Transcript
Speaker: Hello and welcome to Sips and Substance, where we distill politics down to its essence. I'm Justin. We have Jonathan over here. Hello. And this week we're going to discuss whether or not to fight.
Speaker: So the Trump administration has attacked both academic institutions as well as big law firms. And I know we mentioned the big law attacks a few podcasts ago, but we want to dive into it a little bit more and see what's really at stake.
Speaker: As you might have noticed, I'm ah attired a little bit differently today. I'm a little energized. so Harvard is actually fighting back. So I'm as ah proud of my school as I've been in a long time. um So even got a new hat, right?
Speaker: um And even broke out the class ring today, which I don't wear very often because I don't like wearing rings. um and Harvard hockey shirt. So I'm ready to go, ready to be rambunctious in the Harvard hockey shirt um and talk about the wonderful things that Harvard's doing to step up and and fight against the Trump administration.
Speaker: But right, before we get that, there there are a lot of things um to talk about in terms of what they're doing. Like, why are they doing this? And obviously, you know, it goes along with Trump's point of view, but I think there's a lot of Project 2025 behind this. where You can see stuff that Trump would be like, yeah, but the idea that he's behind any of this It's a little bit of a stretch to me, I think.
Speaker: I think a lot of this is just the the far right folks are finally getting to do what they've been wanting to do for a long time. And Trump is saying, sure, let's go do that, because they happen to have similar interests in their enemies.
Speaker: Right. So between the academic institutions and the big law firms, the number one concern, I think, from the Trump admissions point of view is the DEI policies.
Speaker: And they're really, really going after both ah types of institutions for whatever policies they have. Let's say that's ostensibly their number one concern. And I think we should get into more later on. um Before we do, though, I should probably talk about the beer for the day.
Speaker: um Again, in my ongoing pursuit to drink every single beer by Russian River and do it on our show, I have Blind Pig today. I don't think we've had it before. We've had a number of shows we may have.
Speaker: It's their single IPA. It's a West Coast, the classic West Coast IPA just means it's not extra alcohol like Plenty of the Elder. I think it's somewhere around five and a half percent, something like that. i Maybe a little bit more.
Speaker: But less than the eight and a half that Pliny is. um Very classic West Coast kind of stuff. It's got some citrus notes and some pine and some dankness, but then finishes with a nice, bitter, classic IPA flavor. It's just, if you want a single IPA, ah regular IPA, this is pretty much, to me, the best West Coast you can get.
Speaker: um There's a lot of good ones out there, but... Blind Pig is outstanding. You should look that up if you want an IPA. know you're not a big IPA person, um but it's just a really classic West Coast IPA.
Speaker: Well, let's hope there's enough alcohol to keep up that passion for you, right? Well, it's ah it's a bigger bottle, right? so and Okay. yeah Make it up for it.
Speaker: Okay. So the first category that we want to discuss is the law firms. So there's been a lot of attacks on several law firms, which we call big law.
Speaker: And so these are firms that are taking in hundreds of millions, often billions of dollars in revenue annually. They are very sophisticated. They represent large co clients, wealthy clients.
Speaker: They have expertise that no other firms really have. And so when the administration attacks them, Well, they're kind of the only types of...
Speaker: firms that can do certain things. So for instance, if you have a really complicated national security issue, or you want to do some sort of really complicated foreign transaction, you're going to go to these firms.
Speaker: And so, and just, it's like ah a bit of slang you might hear out there. It's like when they say white shoe law firms, this is what they mean. The really high end, big law firms that handle really complicated cases and have a lot of lawyers.
Speaker: Most of them have outposts all over the country. right? Or at least in multiple places in the country. So they're they're just, yeah, they're really big firms. And the Trump administration is going after them.
Speaker: And again, as we said before, right, they're ostensibly going after them for their DEI policies, but they're also going after them because of who they've represented in the past and pro bono work.
Speaker: And again, there's a little grievance kind of coming in. And I think this sort of sweetens the the deal for Trump when when the ah the Project 2025 folks come to him and say, hey, let's do this because we can punish this person too. It's all all in keeping with his sort of revenge tour that we've got going on.
Speaker: Right. So I think a good way to describe that would be the Project 2025 people, they want to attack big law in general. And they have it forever, right? Yeah, price nothing new for them.
Speaker: They've just found a guy that's going to let them do it. Right. And so... they will give Trump a certain list of clients and be like, aha. Like for instance, the first one that was attacked was Covington and Burling.
