Updated at 8:20 p.m. ET on June 29, 2025
晚上8:20更新美国东部时间于2025年6月29日
Progressives have long wished that the federal government would more aggressively enforce civil-rights law in higher education. Did they wish upon a monkey’s paw? Since Donald Trump retook the White House, his administration has used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to trap dozens of colleges in the federal equivalent of a headlock, forcing them to submit to sweeping demands or else have their federal funds frozen or foreign students banned.
进步主义者长期以来一直希望联邦政府将在高等教育中更积极地执行民权法。他们是否希望猴子的爪子？自从唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）撤回白宫以来，他的政府已使用1964年的《民权法》（Civil Provert Act）将数十所大学陷入了相当于头锁的联邦，迫使他们屈服于全面的要求，否则将其冻结的联邦资金或外国学生被禁止。
According to Team Trump, it is targeting academics who violate civil-rights laws—by discriminating against Asian Americans in admissions, allowing biological males to compete with females in athletics, tolerating a hostile climate for Jews, or sponsoring DEI programs that malign straight, white, and male students. Critics of Trump’s approach counter that he has ulterior motives. “I consider the Trump administration’s recent use of civil rights law either a pretext or a sick joke—or both,” Richard Delgado, a Seattle University law professor and pioneer of critical race theory, emailed me. “The Administration’s real objective is to intimidate institutions of higher education into doing their bidding.”
根据特朗普团队的说法，它是针对违反民权法的学者，通过歧视亚裔美国人的招生，允许生物男性在田径运动中与女性竞争，可容忍犹太人的敌对气候，或者赞助dei dei计划，这些计划使迪伊（Dei）竞争造成直率，白人和男生和男生。批评特朗普的态度对抗他有别有用心的动机。西雅图大学法学教授兼关键种族理论的先驱理查德·德尔加多（Richard Delgado）向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他向我发送了电子邮件，他给我发送了电子邮件，“我认为特朗普政府最近对民权法的使用是借口或一个生病的笑话，或者两者都很生病。“政府的真正目标是恐吓高等教育机构进行竞标。”
Whatever the intentions, these moves represent a clear shift. Not long ago, it was Democrats who stood accused of overzealous and punitive enforcement. The Department of Education under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden put forth sweeping new interpretations of decades-old civil-rights laws, particularly Title IX. At the time, classical liberals on the left and right (myself among them) warned that, although no one ought to face discrimination, the government’s expansive approach had serious costs: for academic freedom, free speech, free association, the ability of private colleges to self-govern, and the maintenance of a limited federal government. Nevertheless, colleges all over the country began to police the speech of professors and students as never before. Even a tiny, unintentional slight could trigger a months-long ordeal.
无论出于何种意图，这些动作都代表着明显的转变。不久前，民主党人被指控犯有过度狂热和惩罚性的执法。总统巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）和乔·拜登（Joe Biden）领导的教育部对数十年的民权法（尤其是第IX章）提出了新的解释。当时，左右的古典自由主义者（他们中间）警告说，尽管没有人应该面对歧视，但政府的广泛态度却有严重的代价：用于学术自由，自由言论自由，自由联想，私立大学的自我政府能力以及维护有限的联邦政府。尽管如此，全国各地的大学开始向教授和学生的讲话监管以前从未有过的演讲。即使是微小的，无意的轻微，也可能引发一个月的磨难。
Read: The end of college life
阅读：大学生的终结
Now Trump-administration officials are repurposing the illiberal playbook that progressives long deployed. Having seized control of the civil-rights-enforcement apparatus, they are aiming it at parts of civil society that are hostile to the MAGA agenda—including universities. “Civil-rights laws have always been a weapon,” an architect of the new strategy, the activist Christopher Rufo, recently wrote in The Free Press. “Conservatives have finally decided to wield them.”
现在，特朗普管理官员正在重新利用长期部署的渐进式剧本。他们抓住了对民权执法机构的控制权，他们将其瞄准了对玛格加议程（包括大学）敌意的民间社会的部分。新战略的建筑师，激进主义者克里斯托弗·鲁弗（Christopher Rufo）最近在自由出版社中写道：“民权法一直是武器。”“保守派终于决定挥舞他们。”
Protecting basic civil rights is truly important, and many of the prejudices and civil-rights violations that Obama, Biden, and Trump have variously cited are real. For that reason, many Americans are reflexively averse to the idea that there is such a thing as too much civil-rights enforcement. But the aggressive style born under Obama and plied with steroids by Trump is excessive. It serves fringe zealots eager to destroy academia’s independence better than majorities who hope to improve higher education.
