Joey Fishkin
@fishkin.bsky.social
Law prof @ UCLA. I study equality and oligarchy.
Most recent book @ https://anti-oligarchy.com
Most recent book @ https://anti-oligarchy.com
There are so many things this opinion does well. Consider this passage which outlines and NAMES the specific tactic the Trump administration is using against (many!) universities: The "Task Force Policy."
This is accurate. It helps to name a policy if you're going to issue an injunction against it.
This is accurate. It helps to name a policy if you're going to issue an injunction against it.
November 15, 2025 at 6:04 AM
There are so many things this opinion does well. Consider this passage which outlines and NAMES the specific tactic the Trump administration is using against (many!) universities: The "Task Force Policy."
This is accurate. It helps to name a policy if you're going to issue an injunction against it.
This is accurate. It helps to name a policy if you're going to issue an injunction against it.
But it's still an enormous victory for the University of California, which—documents and testimony showed—had already begun repressing speech, refusing to approve funds, and so on, in an attempt to mollify the administration's illegal, First Amendment-violating demands.
November 15, 2025 at 3:38 AM
But it's still an enormous victory for the University of California, which—documents and testimony showed—had already begun repressing speech, refusing to approve funds, and so on, in an attempt to mollify the administration's illegal, First Amendment-violating demands.
I mean, the first paragraph lays it all out.
The President, VP, and Agency officials, including the head of the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, told us exactly what they intended to do & then did, which was use pretextual civil rights claims to impose ideological control on universities.
The President, VP, and Agency officials, including the head of the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, told us exactly what they intended to do & then did, which was use pretextual civil rights claims to impose ideological control on universities.
November 15, 2025 at 2:00 AM
I mean, the first paragraph lays it all out.
The President, VP, and Agency officials, including the head of the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, told us exactly what they intended to do & then did, which was use pretextual civil rights claims to impose ideological control on universities.
The President, VP, and Agency officials, including the head of the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, told us exactly what they intended to do & then did, which was use pretextual civil rights claims to impose ideological control on universities.
The incredible shrinking attack on U.S. universities continues.
Cornell has signed an agreement—but unlike the UVA agreement, instead of pledging to follow the gov't's highly questionable July "guidance" on discrimination, Cornell simply agrees to hand it out to faculty as a "training resource"!
Cornell has signed an agreement—but unlike the UVA agreement, instead of pledging to follow the gov't's highly questionable July "guidance" on discrimination, Cornell simply agrees to hand it out to faculty as a "training resource"!
November 7, 2025 at 5:32 PM
The incredible shrinking attack on U.S. universities continues.
Cornell has signed an agreement—but unlike the UVA agreement, instead of pledging to follow the gov't's highly questionable July "guidance" on discrimination, Cornell simply agrees to hand it out to faculty as a "training resource"!
Cornell has signed an agreement—but unlike the UVA agreement, instead of pledging to follow the gov't's highly questionable July "guidance" on discrimination, Cornell simply agrees to hand it out to faculty as a "training resource"!
The utter embarrassment that is the LA Times leadership has added a sort of bias-meter at the bottom of the column, image below, by an AI called "Particle," which writes:
"This article generally aligns with a LEFT point of view."
I guess the AI/LAT considers the anti-racist position the left,,,
"This article generally aligns with a LEFT point of view."
I guess the AI/LAT considers the anti-racist position the left,,,
November 4, 2025 at 4:23 PM
The utter embarrassment that is the LA Times leadership has added a sort of bias-meter at the bottom of the column, image below, by an AI called "Particle," which writes:
"This article generally aligns with a LEFT point of view."
I guess the AI/LAT considers the anti-racist position the left,,,
"This article generally aligns with a LEFT point of view."
I guess the AI/LAT considers the anti-racist position the left,,,
As the draft makes clear at paragraph 66, they interpret FERPA—the statute that prevents schools from releasing student data without their consent—to not apply to any of the provisions in this agreement.
Everything goes to the Resolution Monitor AND the DOJ.
They promise to keep it confidential.
Everything goes to the Resolution Monitor AND the DOJ.
They promise to keep it confidential.
October 26, 2025 at 11:00 PM
As the draft makes clear at paragraph 66, they interpret FERPA—the statute that prevents schools from releasing student data without their consent—to not apply to any of the provisions in this agreement.
Everything goes to the Resolution Monitor AND the DOJ.
They promise to keep it confidential.
Everything goes to the Resolution Monitor AND the DOJ.
They promise to keep it confidential.
