Tag: universities

Ivy League Researchers Scaremonger About GOP Health Policy But Say Nothing About Similar Democrat Plans

Ivy League faculty members have a leftist bias — would you believe it?

That sarcastic conclusion comes from the latest example of rhetorical scaremongering over the budget reconciliation bill being considered by Congress. When Republican lawmakers decide to scale back health care benefits, the professoriate loudly proclaims that people in their legions will die. But when Democrat lawmakers do the same thing, these same commentators decide to join the Witness Protection Program.

Deaths Metric

On June 3, a series of researchers affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Yale School of Public Health released a letter regarding the House-passed budget reconciliation bill. In it, they claimed that several specific provisions in the bill “would result in more than 42,500 deaths annually.” They further claimed that allowing enhanced Obamacare subsidies to expire at year’s end, as they are scheduled to do under current law, “will cause an additional 8,811 deaths,” meaning that “altogether, we project that these changes will result in over 51,000 preventable deaths.”

The letter leaves much to unpack. For starters, the idea that anyone can know with any level of certainty the precise number of deaths attributable to a specific policy — not 8,810 or 8,812, mind you, but exactly 8,811 — is absurd on its face. If the researchers know the specific number of people who will die due to one policy change, then why not tell us the names of said individuals, and where, when, and how those people will die, while they’re at it?

Second, the expiration of the enhanced subsidies at year’s end comes because of Democrats, not Republicans. When they controlled Congress and the presidency, Democrats passed provisions letting these subsidies expire. Democrats fully expected future Congresses to extend them but wanted to try to disguise their true cost, just like they tried to hide the full $5 trillion cost of the failed Build Back Bankrupt legislation. They should neither complain nor blame Republicans for not wanting to fix or extend Democrats’ bad law. (The same applies to Republicans when it comes to tax gimmicks they might include in reconciliation.)

Ideological Bias

But the real “tell” regarding this letter comes in the form of a question the researchers didn’t answer. I emailed the lead authors, Rachel Werner at Penn and Alison Galvani from Yale, with a simple question: “Do you plan on conducting similar analyses on the number of deaths associated with Gov. [Gavin] Newsom’s proposal to freeze enrollment of undocumented immigrants in MediCal, and charge existing undocumented enrollees a $100 monthly premium? Why or why not?”

Astute readers may not be surprised to learn that, even after following up, I received nary an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. The researchers might claim they never received my message or that they only published their letter in response to a request from Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for an analysis of the effects of the reconciliation bill. (Any Republican lawmakers in California reading this should please — please — ask the researchers for the type of analysis I requested, if only to highlight their hypocrisy.)

But it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in economics to recognize the real reason for the disparate treatment. The letter was a headline — “Republican bill will kill X people per year!” — in search of a story and a justification. That’s why Wyden and Sanders requested it, and that’s why the researchers gladly complied. But when it comes to attacking Newsom, or Democrat Govs. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois or Tim Walz of Minnesota, all of whom have proposed scaling back taxpayer-funded coverage of illegal immigrants — not because they believe such benefits should go only to citizens, mind you, but because of skyrocketing costs — they suddenly become mute.

Keep reading

Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is now embracing ideas about coercion and consent that rose to prominence on college campuses during the Barack Obama administration.

That’s the implication of the OneTaste case, in which a jury has returned a guilty verdict against Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, who stood accused of a conspiracy to commit forced labor during their time with the sexual and spiritual self-help organization.

I have written many words about this case already, and I’m going to try to refrain from rehashing all of the details in today’s newsletter. (If you’re new to the case and want to dive deep, here you go. If you want a couple of overviews of how the trial played out, see here and here.)

What I want to focus on right now is the larger implications of this case. They’re not pretty.

From College Campuses to #MeToo to the DOJ

If these ideas about coercion and consent didn’t start on the college campuses of the 2010s, that’s at least when they became fully institutionalized —adopted as not just the framework favored by activist students and women’s studies professors but by college administrators and the Title IX offices they were beholden to. There was affirmative consent, sure, but also a broader suspicion of consent as a worthwhile standard, or at least a willingness to dismiss it for more arcane ideas about sexual permissibility.

Suddenly it wasn’t enough to say no and it wasn’t even enough to say yes—one had to consider a complex set of power dynamics, alcohol consumption levels, subtle nonverbal cues, and so on, to determine if consent counted. It stopped just short of taking astrological signs into account.

We went from a reasonable corrective (acknowledging that sexual assault needn’t necessarily involve force or violence) to women getting support for claims of sexual coercion and violation even when they seemed to willingly go along with sexual activity at the time but later said that they weren’t enthusiastic enough about it and a partner should have known that and stopped. Basically, it was only consensual if a woman felt deep down in her heart, during and after, that everything had been OK.

