleading? If not, why not?

ED is doing what you are asking for: clarifying.

Thanks for providing the information, it has solidified my opinion that the DoEd is acting in bad faith here.

Have you read the letter? It seems entirely reasonable.

 

[KeepTalking]

They say when trouble comes close ranks, and so the white people did.
--Jean Rhys, Wide Sargasso Sea.

Eighty university presidents have signed a letter describing the ED's investigation of Princeton 'outrageous'.

https://www.amherst.edu/amherst-story/president/statements/node/780574

Can you blame them? It seems like any generalized comments they make regarding racial issues at their University will earn them an investigation from the DoEd. Unless, of course, they claim that racism is not now, and never has been a problem on campus, something that the administration would very much like everyone to believe about the USA in general.

Well, no, I don't particularly 'blame' them, I posted it as an update to the story.

And no, they don't claim racism isn't a problem, they back up Eisgruber. That was the context of the closing ranks quote: you can investigate one of us, but can you investigate 80 of us?

Oh FFS, the letter contains nothing of the sort.

Full content of the letter:

Across the nation, individuals, families, communities, businesses, corporations, and educational institutions are coming to grips with the country’s legacies of slavery and racial oppression, which stretch back over four hundred years. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education announced that it will be investigating Princeton University for possible misrepresentations in its reports of adherence to federal non-discrimination law because its president publicly recognized that historic racism has been embedded in the institution over time.

It is outrageous that the Department of Education is using our country’s resources to investigate an institution that is committed to becoming more inclusive by reckoning with the impact in the present of our shared legacies of racism.

As presidents of colleges and universities, we, too, acknowledge the ways that racism has affected and continues to affect the country’s institutions, including our own. We stand together in recognizing the work we still need to do if we are ever “to perfect the union,” and we urge the Department of Education to abandon its ill-considered investigation of Princeton University.

Michael Roth, President, Wesleyan University
Biddy Martin, President, Amherst College

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, the ED is asking for clarification.

They are doing much more than that, when the only thing that is warranted currently is the ask for clarification.

My claim was that Princeton's federal funding was not limited to student financial aid. And it isn't.

Fair enough. On the other hand, that information does not get us very far if the question is concerning what federal funding Princeton receives, other than student financial aid, the DoEd is concerned about.

Let's examine that statute, and it's definitions, then.
20 U.S. Code § 1094.Program participation agreements
Searching this document, I find no instances of the words race, racism, or racial. Not a good start.
34 CFR § 668.71 - Scope and special definitions.
Nothing about race or racism in the definitions either.

So what? The ED wrote:

the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false.

Are you suggesting that the Program Participation Agreement between Princeton and the ED does not contain statements about nondiscrimination and equal opportunity, and that the ED is flat out lying or mistaken about what is contained in the PPA?

Let's go back and look at the relevant section of the statute, linked above:

Regarding "(I)has violated or failed to carry out any provision of this subchapter or any regulation prescribed under this subchapter", there is no mention of race or racism anywhere in the document, so this doesn't seem to be applicable.

So that only leaves "(II)has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its educational program, its financial charges, and the employability of its graduates". I think the key here is the word substantial, and I don't think the general nature of the University President's comments come close to showing this. The appropriate thing to do in my opinion would be to ask for clarification of the comments.

Are you suggesting that the Program Participation Agreement between Princeton and the ED does not contain statements about nondiscrimination and equal opportunity, and that the ED is flat out lying or mistaken about what is contained in the PPA? The legislation explaining what the PPA must contain ("shall") is not the PPA itself, nor is what specifying what something must contain limit that something to only those things. E.g. there might be legislation that rental agreements must specify the weekly rent to be paid. However, that does not mean the legislation forbids a rental agreement from having a clause about pets.

I don't know what the document contains, as I don't believe I have ready access to that document. The DoEd should have the documents on hand, and should be able to contrast the University President's comments with the statements contained those documents, and ask for clarification on those specific things, or open an investigation noting that those specific discrepancies are leading to the investigation. This seems more like a witch hunt, or should I say "woke hunt"?

The DoEd letter is also asking for the University to do their bookkeeping for them, something you balked at doing for your own argument just above.

No, it's not. But, even if it is, so what? Companies are required to 'do the bookkeeping' by law, and the ED is not in a position to examine Princeton's records without Princeton first providing them.

The DoEd should have the relevant records, which would be the PPAs that Princeton already provided to them.

The DoEd certainly has the records regarding those agreements, and can contrast them with the comments made. I would think they would note any specific discrepancies between the two in the letter, had they done their own bookkeeping. Otherwise, it does seem like a bad faith endeavor on their part.

Have you read the ED's letter? It says, in part:

III.Written QuestionsPlease answer these written questions within twenty-one (21) calendar days: A.The President’s Letter admits “Racism and the damage it does to people of color ...persist(s) at Princeton” and racist assumptions “remain embedded in structures of the University itself.” Do these admissions mean Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances and representations to the Department and/or to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education certificates have been false and misleading? If not, why not?

ED is doing what you are asking for: clarifying.

In part. If that were all they were doing, I would not have a problem with it.

Thanks for providing the information, it has solidified my opinion that the DoEd is acting in bad faith here.

Have you read the letter? It seems entirely reasonable.

So long as you cherry pick only the reasonable parts.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, no, I don't particularly 'blame' them, I posted it as an update to the story.

And no, they don't claim racism isn't a problem, they back up Eisgruber. That was the context of the closing ranks quote: you can investigate one of us, but can you investigate 80 of us?

Oh FFS, the letter contains nothing of the sort.

Full content of the letter:

Across the nation, individuals, families, communities, businesses, corporations, and educational institutions are coming to grips with the country’s legacies of slavery and racial oppression, which stretch back over four hundred years. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education announced that it will be investigating Princeton University for possible misrepresentations in its reports of adherence to federal non-discrimination law because its president publicly recognized that historic racism has been embedded in the institution over time.

It is outrageous that the Department of Education is using our country’s resources to investigate an institution that is committed to becoming more inclusive by reckoning with the impact in the present of our shared legacies of racism.

As presidents of colleges and universities, we, too, acknowledge the ways that racism has affected and continues to affect the country’s institutions, including our own. We stand together in recognizing the work we still need to do if we are ever “to perfect the union,” and we urge the Department of Education to abandon its ill-considered investigation of Princeton University.

Michael Roth, President, Wesleyan University
Biddy Martin, President, Amherst College

Oy gevalt. The letter does not contain those literal words. The last paragraph of the letter, however, contains exactly what I said. The white people heading those 80 colleges stood up and said "I'm Spartacus"*, and the implication of this unity is "if you idiotically think Princeton needs investigating because of what Eisgruber said, then we all need investigating".*

*Not literal words uttered by Eisgruber or the college presidents.

 

[Metaphor]

The DoEd should have the relevant records, which would be the PPAs that Princeton already provided to them.

No, the PPAs are not the relevant records. The ED is not asking for PPAs.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh FFS, the letter contains nothing of the sort.

Full content of the letter:

Oy gevalt. The letter does not contain those literal words. The last paragraph of the letter, however, contains exactly what I said. The white people heading those 80 colleges stood up and said "I'm Spartacus"*, and the implication of this unity is "if you idiotically think Princeton needs investigating because of what Eisgruber said, then we all need investigating".*

Not another "My interpretation is the only correct one".

 

[Metaphor]

Oh FFS, the letter contains nothing of the sort.

Full content of the letter:

Oy gevalt. The letter does not contain those literal words. The last paragraph of the letter, however, contains exactly what I said. The white people heading those 80 colleges stood up and said "I'm Spartacus"*, and the implication of this unity is "if you idiotically think Princeton needs investigating because of what Eisgruber said, then we all need investigating".*

Not another "My interpretation is the only correct one".

KeepTalking flat out called my understanding wrong.

How do you read the college president response letter? Do you think it's unreasonable to describe it as closing ranks? Do you think that they are not calling out the ED by emphasizing their unity on 'acknowledging racism'?