There's a throwaway line about FERPA (which these paragraphs obviously and wildly violate); but in general it seems that UCLA would be agreeing to provide basically all relevant documents and data to the Resolution Monitor on request—and also to the DOJ itself.
October 26, 2025 at 10:42 PM
There's a throwaway line about FERPA (which these paragraphs obviously and wildly violate); but in general it seems that UCLA would be agreeing to provide basically all relevant documents and data to the Resolution Monitor on request—and also to the DOJ itself.
About that Monitor: it appears that this person will have an unprecedented degree of access to internal UCLA "documents and data," communications, disciplinary hearings, and so on, with limited exceptions such as attorney-client privilege that don't generally shield faculty, staff, or students.
October 26, 2025 at 10:39 PM
About that Monitor: it appears that this person will have an unprecedented degree of access to internal UCLA "documents and data," communications, disciplinary hearings, and so on, with limited exceptions such as attorney-client privilege that don't generally shield faculty, staff, or students.
This provision, paragraph 31, says that anyone in the community who thinks UCLA has not, in their opinion, followed some part of this agreement with its many vague terms, needs an internal complaint mechanism—and the complaints don't stay within UCLA, but are kicked up to an outside "Monitor" too.
October 26, 2025 at 10:32 PM
This provision, paragraph 31, says that anyone in the community who thinks UCLA has not, in their opinion, followed some part of this agreement with its many vague terms, needs an internal complaint mechanism—and the complaints don't stay within UCLA, but are kicked up to an outside "Monitor" too.
The second part is the old Richard Kahlenberg argument, that recruiting some poor kids will indirectly get you some racial diversity too.
It's true, but now the valence has been flipped. If UCLA does it, the "statistical analysis" will show a gap between minority and white SAT scores ➡️ a violation.
It's true, but now the valence has been flipped. If UCLA does it, the "statistical analysis" will show a gap between minority and white SAT scores ➡️ a violation.
October 26, 2025 at 4:58 PM
The second part is the old Richard Kahlenberg argument, that recruiting some poor kids will indirectly get you some racial diversity too.
It's true, but now the valence has been flipped. If UCLA does it, the "statistical analysis" will show a gap between minority and white SAT scores ➡️ a violation.
It's true, but now the valence has been flipped. If UCLA does it, the "statistical analysis" will show a gap between minority and white SAT scores ➡️ a violation.
Like the "compact," this draft demands UCLA report all individual students' race and standardized test scores for "statistical analysis."
Currently the university does not require or consider the SAT/ACT.
To comply with this provision of the draft settlement, that would have to change, and...
Currently the university does not require or consider the SAT/ACT.
To comply with this provision of the draft settlement, that would have to change, and...
October 26, 2025 at 3:01 PM
Like the "compact," this draft demands UCLA report all individual students' race and standardized test scores for "statistical analysis."
Currently the university does not require or consider the SAT/ACT.
To comply with this provision of the draft settlement, that would have to change, and...
Currently the university does not require or consider the SAT/ACT.
To comply with this provision of the draft settlement, that would have to change, and...
The provision is framed as a claim that universities can't use personal statements to re-introduce race as an admissions criterion. SFFA says this too, but the draft omits the other half of what it says (see pic): universities CAN take into account applicants' personal narratives related to race.
![At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. See, e.g., 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 17251726, 1741; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 10. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:lk7uo6am33d4qdo6q4znzxuk/bafkreidv2olc5uksji4ecepy2octwizek2b5rr2ysb5falmgenrgx4g7fy@jpeg)
October 26, 2025 at 2:48 PM
The provision is framed as a claim that universities can't use personal statements to re-introduce race as an admissions criterion. SFFA says this too, but the draft omits the other half of what it says (see pic): universities CAN take into account applicants' personal narratives related to race.
First: The Supreme Court in SFFA in 2023 specifically refused to go so far as to tell universities they could not take into account essays / personal statements that touch on race in some way.
This draft agreement, amid all the talk about "diversity statements," quietly does exactly that.
This draft agreement, amid all the talk about "diversity statements," quietly does exactly that.
October 26, 2025 at 2:40 PM
First: The Supreme Court in SFFA in 2023 specifically refused to go so far as to tell universities they could not take into account essays / personal statements that touch on race in some way.
This draft agreement, amid all the talk about "diversity statements," quietly does exactly that.
This draft agreement, amid all the talk about "diversity statements," quietly does exactly that.
The draft is poorly drafted. It refers to the Feinberg School of Medicine which is at Northwestern, not UCLA.
It refers repeatedly to a separate "Title VII Agreement" which was not included; people closer to this story than I am have guessed that this may also be copy-pasted from some other school.
It refers repeatedly to a separate "Title VII Agreement" which was not included; people closer to this story than I am have guessed that this may also be copy-pasted from some other school.
October 26, 2025 at 2:34 PM
The draft is poorly drafted. It refers to the Feinberg School of Medicine which is at Northwestern, not UCLA.
It refers repeatedly to a separate "Title VII Agreement" which was not included; people closer to this story than I am have guessed that this may also be copy-pasted from some other school.
It refers repeatedly to a separate "Title VII Agreement" which was not included; people closer to this story than I am have guessed that this may also be copy-pasted from some other school.
Part of being on a college campus is that people are going to say things you find offensive and/or uncomfortable. (Uninhibited, robust, wide-open, etc.)
So how can DOJ force UCLA to cater to and minimize such discomfort? With a requirement to conduct surveys about antisemitic "campus climate"—
So how can DOJ force UCLA to cater to and minimize such discomfort? With a requirement to conduct surveys about antisemitic "campus climate"—
October 26, 2025 at 4:12 AM
Part of being on a college campus is that people are going to say things you find offensive and/or uncomfortable. (Uninhibited, robust, wide-open, etc.)
So how can DOJ force UCLA to cater to and minimize such discomfort? With a requirement to conduct surveys about antisemitic "campus climate"—
So how can DOJ force UCLA to cater to and minimize such discomfort? With a requirement to conduct surveys about antisemitic "campus climate"—
For instance, consider the provision requiring UCLA to establish processes to avoid admitting or recruiting "foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions."
Let's think a minute about how that's going to be enforced.
Let's think a minute about how that's going to be enforced.
October 26, 2025 at 3:32 AM
For instance, consider the provision requiring UCLA to establish processes to avoid admitting or recruiting "foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions."
Let's think a minute about how that's going to be enforced.
Let's think a minute about how that's going to be enforced.
So when I got to the arbitration clause in this proposed UCLA settlement I thought, well, that's probably better than the alternative.
But then I read the clause and was surprised at what it said: arbitration is "non-binding, advisory only" and *inadmissible* in court—where either party can sue.
But then I read the clause and was surprised at what it said: arbitration is "non-binding, advisory only" and *inadmissible* in court—where either party can sue.
October 26, 2025 at 3:14 AM
So when I got to the arbitration clause in this proposed UCLA settlement I thought, well, that's probably better than the alternative.
But then I read the clause and was surprised at what it said: arbitration is "non-binding, advisory only" and *inadmissible* in court—where either party can sue.
But then I read the clause and was surprised at what it said: arbitration is "non-binding, advisory only" and *inadmissible* in court—where either party can sue.
It requires UCLA to continue to pour money down the drain of private security forces on campus aimed at our own students' potential protest activities—something that the university, sadly, is already doing and has been doing since April 2024.
(Why do they need to be _private_? Odd, & not good.)
(Why do they need to be _private_? Odd, & not good.)
October 25, 2025 at 11:39 PM
It requires UCLA to continue to pour money down the drain of private security forces on campus aimed at our own students' potential protest activities—something that the university, sadly, is already doing and has been doing since April 2024.
(Why do they need to be _private_? Odd, & not good.)
(Why do they need to be _private_? Odd, & not good.)
UCLA would also have to agree to flatly prohibit ALL protest in "academic buildings and places where academic activities take place"—the latter category being a bit vague.
That's the sort of rule that led to Harvard suspending the library privileges of many of its faculty members in 2024...
That's the sort of rule that led to Harvard suspending the library privileges of many of its faculty members in 2024...
October 25, 2025 at 11:36 PM
UCLA would also have to agree to flatly prohibit ALL protest in "academic buildings and places where academic activities take place"—the latter category being a bit vague.
That's the sort of rule that led to Harvard suspending the library privileges of many of its faculty members in 2024...
That's the sort of rule that led to Harvard suspending the library privileges of many of its faculty members in 2024...
Most of of the words of these paragraphs are devoted to proclaiming (oddly, for a forward-looking "settlement") that there was a Jew Exclusion zone in 2024 and Jewish students and faculty were blocked from "classroom buldings and Powell Library."
Spoiler: that did not occur.
(See my linked post)
Spoiler: that did not occur.
(See my linked post)
October 25, 2025 at 10:22 PM
Most of of the words of these paragraphs are devoted to proclaiming (oddly, for a forward-looking "settlement") that there was a Jew Exclusion zone in 2024 and Jewish students and faculty were blocked from "classroom buldings and Powell Library."
Spoiler: that did not occur.
(See my linked post)
Spoiler: that did not occur.
(See my linked post)
Similarly, the agreement spells out in excruciating detail a whole humiliating political dance where UCLA will write individual letters of apology to any cisgender female athletes who missed out on "Recognitions" due to the presence of a trans athlete.
Is there even one real example of this?
Is there even one real example of this?
![b. Officially recognize the restoration of all individual Recognitions that female
athletes earned and would have been given but for the Recognitions being given to
15
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND FRE 408
male athletes who competed in women’s athletics, regardless of whether the female
athlete remains currently, or is no longer, a student enrolled at UCLA.
c. Submit to OCR a list of all the reviews and restoration/correction actions described
in this section. UCLA will send [highlight] a personalized letter of apology to each impacted female athlete [/highlight]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:lk7uo6am33d4qdo6q4znzxuk/bafkreih4jqt5timeflzks7cteaobmlaf5phdk3pklhoinodpuyzwj623r4@jpeg)
October 25, 2025 at 10:08 PM
Similarly, the agreement spells out in excruciating detail a whole humiliating political dance where UCLA will write individual letters of apology to any cisgender female athletes who missed out on "Recognitions" due to the presence of a trans athlete.
Is there even one real example of this?
Is there even one real example of this?
Genital surgery on minors? That's not really a thing, at UCLA or elsewhere—you are many years into treatment before anyone gets that—but this right-wing-fantasy narrative is politically important so it's most of paragraph 39.
But they also slip in a ban on "hormonal interventions"
But they also slip in a ban on "hormonal interventions"
October 25, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Genital surgery on minors? That's not really a thing, at UCLA or elsewhere—you are many years into treatment before anyone gets that—but this right-wing-fantasy narrative is politically important so it's most of paragraph 39.
But they also slip in a ban on "hormonal interventions"
But they also slip in a ban on "hormonal interventions"
Second and more important, read Paragraph 8.
The gov't agrees, for now (until it sours on UVA and cancels the agreement), to "treat UVA as eligible for grants, funding, contracts, and awards on the same basis as other universities, and no less favorable than hose available to any other university"
The gov't agrees, for now (until it sours on UVA and cancels the agreement), to "treat UVA as eligible for grants, funding, contracts, and awards on the same basis as other universities, and no less favorable than hose available to any other university"
October 23, 2025 at 3:58 AM
Second and more important, read Paragraph 8.
The gov't agrees, for now (until it sours on UVA and cancels the agreement), to "treat UVA as eligible for grants, funding, contracts, and awards on the same basis as other universities, and no less favorable than hose available to any other university"
The gov't agrees, for now (until it sours on UVA and cancels the agreement), to "treat UVA as eligible for grants, funding, contracts, and awards on the same basis as other universities, and no less favorable than hose available to any other university"
Apparatchik: "No way—I'm not the activist with extreme views, YOU are the activist with extreme views."
Journalism / Academia / Any form of expertise: "Why is that?"
Apparatchik: "Because my party won more votes in the last election...and elections are the only method of determining what is true."
Journalism / Academia / Any form of expertise: "Why is that?"
Apparatchik: "Because my party won more votes in the last election...and elections are the only method of determining what is true."
October 12, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Apparatchik: "No way—I'm not the activist with extreme views, YOU are the activist with extreme views."
Journalism / Academia / Any form of expertise: "Why is that?"
Apparatchik: "Because my party won more votes in the last election...and elections are the only method of determining what is true."
Journalism / Academia / Any form of expertise: "Why is that?"
Apparatchik: "Because my party won more votes in the last election...and elections are the only method of determining what is true."
If your university will not remake itself in Marc Rowan & May Mailman's preferred image, it can expect a complete shutoff of "federal funds."
To emphasize the point Rowan says it again: "THEY NEED NOT ACCEPT FEDERAL FUNDING"
I hope this will put to rest the credulous "carrot not stick" narrative.
To emphasize the point Rowan says it again: "THEY NEED NOT ACCEPT FEDERAL FUNDING"
I hope this will put to rest the credulous "carrot not stick" narrative.
October 11, 2025 at 5:12 AM
If your university will not remake itself in Marc Rowan & May Mailman's preferred image, it can expect a complete shutoff of "federal funds."
To emphasize the point Rowan says it again: "THEY NEED NOT ACCEPT FEDERAL FUNDING"
I hope this will put to rest the credulous "carrot not stick" narrative.
To emphasize the point Rowan says it again: "THEY NEED NOT ACCEPT FEDERAL FUNDING"
I hope this will put to rest the credulous "carrot not stick" narrative.