To Execute The Trump Agenda, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Cannot Be Stuck Understaffed
Higher ed’s shield shatters under Trump’s new directive
The Department of Education on Wednesday delivered a long-overdue strike against the activist university system. While headlines focused on Columbia University, the message was broader: Every institution living off federal student loan money now faces pressure from two sides — financial scrutiny and accreditation reform.
As a professor inside the academic machine, I can say this is exactly the disruption higher education needs. If we want universities to educate rather than indoctrinate, this is the pressure point to hit.
The executive order doesn’t just challenge accreditation. It exposes the hypocrisy at the core of modern academia.
One of Donald Trump’s core campaign promises was to overhaul how universities receive accreditation. Most Americans don’t realize it, but accreditation is the golden ticket. Without it, colleges can’t rake in billions from student loans and federal grants. And yet, the organizations in charge of accreditation have turned a blind eye to blatant, systemic discrimination.
They’ve allowed public violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — discrimination under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Conservative faculty are nearly extinct. In DEI-infused hiring committees, ideology has replaced merit. If the roles were reversed, the left would call this what it is: systemic discrimination.
On April 23, Trump signed an executive order titled “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” Its aim is simple: to upend the broken accreditation process and hold universities accountable for civil rights violations.
Here’s the language that has the ivory tower in a panic:
The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall ... investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American law schools that is advanced by the Council, including unlawful "diversity, equity, and inclusion" requirements under the guise of accreditation standards.
Translation: Universities are finally being forced to follow the anti-discrimination laws they pretend to champion.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon followed up by naming Columbia University, noting that the school “looked the other way as Jewish students faced harassment.” That broke Title VI protections. No revocation yet — but the accreditor has been notified. Unless Columbia takes corrective action, its funding could be in jeopardy.
This isn’t just about Columbia. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard unlawfully discriminated with its admissions practices. Elite schools have behaved as if laws don’t apply to them. Now, they’re finding out otherwise.
The rot runs deeper. Across the country, universities have quietly purged conservatives, Christians, and dissenters in favor of radicals, atheists, and left-wing ideologues. Hiring committees dismiss this as "meritocracy" while ensuring no one to the right of Bernie Sanders gets tenure.
RELATED: Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts
Photo by Zhu Ziyu/VCG via Getty Images
At Arizona State University, where I teach, we boast a student body that is 70% female — while faculty can’t even define “woman.” That imbalance raises serious questions. Are men now a legally protected group under Title VI? They should be. Universities that brand masculinity as "toxic" while ignoring misandry are engaged in discrimination, plain and simple.
This moment marks a shift. For decades, the university system cloaked itself in moral superiority while wielding tax dollars like a cudgel. But now, the empire is wobbling. Institutions that once policed speech and purity tests may finally have to explain themselves.
The executive order doesn’t just challenge accreditation. It exposes the hypocrisy at the core of modern academia. Universities broke the law. Now they’re being forced to live under it.
And maybe — just maybe — future professors won’t need to hide their beliefs to keep their jobs. That’s the kind of education reform America deserves.
Karmelo Anthony is no civil rights icon and never will be
Two months have passed since high school senior Karmelo Anthony allegedly fatally stabbed Austin Metcalf at a track meet in Frisco, Texas. The killing sparked national outrage and reopened difficult debates — about race (Karmelo is black, Austin was white), school safety, and the crisis among young men in America.
Also justice. While the Metcalf family mourns — and has to contend with being swatted — Anthony’s bond was reduced and quickly paid. He now awaits trial from the comfort of a new home, funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from supporters. He was even allowed to graduate on May 22, though he did not attend the ceremony.
Quiet policy tweaks won’t cut it. The Frisco school district can’t just wait for the public to move on.
Meanwhile, Anthony’s family and legal team have mounted a public relations offensive. In an outrageous press conference, they blamed Austin’s father, Jeff Metcalf, the Frisco Independent School District, and even systemic racism for Anthony’s predicament.
The strategy is clear: Rebrand Karmelo Anthony as a victim. They want the public to believe he was a mostly peaceful teen forced to act in self-defense after being told to change seats.
No new evidence has emerged in the case, but the existing facts undermine Anthony’s claim of self-defense. He allegedly brought a knife to the event, provoked the confrontation with Metcalf, fled the scene after the stabbing, and later asked a police officer whether he could plead self-defense. His actions — before, during, and after the incident — suggest intent, not fear.
Why did he sit there? Why did he bring a knife? Why did he run?
Red flags all over
Equally troubling is what remains hidden. Notably, Anthony’s social media accounts have been scrubbed. His disciplinary record hasn’t been released — student privacy laws and all that. The school has also withheld any security camera footage. If Anthony truly acted in self-defense — if he sat quietly on a bench and responded only to a threat from a belligerent Austin Metcalf — then that evidence should exist. And it should exonerate him.
But it doesn’t appear to, at least not so far. We may or may not find out, either when the case goes to trial or when Anthony accepts a plea deal and explains his actions to the court.
As I wrote previously, red flags almost certainly existed — flags that should have prompted school officials to remove him from extracurricular activities. They didn’t. And they didn’t because they may have feared the appearance of racism more than the consequences of inaction.
Educator Tillman Plank, who works in North Texas, says that Texas schools routinely discourage direct disciplinary action against disruptive or violent students. Even without the racial angle in Anthony’s case, the system would likely have enabled his behavior — just without the media framing it as a civil rights issue after the fact.
Frisco ISD and other suburban districts that maintain two-tiered discipline systems must abandon these policies immediately. If they don’t, they risk a mass exodus of families — especially with Texas’ new school choice law now in effect.