We saw this idea migrate from campus newspapers and Title IX offices to the broader world during the #MeToo movement. It’s perhaps best exemplified by a story about the actor Aziz Ansari. A young woman went to dinner with him, then back to his house, and later excoriated him in Babe magazine for not reading her cues about not wanting to fool around and allegedly pressuring her to do so. The piece called it sexual misconduct and a violation. But when the woman explicitly told Ansari no, he stopped, per her account of things. And when she wanted to go, she left.

The Babe article provoked a huge debate about whether this sort of thing—which in another era we might have just called a bad date or caddish behavior—was a form of sexual assault and where responsibility lies here. Are sexual partners supposed to be mind readers? Do women have any responsibility for explicitly making their wishes known?

Keep reading

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens – After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Twenty-four years after being the first in the nation to roll it out, a major perk for illegal aliens in Texas has vanished after the Trump administration filed a federal lawsuit to stop it and the Lone Star State’s attorney general quickly agreed with the White House stance. Specifically, illegals will no longer be charged the in-state rate for college tuition.  

The end came quite suddenly. Within hours of the US Department of Justice filing a complaint in the Northern District of Texas, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion asking Judge Reed O’Connor to rule in favor of the DOJ and declare in-state tuition for illegals unconstitutional. On the same day, O’Connor issued an order declaring that discounts favoring illegal aliens over non-Texan American citizens — in contradiction of federal law — violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and permanently blocking Texas from giving such discounts.

Paxton, who’s mounting a 2026 challenge of incumbent Republican John Cornyn to represent Texas in the United States Senate, raced to take credit for the outcome: 

“Today, I entered a joint motion along with the Trump Administration opposing a law that unconstitutionally and unlawfully gave benefits to illegal aliens that were not available to American citizens. Ending this discriminatory and un-American provision is a major victory for Texas.” 

In 2001, Texas became the first state to offer in-state tuition to illegals. Back then, Democrats had a slim majority in the state House, but the “Texas Dream Act” had bipartisan support, with only four of 181 legislators voting against it. Republicans bought into the idea that better-educated illegals would bolster the state’s labor force and its economy, and then-Governor Rick Perry gave full support — a stance he had to defend at a Republican debate during his failed 2012 presidential campaign. While this clip stops short, the audience answered with a mix of vigorous applause and hearty boos.

Keep reading

Senator John Kennedy Humiliates Far-Left Ivy League Law Professor After Catching Her in a Huge Lie During Fiery Debate on Nationwide Injunctions

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) is famous in the U.S. Senate for his incisive wit and dry sense of humor. He has displayed these talents during his time as an elected official, whether by stumping unqualified Biden nominees or in interviews with reporters.

He delivered once again on Tuesday as he completely exposed and humiliated a far-left Ivy League law professor during a fiery debate on nationwide injunctions. As TGP readers know, activist judges around the country have subverted the U.S. Constitution for months for the sole purpose of sabotaging President Trump’s agenda.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw, the wife of radical-left MSNBC host Chris Hayes, spoke during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled “The Supposedly ‘Least Dangerous Branch’: District Judges v. Trump” to gaslight the senators on the subject and tried to play dumb at various points when questioned.

But Kennedy refused to let Shaw spin her way through the hearing. Beginning with a question about nationwide injunctions being abused, Kennedy immediately exposed Shaw’s hypocrisy.

Keep reading

UNCC official ‘no longer employed’ after being caught on video saying she covertly pushes DEI

A University of North Carolina Charlotte administrator who was secretly recorded admitting to finding ways to advance diversity, equity and inclusion ideology despite a ban on the ideology is no longer employed.

Accuracy in Media released a video of Janique Sanders on May 28 telling undercover journalists she and other university officials have “renamed,” “reorganized” and “recalibrated” to continue pushing DEI ideology.

Her comments seemed to contrast with a one-year-old University of North Carolina Board of Governors ban on DEI offices and programs systemwide.

“If you’re looking for an outward DEI position, it’s not going to happen,” she said on the edited video. “But if you are interested in doing work that is covert, there are opportunities.”

In a statement to The College Fix on Wednesday, UNCC’s spokesperson Christy Jackson said the “employee’s statements were inaccurate and do not reflect the University’s actions.”

“…The individual featured in the video had no policymaking authority, no role in compliance matters and was not authorized to speak on these issues. Following an internal review, the individual is no longer employed by UNC Charlotte,” Jackson said via email.

Keep reading

North Carolina University Dean Ousted After Admitting to Secretive DEI Push

University of North Carolina Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh has been removed after admitting to secretly pushing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

“I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet,” Pugh told an undercover journalist in a video released by Accuracy in Media.

“I love breaking rules,” the university dean said.

