newYou can listen to Fox's news articles!
Editor's Note: The following column was first published in City Journal and author Substack.
A few years ago, author Christopher Caldwell changed the conversation with his book, The Age of Qualification. The book argued that the citizenship regime, founded in the 1960s, marked a fundamental departure from American constitutional tradition. Caldwell was launched with the noble intention of stopping racism, but the civil rights law and the bureaucracy it created became a means of entrenching left-wing racist ideology throughout the American system.
In the subsequent decades, the right response was marked by ambivalence. Some libertarians called for the repeal of the civil rights law, but like many libertarians' suggestions, this was by no means a political possibility. Meanwhile, the establishment rights largely suppressed that private uncertainty. Republicans have repeatedly voted, voted to expand the citizenship regime, and embedded questionable concepts such as different theories of shock into the law.
Now all of this has changed. After a successful battle with the DEI, political rights came to accept that if there must be a citizenship system, it should be one of its own work. Rather than continuing to postpone the left-wing interpretation of civil rights law, the right can advance a framework based on colour flame equality rather than racist ideology.
Is Harvard worthy of war with Trump, or is the government stepping over it? Campus responds to the fundraising fight
The first area of the battle is higher education. The Trump administration has set its sights on Ivy League University, which has not only advanced left-wing racism ideology, but has also made it an administrative policy.
Many Ivy League presidents see themselves as heirs to the civil rights movement. In fact, they are one of the most active practitioners of racism, stereotypes and segregation in America today. Protected by a noble public image, the elite universities had institutionalized discrimination against disadvantaged racial groups, implemented DEI policies based on racial rewards and penalties, hired and promoted faculty based on skin color rather than merit, and oversaw racially segregated student programs, domiters and graduation ceremonies.
The Trump administration has broken this illusion. In a series of letters to the Ivy League presidents, he threatened to withhold billions of federal funding, citing violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other non-discrimination policies.
The argument is simple: racism is wrong whether it targets white people, Asians, Jews, blacks and Hispanics. Institutions that continue to discriminate based on race are not suitable for federal support.
Many Ivy League presidents see themselves as heirs to the civil rights movement. In fact, they are one of the most active practitioners of racism, stereotypes and segregation in America today.
Critics call this approach “weaponize citizenship law.” However, citizenship law has always been a weapon, and conservatives have finally decided to exercise it.
Harvard was accused of refusing to comply with Trump's manager's demands amid anti-Semitic fights
The Ivy League president has a hard time understanding and dealing with the moment. Columbia University interim president Katrina Armstrong was caught in a crossfire between the state and the academy, admitting Trump's demands and quickly lost her position. Princeton President Christopher Eisgluber, who presided over one of the nation's most racially discriminatory academic institutions, tried to cast himself as a hero in resisting President Donald Trump.
I have been engaged in arm length discussions with Eyes Gruber through each appearance on the New York Times Podcast. Meanwhile, he called my name as an enemy and I responded kindly.
After carefully listening to his position, I concluded that he didn't understand his arguments or frankly either myself. Eyesguber claims to be advocating for a noble cause, the tradition of American citizenship. The reality is that he defends the university's racist policies.
For more information about Fox News, click here
Eisgruber argues that federal intervention is illegal, but he has no basis for standing. Consider the historic precedent: If pressed, I am sure President Eisenhower would make a mandatory separation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, allowing the deployment of the 101st Airborne Division to enforce it. What he can't grasp is that, in this analogy, Princeton is Little Rock Central High School and he is Governor Oval Forbes. Princeton is systematically discriminated against on the basis of race and repeatedly violates Color-Blind's principle of equality. This is the core ideal of civil rights law.
No matter what happens in the coming months, the conditions for this debate have changed. The president has ensured that the citizenship system will not be a one-way lever for discriminating against “oppressors” groups and embedding left-wing ideology in elite institutions.
There is a victory debate now. Americans support a “color brand society” rather than a “racially conscious society” with a 3-to-1 margin. Even in left-wing states like California and Washington, voters have consistently passed voting initiatives that show rejecting racism in university administration. As long as we can move this debate forward, the public will see more and more as villains of American racial stories like Eyes Gruber.
Click here to get the Fox News app
The key to the Trump administration is not to blink. All tools should be used freely to ensure that elite American universities adhere to the principles of color blindness equality. If they resist, the president should not hesitate to cut off funds until they comply.
The university operates freely as an independent institution, rejects federal money, but if it chooses to accept billions in taxpayer dollars, it must follow the law.
Welcome to the new right-wing citizenship system.
For more information about Christopher F. Rufo, click here