Speaker: And why were they attacked? Because one of the partners worked for the special counsel's office and they represent Jack Smith. So you have guys like Stephen Miller or whoever it is who's in charge of generating these lists. They go to Trump and say, hey, this guy wronged you.
Speaker: And Trump says, yeah, he absolutely did. And this is how they get Trump's fingerprints. And then an executive order is created.
Speaker: I don't want to go through all the details here, but the first firm that was attacked was Covington Berlin late February. And the memorandum that the president issued was a suspension of security clearances for anyone who worked ah in the special counsel in any capacity.
Speaker: So even if you were not on the special counsel's team, but you were sort of like a subcontractor, security clearance revoked. And the memorandum also said government agencies can't engage with the firm.
Speaker: And this pattern emerges in all the executive orders. So another firm that was attacked was Perkins Coie. And why were they attacked?
Speaker: Well, they represented Hillary Clinton in 2016. And they've also done some work regarding election laws. Jenner and Block is another firm that was attacked.
Speaker: And what was the reason there? Well, Andrew Weissman is involved. And he was the lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation. And we put a link, a Wikipedia link that sort of details all of these, you can call them attacks.
Speaker: And you can go through and you can sort of see like, okay, yeah, I can understand why Trump would be upset at this particular firm. Well, I mean, I think you have to call them a tax, really, because that's kind of what they are.
Speaker: um And I don't think we want to give him too much credit by saying, oh, yes, we can see this. can I mean, you can see the connection, but it's still a completely ridiculous and overreach of power and infringing in the Constitution. And that's why you'll see that every law firm that has said, hey, you know what?
Speaker: No, has gotten relief from the court in one way or another. um And so I think it's it's useful for us. And we've had this a very long and lengthy discussion, very fruitful, I think, um offline before we get and going, um just to break the law firms into a couple groups. Because if you're like me, and i I don't care what they're called, and I'm sure most people don't either. I know some of these firms, a lot of them I don't.
Speaker: um But the real distinction, I think, for for us that's important is some law firms resisted, some capitulated, right? um And again, you' you've heard some of these names, right?
Speaker: um So Paul Weiss is probably one people have heard of because they're the first ones to capitulate and say, hey, President Trump and your administration will strike a deal. We'll do whatever you want us to do so you don't stop doing this or so you stop doing this because we think it's going to pose a problem for us keeping clients.
Speaker: Right. And then whether or not we believe some of their their misery, pronouncements is another story. I think personally, I think they tend to exaggerate how much they're going to suffer, but law firms are notorious for not wanting to suffer at all.
Speaker: Right. So you can trace the logic there. I'm not going to say understand it because I don't think that they should have done this, but you can trace the logic saying, hey, it's easier for us with our clients if we just make a deal with them.
Speaker: Right. And so what they've done basically is saying, you know what, we won't do any DEI stuff and then we will um also engage in a lot of pro bono work, like millions and millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work for clients that the White House and Trump agree are good clients to take good causes to support.
Speaker: Right. And I think one thing to mention is with big law in general, they're famous for the pro bono work. Every, i mean, they require each lawyer, I mean, I worked, I didn't work as a lawyer, but I worked as legal assistant when I was contemplating being a lawyer at a fairly decent law firm, big, decent sized law firm in DC.
Speaker: And the lawyers have a certain percentage of hours they have to do each year for pro bono. And I believe that's still part of what the Bar Association requires of lawyers, that you do some sort of pro bono work.
Speaker: And a lot of these law firms go above and beyond. I think they have like pro bono practices, which focus exclusively on that within the law firm.
Speaker: Yeah. so So I think we should give out some gold medals here. So Perkins Coie, they had their executive order issued on March 6th. And they were the first ones, based on our research, that actually filed a lawsuit.
Speaker: And they got a temporary restraining order. And the judge was absolutely scathing towards the Trump administration. And as you said before, there has been relief granted for basically all the firms that have fought the orders.
Speaker: And so with Jenner and Block, for instance, the judge who is a Bush appointee basically said, yeah, the first fifth and sixth amendments were likely violated. So you're probably going to win on the merits, hence why we're enjoining the government's executive order. um And some of the other law firms are hiring some really powerful lawyers.
Speaker: So they're hiring Obama's Solicitor General. They're hiring Bush's Solicitor General. They are ready to fight. So you know kudos to them for sticking to your principles there.
Speaker: And you know one of the judges said in his reasoning for and joining the government, he said, i quote, The firm faces more than economic harm from the executive order.
Speaker: It faces crippling losses and its very survival is at stake. And that the harm suffered by the firm would be so severe, it would spill over to its clients and the justice system at large.
Speaker: And so when we mentioned, I think it was two podcasts ago, and what irreparable harm is, well, that's what he's describing right there. The firm could not exist anymore. And what would you do?
Speaker: Right. And and so, i mean, what's troubling here, I mean, and disappointing, I guess, to me, is that these decisions, this relief from the courts is not surprising at all. these There's really no way to read this stuff as being permissible under the law.
Speaker: Right. And so I'm not surprised that basically everybody that's filed for relief has gotten something. Right. um But what is disappointing is that these other firms, knowing this, have capitulated anyway.
Speaker: And some of them, like Skadden, have gone out of their way to capitulate before they're even attacked. Right. They went to settle before there was even an executive order against them, um because as you were and we were discussing earlier, you were telling me that, you know, and reminding me that Elon Musk said something on Twitter and then, oh, wait a minute, we better go settle because they're going to be mad at us next.
Speaker: Right. And it's it's just a very I can't, I mean, it's easy to to shit talk lawyers for being lawyers and they deserve a lot of that. But I was really a little bit surprised that some of these big firms were so quick to cave in um to protect even their, even...
Speaker: let's Let's assume that they were going to suffer some financial losses, but let's assume that it probably wasn't bankruptcy in every case because the firms that are fighting haven't gone bankrupt yet. um So they're just very willing to compromise a lot of very basic principles in terms of free representation um it under the law.
Speaker: Yeah. So the... firms that rolled over. i think you and I have some disagreements on you know whether it's appropriate or not. sure So I do want to distinguish Paul Weiss, which actually had an executive order issued against them and from folks like Skadden, Wilkie, and some of the other law firms that have struck deals well after the yeah TROs were issued for the other firms.
Speaker: So they see everything that's happened from Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie and various other firms, and they say, hmm, based on that, I'm going to settle.
Speaker: And to me, that's nuts, right? Yep. and just It just shows a really lack of, of one, and a a fundamental understanding of what it's what it means to be an officer of their court, and then two, just a complete lack of backbone.
Speaker: And I think that was that's where, for me, this really is... I'm going to say unforgivable. i'm not going to go that far. But it's just to it's really sad that you have a problematic for me that these people are officers of the court.
Speaker: They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the integrity of the court. And knuckling under this way. at the very least violates the spirit of the ethics oaths they took to become become members of the bar and officers of the court.
Speaker: And I just, I can't get behind doing this. And I understand that they may they may force some face some economic consequences. um But again, it's not supposed to be, we'll uphold the ethics as long as it's not inconvenient, right?
Speaker: The ethical rules are there for a reason. i think they should be much more loathed to violate them than they seem to be. and so so I want to read a quote from President Trump here.
Speaker: He said, quote, have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump? A hundred million, another hundred million for damages that they've done. They give you a hundred million and then they announce that.
Speaker: but we've done nothing wrong. And I agree, they've done nothing wrong. But what the hell? They give me a lot of money considering they've done nothing wrong. yeah And so that also should kind of clue us in too, that this might not even be a very good strategy,
Speaker: but We've talked before about sort of the the mob boss mentality in some of the policymaking we're doing. and arab Trump is doing. And the odds that he's not going to come back for more, to me pretty slim. And he's already started doing it. He's already started talking about expanding this pro bono work to do doing things like defending people that in criminal court from things that for people who are Trump allies do wrong, they'll defend them, and possibly even getting them involved in government prosecutions.
Speaker: um So Trump is going to keep pushing for more. If you think, oh, we settled, we're good. I think you're probably going to have to reevaluate that at some point in time. Yeah. So I think where we disagree the most is with Paul Weiss, the first ones to capitulate.
Speaker: As we mentioned before, the executive order is very threatening, right? Otherwise, the other law firms wouldn't have gotten yeah TROs. And what did Paul Weiss actually give up besides its integrity?
Speaker: When it comes to the fundamental like brass tacks of things, I think you know they're basically saying, okay, we're not going to DEI anymore and we will have 40 million in pro bono work and that's it, right?
Speaker: And the White House seemed you know pretty happy with that. and and But as you said, is that a good long-term strategy? Probably not. And I would hope that a firm like Paul Weiss, who didn't have the benefit that the other firms had.
Speaker: So Paul Weiss was the first to settle. They did have the information about the TROs, but again, you know the first to settle. I do think that deserves some sort of distinction from, as you said, like the Skadans who just capitulated preemptively, right? And I think we can make a distinction.
Speaker: um But I think in a lot of ways, this is, to me, one of those classical distinctions without too much of a difference. Because at the end of the day, i still feel that they're violating the ethical oath, at least the spirit again, of the ethical oath they took to be officers of the court.