Pugh’s comments follow after the North Carolina System Board of Governor voted to virtually ban controversial DEI practices and pivot to “institutional neutrality.”

The video also shows Pugh agreeing when asked if “breaking rules” is “why y’all kind of spread it out and stuff?”

“Part of it is that, part of it is just because we don’t have a dedicated office for it anymore, it’s easier to maintain,” she admitted.

“Until more or less they get mad at us, but they haven’t done it yet,” she continued.

She responded affirmatively when asked if the school administration was generally supportive of the ways that DEI is still being implemented at the university.

A UNC Asheville spokesperson said the school is “aware of a video in which an employee makes comments implying that the University does not comply with UNC System policies or legal requirements and supports employees disregarding such obligations.”

“These remarks do not represent the practices of UNC Asheville. The University remains firmly committed to upholding all UNC System policies as well as federal and state laws, both in principle and in practice,” the statement continued.

Keep reading

‘Zombie DEI’: Is this med school circumventing the law?

A medical watchdog thinks the University of Kansas’ medical school is engaging in “zombie DEI” initiatives, even though diversity, equity, and inclusion projects are banned by state and federal law.

“Rebranding DEI as ‘health equity’ or other such terms is a clear effort to skirt state law in the name of woke ideology. Medical schools should drop their DEI agenda,” Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb told The Daily Signal. “Instead, they should focus on merit as the basis for recruitment and admission decisions, and lawmakers should target schools that fail to comply with state laws.”

President Donald Trump has signed a number of executive orders banning diversity, equity, and inclusion discrimination in the federal workforce, in higher education accreditation, and in government-funded education.

A Kansas law prohibited the requirement of “pledging allegiance to, or making a statement of personal support for or opposition to, any political ideology or movement, including a pledge or statement regarding diversity, equity, or inclusion, or to request or require any such pledge or statement from an applicant or faculty member.”

But the University of Kansas Medical Center School of Medicine requires students to meet “diversity objectives and competencies” through assignments that demand a focus on “social determinants to health,” the watchdog group Do No Harm uncovered.

The School of Medicine at the University of Kansas also provides Health Equity Medical Education Consults.

“This opportunity is for the School of Medicine faculty who interface with learners at all stages (postbaccalaureate and medical students, residents, fellows and other faculty) to seek guidance in making your teaching more equitable and inclusive,” the website reads.

The accompanying PDF features “Race and Ethnicity” at the top of the list of topics that faculty members can receive guidance on.

Keep reading

Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty

A renowned Harvard University professor was stripped of her tenure and fired after an investigation found she fabricated data on multiple studies focused on dishonesty. 

Francesca Gino, a celebrated behavioral scientist at Harvard Business School, was let go after the school’s top governing board determined she tweaked observations in four studies so that their findings boosted her hypotheses, GHB reported.

Harvard administrators notified business faculty that Gino was out of a job in a closed-door meeting this past week, the outlet reported.

Harvard did not detail the professor’s firing or tenure being stripped — citing it as a personnel matter — but told GHB that the school had not revoked a professor’s tenure in decades.

No professors have had their tenure revoked at Harvard since the 1940s, when the American Association of University Professors formalized termination rules, according to The Harvard Crimson.

Keep reading

‘60 Minutes’ anchor Scott Pelley ripped for ‘angry, unhinged’ commencement speech criticizing Trump

Outraged critics blasted longtime “60 Minutes” anchor Scott Pelley as “angry” and “unhinged” after he delivered a fear-laced tirade against President Trump during a commencement speech in North Carolina.

The CBS newscaster warned Wake Forest University’s graduating class on May 19 that “insidious fear” has infiltrated schools, businesses, and homes across the nation — leaving America in a state of “peril.”

“Your country needs you — the country that has given you so much is calling you, the class of 2025, your country needs you and it needs you today,” Pelley said during his grandiose sermon-like speech.

“This morning our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack, universities are under attack, freedom of speech is under attack and insidious fear is reaching throughout schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts,” he continued.

“The fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln’s phrase ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ then why are we afraid to speak? Ignorance works for power. Power can change the definition of the words we used to describe reality. This is an old playbook, my friends. There is nothing new in this.”

Keep reading

President Trump Threatens to Take $3 Billion of Grant Money from Harvard and Give It to Trade Schools Across the US

Another brilliant idea from President Trump.

On Memorial Day morning, President Donald Trump posted a warning on TRUTH Social that he may take $3 billion in grant money from Harvard and redistribute it to trade schools across the US.

Trump’s really backing the they/them crowd into a corner!

What a great move that would be! And he wouldn’t be funding the whiny young communists at Harvard.

President Trump then let the country know that Harvard is withholding foreign student lists from the administration so that the government can figure out how many of the radicalized lunatics, troublemakers, should not be let back into the country.

Keep reading