Gotta love it when a widely respected major media outlet actually defends President Donald Trump’s $400M cuts to institutions that make no serious effort to combat antisemitism.
Indeed, anti-Trump critics have been up in arms about Ivy League schools, in particularly Columbia University, receiving long overdue comeuppance for creating a remarkably unsafe environment for Jewish students on campus.
Some critics have even gone as far as calling Trump’s $400M funding cuts to Columbia University an assault on free speech, such as Peter Beinart.
“We are witnessing the greatest assault on campus free speech in decades,” Beinart ominously intoned.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course an anti-Trump critic would refer to the administration enforcing federal action against federally funded, out of control institutions, as “the greatest assault on campus free speech.”
Especially as many universities have the gall to put up “free speech zones” around their supposedly open-minded campuses.
Little wonder that even The Hill provided a bit of perspective.
A recent opinion piece in The Hill makes it abundantly clear that quite a few critics have gone a little too crazy in their criticism, especially regarding the Trump administration.
“The Trump administration’s decision to cut $400 million of federal grants to Columbia University is intended to influence the actions of university administrators. Its goal is to incentivize them to do more to protect Jewish and pro-Israel students from antisemitic harassment,” The Hill reported.
Well, a rather reasonable action to be frank. Why should federal funds go to institutions that turn a blind eye to threats against Jewish students?
“Will this curtail peaceful and thus legitimate free speech on affected university campuses?” The Hill pondered.
Right. As if “legitimate free speech” is so valued at woke universities.
Little wonder that The Hill put them in place shortly thereafter.
“What these critics fail to acknowledge is that there are dangers to free speech on both sides – in inaction as well as overreaction,” The Hill asserted.
Without a doubt!
“There is, of course, always the danger that campus administrators might go too far in protecting Jewish students by limiting peaceful anti-Israel protests. But there is little evidence that the legitimate free speech rights of anti-Israel peaceful protesters are being abridged,” The Hill continued.
Excellent. In other words, The Hill basically admits that the anti-Trump critics’ claims lack evidence, at least as far as supposed restrictions on free speech are concerned.
Which is made rather clear in its literal schooling of said critics with First Amendment realities.
“The First Amendment does not prohibit private universities from applying a double standard against Jews and Zionists or in favor of groups deemed to be privileged under the affirmative action guidelines of DEI or intersectionality. But the government, in deciding whether to give taxpayer money to private or public institutions, does have the power to withhold funds from schools that apply invidious standards,” The Hilldeclared.
Without a doubt, once again … which is why Trump is well within his rights to do what he did.
Without violating the First Amendment a single iota …
Author: Jane Jones