Speaker: Right. They're saying that our money matters more to us than the ethics that are required of us from being officers of officers of the court. And I just think I have a problem with that.
Speaker: We weren't in the room. the We can only go off of what the chairman said. And as you said before, like we have no reason to trust the chairman and the partners of the firms. But Apparently, other law firms were trying to poach not only Paul Weiss's clients, but also Paul Weiss's attorneys.
Speaker: And I think because they were the first to maybe like receive that sort of backlash from the community as a whole, maybe they just felt not supported and Who knows, right?
Speaker: But i suppose it is a dick move by the other firms to do that, right? Talk about kicking someone when they're down. If Paul Weiss hasn't engaged in that behavior themselves over the years, I will be astounded.
Speaker: That's classic law firm behavior. They're always trying to poach each other's clients and lawyers, right? I... i I do think a lot of it is Paul Weiss trying to justify what why they made this decision, right? Because they have been getting a lot of heat from it, both internally and externally.
Speaker: And I'm glad to see that because they really should. um But again, even if you take them at face value, that they were facing bankruptcy if they didn't do this. i Still, there's not an exception written into the rules that say these rules only apply unless you're facing bankruptcy, right?
Speaker: they They don't. the The rules are the rules. And the ethics ought to be the guiding ethics. I know I'm a little naive to think that law firms are going to be guided entirely by ethics, but at least we can be encouraged that some of the law firms um have enough respect for the ethics to fight back.
Speaker: Right. And you know maybe they think that they're doing right by their clients. Would someone like a Perkins Coie be able to successfully defend their clients in federal court? Who knows, right? We don't know. We don't have enough information.
Speaker: They would today because they got a restraining order. No, no, but I'm saying that in the future. to be you know It's not as easy as it seems. Sure, but I can't believe in their calculation they thought, well, clearly these are going to stand and we won't be able to sue.
Speaker: They know that they knew that there's no way, even as biased as the Supreme Court has been for Trump, that they're going to uphold these sort of actions. There's no I can't imagine there's any possible way where this stuff ultimately stands, because as we've said, judges across the spectrum have said, this is ridiculous. What are you people doing?
Speaker: Right. So they they took the idea. They took the approach that, hey, the short term pain that we'd suffer wouldn't be worth it. And I don't have a lot of respect for that. yeah And, you know, I want to add some salt to the wound here.
Speaker: Wilkie. Because Kamala Harris's husband works for that firm and they capitulated. yeah So that is really fucking embarrassing as far as I'm concerned. Now, your wife ran for president against Trump and talked about how Trump is an authoritarian and things like that.
Speaker: And then you capitulate that. That's really bad then. Yeah. You'd think that money wouldn't matter quite that much to you, but I don't know. Neither one of us have that kind of money. So I guess we don't really know. So the next category of Trump's revenge are the academic institutions.
Speaker: And i think you and I are in agreement here in terms of academic institutions should fight, especially Harvard and Columbia, because they have such large endowments.
Speaker: you know One of the reasons why I was somewhat sympathetic to Paul Weiss is they... our business, first and foremost. And even though they have ethical responsibilities, there is a cost benefit analysis that they have to do, not only for themselves, but for their clients.
Speaker: And you know obviously, if the Trump administration asked even crazier things, right, where something along the lines of, oh, you have to represent Laura Loomer for the next four years, you know I think that would be so outrageous where they could say, okay, you know what we're not going to settle, we're going to fight you in court.
Speaker: And again, it's up to them to decide what that cost-benefit analysis is and what the decision ultimately is. But I don't think with the academic institutions that analysis really applies because the amount of harm and punishment that the administration is trying to impose on the institutions, the academic institutions, is not nearly enough to warrant capitulation.
Speaker: I'm still going to disagree with you in that my my point from before is that when you would swear an ethical oath to be an officer of the court and uphold the integrity of the court, I think that should trump your cost-benefit analysis. If you violate those ethical principles, it should be a red line to you, no matter what the cost-benefit analysis is.
Speaker: But again, clearly... there's disagreement on this. um We and I, we both disagree a little bit, um but certainly these firms disagree on whether um this is going to happen. And I don't expect law ah bar, bar association sanctions against them.
Speaker: um But I mean, it, it wouldn't be completely out of the blue for somebody to try to bring charges against them in the bars in under the bar association rules for this. um But when you switch to academic economic integrity, I'm with you a hundred percent um being an academic myself, I'm very much in favor of academic integrity and being a Harvard alum. I was very, very, very pleased to see that we stood up here.
Speaker: As I said, new hat brought out the old ring. We're in business here. We're ready to even have that flag in the background, flag in the background, right. I'm ready to go. I think a little bit of background on why Harvard and Columbia are being attacked specifically is it's it's important to discuss.
Speaker: So a lot of this comes down to, as you said, probably 25 folks who are upset. They don't like liberal elites and what is more elite than these Ivy league institutions. Right.
Speaker: but They did put a target on their backs by not responding appropriately to the protests that came about due to October 7th.
Speaker: Well, I mean, I would say yes and no. Right. um There's been a long history of protests from fringe elements on both of these schools and all Ivy League schools.
Speaker: over the years, right? Vietnam, there were very strong protests. When I was at Harvard, a lot of protests, people occupying the yard because of divestment. It's kind of a thing.
Speaker: And one thing that I think kind of gets lost in all this discussion about, oh, Harvard and Columbia and the anti-Semitism and these protesters, like, at least in my experience, the protesters, as motivated as they are,
Speaker: very very very small fraction of the student body. ah Most people at Harvard are there to go about their business, get their education, and a lot of cases, just go on and make a lot of money.
Speaker: right um So yes, these things happen, but this has not happened before. It's not the first time these things have happened. right um It's to, at least for me, being sort of I wasn't there in Vietnam, obviously. I'm not that old, but it's kind of like a thing that that happens every so often.
Speaker: and I don't get as worked up about it because I know that it's going to happen. that that there's just It's kind of a thing for youth for students to do these things. People, when they're young, get very excited about stuff. I mean, there's a there's plenty of quotes in literature about, you know, never trust somebody who isn't a radical or something when they're young. Or, you know, if you're if you're not liberal when you're young and conservative when you're old, you're not paying it. All kinds of stuff like that. But it's not unusual for young people to get very exercised about stuff.
Speaker: Now, am I happy people are supporting Hamas? No, that's not so good. Right. Could the administration have responded better? Well, certainly they could. They could have. But they could have responded better back in the Vietnam days as well. They could have responded better back in the days of the divestment protests.
Speaker: It's kind of a thing to have these protests. So to pick them out, oh you had these protests and you didn't do enough to quash them. It's like, Yeah, but in some regards, one, it's kind of traditional. And two, do you really think that the universities ought to be in the business of breaking heads and hauling off people who protest just because we don't like them?
Speaker: I mean, yes, there's a tradition of protest. And yes, people can push it too far. But there's also a tradition in this country of governments going too far, cracking down on protests and shooting people.
Speaker: This is a thing too. I don't think we need to go back to the days of Kent State. Right. um And I, again, not at Kent State, but I did live in a place that was 10 miles away from Kent.
Speaker: So we understood it fairly well. And a family friend, um, Alison Krauss was their niece. So I something that I got to be fairly familiar with growing up. And personally, for me, i would rather the unit as much as I don't like most of the things that the protesters are for when they're run by extremists, I'd rather the administration air universities air on the side of, you know what?
Speaker: let these people blow off steam as long as they don't go too far. Now you can argue about what too far is. and I think some of these things have gone too far, um but I would much rather see that than see the National Guard come in and start marching over the hill with their M16s drawn, or actually they're probably M1s I think back in the day.
Speaker: In any case, the point remains the same. We don't need crackdowns every time university students protest. Yeah. And, you know, when I say the universities put a target on their back, that does not justify in any way what the Trump administration is doing. I want to make that clear. yeah Sure.
Speaker: I wasn't trying to paint you with that same brush. i was to To talk about... what the people on the right are saying, oh, oh these are the most, form that they're not. now They're the same things that we always see. And could the administrations deal with it better?
Speaker: Sure. but And they should, right? and so But we have processes for that. So we if you go back to our Department Education episode, we talked about Title VI and the Office of Civil Rights.
Speaker: And I think it's clear that college campuses in the late two thousand and ten kind of got carried away when it came to woke safe spaces.
Speaker: And it got to the point where it seemed like reverse discrimination. it It was an uncomfortable position to be in I think. And once October seventh happened,
Speaker: And the universities realized that, well, we can't apply these same policies to Palestinian protesters and ah the pro-Israeli crowd equally. Well, then you have a problem, right?
Speaker: If you can't enforce your policies equally, that can lead to a Title VI violation. And there were several complaints. Lodge Against Harvard. We have some in the show notes.
Speaker: And this was done during the Biden administration. And Harvard agreed to adhere to some changes, and there were no charges brought. And that's the way the process should work, where you acknowledge, hey, you know what? We can do better. Here's how we're going to be in compliance with the law.