That legislation passed in April. It allows parents to use public funds to enroll their children in private schools or purchase homeschooling resources. Understandably, many parents fed up with Frisco ISD’s response are actively weighing their options for the next school year.
Even if FISD outperforms most Texas districts on paper, that means little if it can’t keep students safe.
No more half measures
To its credit, the district has taken initial steps to boost supervision and tighten security at public events. Administrators also appear to be preparing disciplinary documentation for students who pose a threat — potentially paving the way for behavior intervention plans or long-term placements at alternative campuses.
Of course, this is the bare minimum a school district should do after a student is murdered at one of its events. Frisco ISD’s leadership must speak up — clearly and publicly — about what steps they’re taking to ensure student safety. Parents deserve to know that students like Karmelo Anthony won’t be given another free pass.
Quiet policy tweaks won’t cut it. FISD can’t just wait for the public to move on.
To restore trust, district officials should first admit where they failed. They need to acknowledge that they could have acted before Austin Metcalf was killed — but didn’t. Why? Possibly because they followed flawed educational theories and caved to progressive posturing.
Owning up to that failure would spark a backlash — especially from non-black families already frustrated by double standards in discipline. And yes, it might force other districts across Texas to come clean and change their own policies.
Good. The alternative is silence, followed by collapse. As families flee for safer options under the Lone Star State’s new school choice law — and you better believe they will — the cost of inaction grows by the day.
By taking bold, transparent action, FISD could finally correct the record. Karmelo Anthony is not a civil rights hero. He’s not the victim of an unjust system. By all available accounts, he belongs in prison. And students across Texas deserve schools willing to keep people like him out of the stands — and off the track.
Leo Terrell Serves Up Brutal Reminder For Harvard President About Student Visas
'This type of conduct should never be tolerated'
George Washington University Slapped With Lawsuit Alleging 'Pervasive and Severe Antisemitic Harassment' on Campus
George Washington University (GW) was sued in federal court by Jewish students on Thursday, alleging it allowed "pervasive and severe antisemitic harassment" on campus for years without any action from the school’s leaders. Students Sabrina Soffer, Ari Shapiro, and a group of anonymous plaintiffs accused GW of failing to address a surge in hostility towards Jewish students, particularly following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by allowing a "hostile educational environment" to flourish unchecked.
The post George Washington University Slapped With Lawsuit Alleging 'Pervasive and Severe Antisemitic Harassment' on Campus appeared first on .
U.S. Universities Have Blood On Their Hands In Latest Violence Against Jews
EXCLUSIVE: Biden Admin Quietly Installed Nearly 200 Attorneys As Ed Dept Pursued Radical Agenda
'American public lost so much trust'
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson bragged about hiring 'our people' — now he's under federal investigation
The Department of Justice opened an investigation into the City of Chicago to determine if it has been hiring based on race or ethnicity.
Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the United States Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) following the politician's remarks about the benefits of having black employees.
'Our investigation is based on information suggesting that you have made hiring decisions solely on the basis of race.'
Dhillon's letter said the Department of Justice is looking to determine if Chicago has engaged in a pattern of discriminatory hiring in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Particularly, Dhillon referenced remarks Mayor Johnson made at the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn, Illinois, about the "number of Black officials in [his] administration."
"Our investigation is based on information suggesting that you have made hiring decisions solely on the basis of race," Dhillon wrote, before listing half a dozen instances where Johnson seemingly bragged about employing a black person while "emphasizing their race."
RELATED: Sanctuary mayors face DOJ criminal referral for allegedly harboring illegal aliens
Marc H. Morial of the National Urban League and Mayor Brandon Johnson in Houston, Texas. Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images for National Urban League
The examples from the civil rights office (which capitalized "black"), all quotes from Mayor Johnson, were as follows:
- "Business and economic neighborhood development, the deputy mayor is a Black woman."
- "Department of planning and development is a Black woman."
- "Infrastructure, deputy mayor is a Black woman."
- "Chief operations officer is a Black man."
- "Budget director is a Black woman."
- "Senior adviser is a Black man."
Dhillon also pointed out that the mayor said he was "laying" those positions "out" to "ensure that our people get a chance to grow their business."
The Chicago politician's office responded by saying the federal government does not reflect the diversity the Illinois city does.
"Our administration reflects the diversity and values of Chicago. Unfortunately, the current federal administration does not reflect either," the mayor's press office said, per NBC News.
RELATED: Why Chicago loves da pope
— (@)
Johnson's remarks on the day in question also included him saying that his critics complain that he talks only about "the hiring of black people."
"No, what I'm saying is when you hire our people, we always look out for everybody else," Johnson claimed. "Having people in my administration that will look out for the interest of everyone, and everyone means you have to look out for the interests of black folks, because that hasn't happened. That's how we ensure long-term sustainable growth."
Dhillon added that if top-level hiring decisions were being made in a discriminatory manner in Chicago, such decisions may also have been made for "lower-level positions."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A Top Law Firm Said Trump Was Infringing on the ‘Rights of All Americans.’ It Runs a Scholarship That Excludes White Students.
The Susman Godfrey Prize, which includes a $4,000 cash award and "ongoing mentoring" from the firm’s attorneys, is typically given to 20 "students of color" at a handful of top law schools. In his executive order targeting the firm, President Donald Trump cited the prize as an example of "blatant discrimination" that should disqualify the firm from government contracts and security clearances.
The post A Top Law Firm Said Trump Was Infringing on the ‘Rights of All Americans.’ It Runs a Scholarship That Excludes White Students. appeared first on .
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories