UCLA now…Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will anti-Zionist Jews and Arab students left defenseless by UCLA during a Zionist attack be allowed to submit claims to the anti-discrimination fund?

Exactly. Nearly 100.00% of the civil rights violations and actual crimes committed on the UCLA campus during the protests last year were committed by Zionist terrorists that descended on the campus with flare guns, illegal fireworks, and various weapons to attack and harm those protesting the genocide in Gaza and the UC system’s refusal to cooperate with the collective voice of its students.

It’s documented. It’s unequivocal. The civil rights violators and terrorists were Zionists. Full stop.

That "incident" was a bunch of Huntington Beach Proud Boy morons descending on UCLA.

Maybe get off social media for a minute and take a deep breathe. And maybe talk to some people in California.

[Anonymous]

There is also a new executive order on grant funding that overhauls the entire system (what will happen in the transition period?), will only fund projects that align with Trump's interests, and which can be turned off arbitrarily. This makes it pretty much impossible to use grant funding to fund graduate students or to commit to long term research projects, as you won't know beyond one year how much money your lab has. In my mind, it's a huge disincentive for universities to pay the extortion fees to the government.
The people who wrote this executive order have no idea how grant funding is used. I am worried that executive orders in other areas are also written by similarly ignorant employees, which worries me about our national security, international treaties etc.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:There is also a new executive order on grant funding that overhauls the entire system (what will happen in the transition period?), will only fund projects that align with Trump's interests, and which can be turned off arbitrarily. This makes it pretty much impossible to use grant funding to fund graduate students or to commit to long term research projects, as you won't know beyond one year how much money your lab has. In my mind, it's a huge disincentive for universities to pay the extortion fees to the government.
The people who wrote this executive order have no idea how grant funding is used. I am worried that executive orders in other areas are also written by similarly ignorant employees, which worries me about our national security, international treaties etc.

Actually they know exactly how the funding is used and how to control it. New world order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is he working his way down the list of schools that rejected Barron or something?

Probably

[Anonymous]

Why don’t universities fight this extortion, make them prove there was “discrimination”. It’s cheaper than shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Anonymous]

UCLA has been violating civil rights law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
UCLA is rich enough. Hard working taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to make UCLA even more wealthy.

Well then why only target certain schools, bird brain? This is the most obvious politically driven move that I have even seen a US presidential administration take. Seriously, I’m struggling to think of another. It’s absolute lunacy and driven by lunatics…with support from bird brains. That’s all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UCLA has been violating civil rights law.

Can you name the civil law violated? Serious question

[Anonymous]

F--- Trump.

UCLA is test blind anyway and since grading varies significantly across different schools, there is no "objective" criteria for them to evaluate. Everything is holistic or subjective.

It's all about the essays and EC list.

doubt the fed lawyers can make a clear case here since they don't take any AP, SAT or ACT tests and are TEST BLIND.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:F--- Trump.

UCLA is test blind anyway and since grading varies significantly across different schools, there is no "objective" criteria for them to evaluate. Everything is holistic or subjective.

It's all about the essays and EC list.

doubt the fed lawyers can make a clear case here since they don't take any AP, SAT or ACT tests and are TEST BLIND.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA has been violating civil rights law.

Can you name the civil law violated? Serious question

It failed to crush the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestinian protesters with jackboots and clubs. This kind omission now constitutes antisemitism. First Amendment rights should only be protected when they involve a violent insurrection in the Capitol or tiki-torch welding protofascists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stand up America!!! Stand the fk up!

This is fascism.

Where are all the colleges? Only like 16 signed the amicus brief for Harvard.

So gross. Why aren’t they sticking together and protesting this corruption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
UCLA is rich enough. Hard working taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to make UCLA even more wealthy.

Well then why only target certain schools, bird brain? This is the most obvious politically driven move that I have even seen a US presidential administration take. Seriously, I’m struggling to think of another. It’s absolute lunacy and driven by lunatics…with support from bird brains. That’s all

Yup. When they go after Liberty U…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about he focus on the economy? Instead of his personal revenge vendetta tour ?

You sure you want him focusing on the economy?

I feel like it would be better off left alone

[Anonymous]

Frankel v UCLA-
UCLA allowed protestors to stop Jewish students from entering buildings/crossing parts of campus unless they verbally disclaimed Israel's right to exist. That is conduct, not speech, you get to shout hate but you don't get to block or limit other students access to campus. These offenders were subject to the school's code of conduct and should have been expelled or otherwise prevented (i.e. arrested if needed). Straight up discrimination on the basis of religion/national origin not speech and not protected