Speaker: And then there you go. And what the Trump administration is doing now is not that in any way, shape, or form. no And I mean, a lot of that, excuse me, gets back to what we just talked about with the law firms, right?
Speaker: but They're pretending, oh, it's anti-Semitism and that's why we need to take a stand, except a lot of their things that they're talking about don't address anti-Semitism. um It's clear that what they want to do is discredit these elite universities because one, they tend to be liberal and two, they tend to believe they tend to follow, i don't know, facts and contradict things that that the far right people don't want to believe.
Speaker: Right. and And this is actually nothing new. Again, it was kind of a it's been a thing since as long as I've been aware of Harvard. um When I was there, Stephen Jay Gould was a was an evolution professor and Harvard.
Speaker: This was back in the day when evolution was getting aired out by the right as, oh, we can't teach evolution. Our kids are this and this and that's not a good theory. It's wrong. It's this, that and the other. And he just had the best quote, which to me sort of sums up the approach to how to counter the right the the right wing here. And he said, well, evela evolution is a theory.
Speaker: It's also a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome.
Speaker: And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or some other yet to be discovered. And to me, that quote really sums up why they're going after Harvard.
Speaker: They don't like that. That's inconvenient for the far right ideology. They do not want to have any organization, institution like Harvard or Columbia out there saying things that are contrary to what they're telling their adherents.
Speaker: And they've been after science and universities forever, but they've never had a president that said, yes, let's go get them. And here's their chance. You know, it's really unfortunate that the administration is using anti-Semitism as a sledgehammer.
Speaker: I do think that there are some issues, right? There wouldn't be Title VI complaints if there weren't issues. yeah Whether or not it's systemic to the degree where all Jewish people feel unsafe on campus, I highly doubt that because as you said before, most people just go on and you know do their studies. They don't just participate in protests and stuff like that.
Speaker: But I do think that the administrations within all the college campuses need to be aware that a lot of anti-Israel things can lend itself to anti-Semitism, right?
Speaker: Yes. Being anti-Israel doesn't mean you're anti-Semitic, but there's often a lot of crossover. And you definitely see that on the right and within and it's a lot of the Arab community.
Speaker: And I think it's very rich for an organization, an administration that flat out embraces a lot of anti-Semitic people. Right. to To complain that Harvard's being anti-Semitic, especially when you think about, i mean, as you mentioned, a lot of the anti-Israeli protests are can plead over and into anti-Semitism.
Speaker: Well, the same thing is at least as true for a lot of the anti-Palestinian, anti-Hamas sentiment. A lot of the anti-Hamas sentiment is very easily transferred into anti-Semitism.
Speaker: Palestinian settlement, anti-Arab settlement as a whole, right? There is at least as much, I would gather, I would imagine at least as much- Probably more from the average American, frankly speaking. Again, we don't have measures, but it's certainly at least as big a problem, I would think, as anti-Semitism is, especially when you consider that a large part of the administration at Harvard is in fact Jewish. right So basically they're saying, you people who are Jewish are such a problem- being anti-Jewish, that we need to take over your university, more or less.
Speaker: Yeah. And that's just outrageous. So let's talk about the capitulation here. So Columbia University, they, i think, were the most famous of the anti-Israel protests because, you know, the building was taken over and then they had to enact some pretty strict disciplinary um consequences.
Speaker: I believe they revoked some degrees over this and suspended students for ah while. I mean, the consequences are pretty severe. So the Trump administration froze 400 million in research funds.
Speaker: So these funds didn't go to, you know, the Middle Eastern studies program or the political science program. This is for like cancer research, Alzheimer's research, things like that. And so, know,
Speaker: I don't want to make this a partisan issue, but I don't see how... To me, scientific research should be completely nonpartisan and to...
Speaker: use that as leverage is really unethical from my point of view. I think we can't help but make it a partisan issue, right? Because it's certainly one party is doing this. It's not a bipartisan effort, right?
Speaker: um And again, i think they can get away with this, or least think they can, because they've conditioned a lot of their supporters to not trust science, especially when it comes from elitists like those in Colombia.
Speaker: and certainly those in Harvard as well. um So yeah, it's I think it's inescapably a partisan issue because for for those reasons. And I think when we look at it, right, um so Columbia, again, being first, I don't think that really excuses them, but they said, you know what, we'll figure out some sort of deal.
Speaker: um And What's interesting to note is that after Harvard said, you know what? No, Columbia is kind of revisiting this. They're realizing, oh, you know what? We're going to get a lot of pressure if we keep this up.
