>> 3 Illinois universities are facing federal investigations over diversity, equity and inclusion.

Programming.

It comes as the U.S. Education Department in February issued a leather, a letter instructing educational institutions to stop, quote, using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring promotion compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies and all other aspects of student academic and campus life.

If they don't hate it here, those universities risk losing federal funding.

Joining us to discuss more are Xavier Amy, CEO of Justice and formed a social impact consulting firm and via Zoom.

We have Jacob Hubert president of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, a not-for-profit litigation from gentlemen.

Welcome back.

Glad we can regenerate the So as we mentioned, the University of Chicago is among nearly 50 other institutions under investigation for alleged racial discrimination related to dei programs, mainly the college's partnership with something called The PhD Project.

It's a nonprofit that aims to increase diversity in the business world.

Jacob, going to start with you.

Please under these new federal guidelines is this practice illegal?

>> Well, I hear, you know, as a lawyer be very careful.

I don't know all the specific facts of the case, but I do know that there are programs in private and government universities across the country that to discriminate based on race.

They do give out money give out positions based on race.

And the law has always said that that's a legal and that President Trump has made clear that he's going to enforce that law by denying federal funding institutions that engage in this kind of discrimination.

So if they find this is going on, that expect they will cut funds and they'll be right to do so.

>> When I come back to the argument in just a bit as well.

But Xavier, we know that you're a proponent of dei initiatives, of course, is your work.

What are the consequences of devoted solving programs like the PhD Project?

>> We go back to United States that was in existence Pre 1964.

The Civil Rights Act.

This is an attack on creating equality in America.

The reality is the reason why these programs exist.

And I want to just really anchor on the fact that we need to be very specific about what we mean, we say, discrimination.

These are programs that support disadvantaged persons to create pathways for them into institutions that historically have had no way to actually engage them relative to the issues that they have in their lives outside of campus or the workplace.

And so this is a these are strategies to support people who have not had the ability to enter.

And I think that we need more of this.

If we don't have these types of programs in place, these universities institutions do not actually have strategies that can deal with the societal effects of racism, sexism, gender inequality that keep women out of university and academic programs or black folks and brown folks, they don't have strategies in place to ensure equality of outcome.

And these programs are there to create an opportunity of input to create more of inequality of outcome.

So similarly, northwestern University and Illinois Wesleyan University are among institutions that received a letter outlining potential title 6 violations.

>> Failing to protect Jewish students from Anti-Semitic harassment discrimination.

And of course, that notice it follows a pro Palestinian rallies on college campuses and the Trump administration remains aligned with Israel.

Xavier is this political or is this a true act of solidarity for Jewish communities?

I can't I can't answer whether it's political.

I can say it's one-sided.

The reality is they're not speaking on behalf of the issues of Islamophobia.

I'm someone who believes very strongly.

>> That we should not have any tolerance for Anti-Semitism.

And I believe in the the the responsibility of our country to make sure that its Jewish citizens are protected and at the same time, we understand that our Muslim students and Palestinian students, particularly on these major campuses have not been safe.

They do not have programs are curriculum.

That is specifically there to educate people about Palestine, its history or otherwise.

And the rescinding of these programs support or otherwise.

And to have a one-sided situation where we're just talking about the experience that Jewish students are having on campus is fundamentally what side I think we need to be fit.

They need to be even balanced in Jacob, former Columbia University graduate student and lawful permanent resident Mike Mood.

Kaliyah was arrested by immigration authorities and is.

>> At risk of deportation for what some are saying is punishment for his outspoken pro-Palestinian stance.

Is this setting a dangerous precedent that if you don't align with the president's personal ideologies that you are at risk of deportation.

>> Well, I can't speak to the facts of that case.

I don't know specifically what this person did and didn't do, but certainly it would be disturbing for the president to the targeting people for legal consequences based on what they say based on their political opinions.

A lot of people supported this president because they believe that he would be restoring free speech after is under attack for so many years.

So it would be concerning if you're targeting students, immigrants who ever based on political opinions alone.

Now, if you're talking about association with terrorist organizations are real support for terrorist organizations.

That be another story.

But it's just about speech.

That is something to be concerned about.

>> Jacob, you mentioned this earlier, that universities that don't adhere to the federal guidelines or risk of losing federal funding.

Is that a fair punishment?

>> Definitely because that's that's one of the conditions of taking federal funding is that you're going to comply with federal law?

No question.

You're talking about government institution meeting with State University's.

They have to follow the Constitution and the law anyway.

They all of that just from that alone, they shouldn't be treating people differently based on race or.

And so they should have serious legal consequences just based on that.

But even these private schools, when they take the federal money, it comes with the strings attached.