Speaker: And apparently we can resist. So let's resist together. Yeah. And some of the things weren't that bad, like no masks during protests. It's like, OK, I can understand that from like a security standpoint.
Speaker: But what was asked about Columbia University pretty pretty intense. I don't have the exact details in front of me, but I believe it required either suspension or something like that.
Speaker: Well, I mean, they went as far as to talk about a receivership where the court a court ah federal court would have to oversee what Columbia is up to for the next four years, at least. And so, yeah, they really, again, back to the whole idea that if you make a deal with Trump, you're not done, he'll come asking for more, right? It's back to the whole mob boss thing.
Speaker: Once you've capitulated, hey, you know what? This person capitulates. I bet I can get more. And that's where Columbia has sort of found itself. And the thing that really bothered me is they have a department for Middle Eastern, and South Asian and African studies.
Speaker: And generally speaking, the faculty controls you know what classes are offered, things like that. And they control hiring up to a certain point, right? And what Columbia ended up doing was they took away all that power.
Speaker: And they're having a separate entity within the university, of course, dictate all of those things. And to me, that's antithetical to what academic freedom should be.
Speaker: oh yeah Maybe there are issues with the content. Maybe it's really radical content. It's one sided. I don't know. And frankly, I don't really care. Part of... attending college is being exposed to ideas and learning how to challenge them, right?
Speaker: and Unless though, by the way, random random aside, unless you happen to go to the US Naval Academy. thanks Which case, we can get into that at another point in time. But yes, like it's just college ought to be a place where you challenge your ideas. And I always tell people the most important thing I learned at Harvard is that I could be wrong.
Speaker: When you get exposed to ideas, you start thinking about, well, you know what? This is wrong. Maybe my ideas are wrong. And it makes you a stronger scholar and just a ah better thinker to get challenged by stuff. And to to trying to eliminate that because it's not convenient for you is just ridiculous.
Speaker: Yeah. and So let's award her gold medal. dar um i get Yes, I think harvard Harvard stood up. And I think, you know, it's it wasn't like they were bound and and determined to stand up because they've they've been they've been in talks with the Trump administration to try to head this off.
Speaker: and Which I guess in a way makes sense. You'd like not to have a confrontation if you don't have to. um But then the Trump administration set out this demand letter and they wanted oversight and monitoring in the governments of the university.
Speaker: They wanted um Harvard to follow certain policies for admission, hiring, get rid of all da DEI. They wanted oversight over certain programs that they think are inherently anti-Semitic.
Speaker: They wanted reports on student discipline and had some very strong recommendations about specific discipline Harvard would have to take, right? Including, again, the mask thing. But they said, you know, there's this one student that was attacked and you need to expel the people, expel anyone involved in that.
Speaker: Calling for punishment before they even had any sort of due process, which might strike anyone as strange who's not following what the Trump administration is up to. What? Are you telling me that the administration doesn't value due process?
Speaker: Go figure. Who would have known? But again, Harvard said no, right? And they filed a lawsuit again saying, you know what? You can't take our away our money. You're discriminating against us and you're not following. Again, due process, right? There's a way for taking away people taking away people's funding.
Speaker: They're not doing it. But again, Trump administration, eh, due process. Who needs that? I'm really glad that Harvard decided to fight and not capitulate because I think Part of them wanted to capitulate, as you said, because they were looking to make a deal. It was just, is the cost too much? And the the letter, the Trump administration said, oh, but these weren't our real demands.
Speaker: They had to like backtrack because it was so outrageous. Ultimately, horseshit. They knew exactly what they were sending out. they Somebody was like, oh wait a minute. Harvard's not going to play along. It's the classic bully thing. If you're going to bully somebody until they say no, they're like, hmm, we may need to reevaluate. Yeah, it was just a joke, guys.
Speaker: There's a chance that Harvard might have access to decent lawyers who might be able to have a good argument in fighting this stuff. So yeah I think they're like, ooh. So when we lose, we can say we didn't really mean it.
Speaker: And then the the amount of funds that were frozen were much higher than Columbia. So I believe it's $2.2 billion in federal funding where where Harvard is no longer entitled to that ah money.
Speaker: And you know I really don't like the argument that, oh, well, Harvard – Is it entitled to funds? It's like, yeah, they're not. But they applied for a grant.
Speaker: A grant committee looked at it and they said, ah, yes, let's have Harvard do that research. And then you get the money. it's It's a contract effectively. And also to pretend that there's no societal benefits of the research money given to Harvard is just absurd on its face. Right. If we want to continue to find cures or advancements or whatever in any field, and Harvard has a pretty good track record for leading very successful research efforts.
Speaker: Is everything successful? No. That's sort of the point of research. That's why we funded as a we've talked about this before. That's why we funded as a government, because we need people to fund stuff that might work and might not.
Speaker: Some stuff might not work. We'll hit on some stuff that does. But if we don't fund any of it, we're not going to get any of those advances. And then part of the thing, you know, I get Harvard students. ah emails every day. There's a Harvard Gazette that they come out and they're detailing all these all these programs in medical research and all kinds of things that are going to be canceled if they don't get this money.
Speaker: And it's not ah happy list to contemplate. It's like things like tuberculosis and cancer research and things like that, where they feel like, you know, we're kind of close, we're getting somewhere, but boom, you're going to be done because we don't like you because you're East Coast elites.
Speaker: All right. Yeah. what What else is there to say? It's ridiculous. I do think it's useful to say is that I think that this is it's actually this is one of the first things that's happened in Trump's first hundred days. That's kind of energized liberals.
Speaker: Right. Obviously, the Harvard alums are energized about this. We're like, yes, it's about freaking time we do something. um And other academics, though, are and and energized because they see, hey, you know what? Someone's standing up for academic freedom. This is really good.
Speaker: Right. But I'm also hearing from like all over my Facebook feed, this is kind of anecdotal-ish, but people are are quoting other people that are like, yeah, I've never given money to anybody before and I'm giving it to Harvard or I stopped my donation to Ohio State this year, I'm giving it to Harvard.
Speaker: And people, i was reading things that people all over the podcast sort of liberal spectrum, not just Harvard alums, are excited by this because somebody is actually taking the lead and fighting back.
Speaker: And I think people like to see this. I like to see this. i've I've donated and i haven't I'm not a regular donator, but i'm like, you know what? It's worth donating now. this is This is the kind of thing that gets people gives people something to get behind.
Speaker: And I think that that's useful for everyone on the left. Yeah. And Harvard isn't the first to be fighting, right? As we've said before, we've had the big law firms that are fighting back against It's hard to get excited though, behind the law firm.
Speaker: Right. Exactly. And then we have various court cases, but for instance, the Abrego Garcia case, you know people are animated about that, yeah, The individual himself isn't necessarily someone who is exciting to rally around.
Speaker: I know that a lot of people really liked what Cory Booker did with his 25-hour speech. And you contrast that with Chuck Schumer capitulating and not having a strategy.
Speaker: you know There are some things that are going to... really rally the people in some things that, even though they're doing good work, aren't going to rally the people. And i think Harvard, because they have such a large brand, everyone everyone knows what Harvard is, that is really helpful.
Speaker: yeah so If the University of Pennsylvania did this, it probably wouldn't ah excite people as much. No offense to you, Brent. Although it would be and a good finger in in Trump's eye because he went there.
Speaker: um And so I think other thing to consider is You know, like, does it, why does it matter at the at a core? And I think we covered that a lot, but I think the idea is of letting the anti-education folks who claim to be looking for reform get their way is just the exact opposite of what we need in education, right? They're not acting in good faith.
Speaker: We need to stand up. We need to tell them, no, you can't do this. And Harvard's been around for a long time, longer than this country. Hopefully they'll be able to to keep going. So I think that's a good place to wrap up.
Speaker: you know It can be difficult to decide when to fight and when not to fight. It's easy for you and I to say, yeah, you should always fight. Because what what are we risking? But I do think that everyone needs to do that internal calculation in their head. Not only is my livelihood under threat, but what ah does it say for the country as a whole?
Speaker: it's an important thing to remember because yes, you have yourself as an individual or you have yourself as a company or law firm or institution, whatever it is, but you are part of the larger, uh,
Speaker: yeah You have a place in America, right? you're You're effectively fighting for your country, too, and what this country stands for. And I think that's really important. Yeah, I think that gets into a larger issue that I've talked about before, and we should probably do ah a deep dive in on some at some point in time. It's like what it means to be a citizen anymore.
Speaker: And a lot of people think citizenship provides you benefits, and that's it. But citizenship also has responsibilities, right? And it's useful for people to remember that. because situations like this are going to come along.
Speaker: And Harvard seems to be remembering, hey, we ever we have responsibilities to ourselves, but also responsibilities as members of sort of the academic fraternity and as just ah member citizens of the country. And they're, at least in my mind, acting on that behalf, where lot of times people aren't necessarily doing that.
Speaker: With that said... Make sure you like, subscribe, tell your friends about this podcast, and we will see you next week. Bye-bye.