And if they want that money, it makes sense that they would comply, particularly.

We're talking about these rules that just require them to follow basic American values of treating people equally and not treating people favorably or disfavor believe based on the race.

>> Xavier is pulling federal funding a reasonable response to this issue to not to the operating in dei program.

No.

>> Very simply, no, it's not.

And one of the things that is happening right now as we're seeing is President Trump is continually in court for these executive orders directives.

Much of the language is vague, including the language that was sent to the university's the language in the Dei.

A executive order was has been contested by courts.

The language in his obstruction of funding to U.S. aid has been contended in court.

He's lost a lot of these battles already.

And the challenges that in between that time when funds are not being provided, we're losing incredible supportive services for people who truly do need those funds for their education for their housing, for their social services, etc.

And he's playing this war of attrition right now where it's more asked for forgiveness, not permission.

>> I'm Jacob.

You argue that institution should be able to help level the playing field for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

How do you differentiate that from from a diversity, equity and inclusion initiative?

>> Well, I don't know about leveling the playing field schools absolutely are able to do things to attract and support students who come from a disadvantaged background grew up with without a lot of money or inferior schools are far away from cities and those resources.

Of course, it's it's fine to support students.

newer disadvantage where there is financially or otherwise.

But what's not OK under the Constitution and under federal law is to again, treat people better or worse based on their You can have.

so this.

>> Nobody is saying that schools can help give help to people who need help.

Who what they are saying is that the criterion cannot race.

>> Xavier, is that enough?

Why were why isn't that enough to for the criteria to be basically socioeconomic background, helping those who come from maybe low income first and families.

>> When you look at the black population in America, the majority is experiencing economic hardship in ways of the white population is not.

When you look at the Latino population in America, the Latino population is experiencing economic hardship in ways that white populations are not.

The reality is, is that what we're Jacob is saying that, you know, you should we should have programs for disadvantaged people.

The reality is that in America, that is also something you can track by race.

And we're talking about creating programs and projects and support financial or otherwise.

This isn't to create a preference.

This is to create support in a specific way.

There's no point in at the University Chicago, for example, to where the average white student who is admitted into the university, Chicago is coming from significantly different economic class than the majority of black students and brown students.

There is no reason to create programs that they can tap into for financial support when their families don't need.

What they're asking for is that people who don't need support get access to support and the people that truly do need it because they're black or because they're browned that they don't deserve to get that specifically because that feels like discrimination when it actually just specific support.

>> Could this issue Xavier and then I want to get your thoughts as well, Jacob, it could this eventually impact historically black colleges and universities, women-only institutions.

Of course, all of these that women only institutions, predominately black institutions, HBC use.

Those are all created to deal with what was happening because of the legacy of chattel slavery because of racial capitalism.

Because white supremacy that wasn't in existence by law.

Up until 1965. these programs are not created to create some racial preference out of nowhere they were created because real harms were happening.

And the effect of those harms was racially specific or gender specific and these programs that are being pulled back out of the guise of somehow it's doing harm against persons who don't need need support and who have never experienced racialized harm is that it's a it's a simple bait and switch and it is disingenuous at best.

But it is harmful and absolutely will have an effect on our HBC use at on populations of women.

I expect that we're not going to see as many women and PhD programs.

I expect we're going to see less black people and brown people going into those programs.

And here's what we know.

A PhD programs when you bring persons with minority identities into these programs, they study the experience they had in America.

And we get more clear on what experiences they specifically been having.

That other folks who have a mind of majority experience don't have.

And that allows us to be more accurate in our ability to attend to them and medical institutions or to support them in small business programs or to ensure that their children can survive with a black mothers can survive when they're having babies, because we know that they die more often than white women.

So why would you create programs for white women when they have better outcomes already?

Jacob, same question to you.

>> One of those to the HBC use, of course they don't.

They don't actually discriminate based on race now, at least mean, they don't exclude they don't exclude like people or Asians or any other group.

It as a result, we do have people of different backgrounds attending those schools.

And I expect that you will continue to have people of different backgrounds attending those schools and people who like the traditions of those schools will be drawn to those schools as you don't need any sort of There's there's nothing in the prohibition of race discrimination, that it would stop these schools from doing what they've always done again with this with this target says excluding were including people simply based on their race.

The Constitution says that's a legal federal law says that illegal the Supreme Court has said the illegal and that's all we're talking about here.

There are many, many ways to help disadvantaged people of various backgrounds.

And if more people in certain minority groups are suffering more than that, of course, means that they would be more likely to take advantage of any programs.

But the program still have to be around race and under the they can not do the banks around race.

All right.

Thank you so much.

That's where we're going to