保护基本的公民权利确实很重要，奥巴马，拜登和特朗普被称为真实的许多偏见和民权违反行为是真实的。因此，许多美国人反思地反对这样的想法，即存在太多的民权执法。但是，奥巴马下出生的侵略性风格，特朗普与类固醇相处是过分的。它为渴望破坏学术界独立的边缘狂热者服务于希望改善高等教育的大多数人。
If anything good comes from this moment, perhaps it will be that the left learns to recognize the need for new limits on the administrative state. To enact such a reform, lots of Republicans will need to go back to their former position on limiting bureaucratic coercion.
如果这一刻有任何好处，也许左派学会认识到对行政状态的新限制的需求。为了实施这样的改革，许多共和党人需要回到他们以前的局限性官僚胁迫方面的立场。
The current era of aggressive civil-rights enforcement began in 2011. At the time, many progressives thought that colleges did not know how to handle sexual violence on campus and that they were responding to complaints in a way that was calculated to protect their image rather than students’ safety. Title IX was seen as a solution. The 1972 law states that no person shall, “on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity.”
当前积极进取的民权执法时代始于2011年。当时，许多进步主义者认为大学不知道如何在校园内处理性暴力，并且他们以一种旨在保护自己的形象而不是学生安全的方式来应对投诉。标题IX被视为解决方案。1972年的法律规定，没有任何人“根据性别，被排除在参与之外，被剥夺，或在任何教育计划或活动下受到歧视的好处或受到歧视。”
On April 4, 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights published a “Dear Colleague” letter meant to clarify colleges’ legal obligations under Title IX. The letter said that every college receiving federal funds had to appoint a Title IX coordinator. And most had to restructure how they treated allegations of sexual violence: College administrators were told to conduct independent investigations of sexual-assault allegations rather than relying on local police; to limit accused students’ ability to cross-examine their accusers; to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard to find accused students responsible, rather than the higher “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof; to eschew mediation; and more.
2011年4月4日，教育部民权办公室发布了一封“亲爱的同事”信，旨在澄清大学标题IX的法律义务。这封信说，每所收到联邦资金的大学都必须任命标题IX协调员。大多数人不得不重组他们如何处理性暴力指控：告诉大学管理人员对性侵犯指控进行独立调查，而不是依靠当地警察；限制被指控学生对指控者进行盘问的能力；使用“大量证据”标准来寻找负责的被告学生，而不是更高的“明确而令人信服的证据”举证责任；避开调解；还有更多。
The Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letters are supposed to be nonbinding guidance on what existing law requires, not new policy making. Yet the Obama administration was claiming that, to comply with the law, every institution had to adopt new policies that no institution had previously thought were required. The administration went on to investigate dozens of schools for departing from its novel interpretation of Title IX. Behind each probe was a threat: Comply or lose federal funding.
教育部的“亲爱的同事”信应该是关于现有法律所要求的，而不是新的政策制定的非结合指导。然而，奥巴马政府声称，要遵守法律，每个机构都必须采用以前没有机构认为需要的新政策。政府继续调查数十所学校，以偏离其对标题IX的新颖解释。每个调查背后都是一个威胁：遵守或失去联邦资金。
The pressure tactic worked. Colleges throughout the United States hired new administrators and lawyers. Many of those expanded campus bureaucracies went on to engage in illiberal excesses. A punitive apparatus “was being built, expanded, and deployed” to regulate conduct “further and further from the core cases of sexual assault than most people imagined,” the Harvard law professors Jeannie Suk Gersen and Jacob E. Gersen later wrote in a law-review article. To stay out of trouble, the Gersens argued, many schools forbade “conduct that the vast majority of students commonly engaged in during consensual sexual interactions.”
压力策略奏效了。美国各地的大学聘请了新的管理员和律师。其中许多扩大的校园官僚机构继续进行自由主义的过度。哈佛法学教授珍妮·苏克·格森（Jeannie Suk Gersen）和雅各布·E·格森（Jacob E.杰森斯（Gersens）认为，为了避免麻烦，许多学校禁止“在自愿性互动中通常从事绝大多数学生的行为。”
The new regime put colleges in a double bind: Complying with Title IX exposed them to lawsuits from students claiming that their due-process rights had been violated. Courts later ruled that many colleges did, in fact, deny students due process. Faculty members suffered unjustly, too, as when Northwestern University investigated Laura Kipnis on the premise that she had violated Title IX by writing critically about the new Title IX enforcement.
新的政权使大学受到双重束缚：遵守第IX标题使他们接触了他们的诉讼，声称他们的正当过程被侵犯了。法院后来裁定，许多大学实际上确实拒绝了学生正当程序。教职员工也遭受了不公正的痛苦，就像西北大学对劳拉·吉普尼（Laura Kipnis）进行了调查，即她的前提是她通过批评新标题IX执法而违反了第IX章。
In 2017, the Trump administration took over, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos mandated new protections for accused students. But campus Title IX bureaucracies remained intact, and colleges were still adjudicating complaints without knowing what the next U.S. president would demand. Indeed, when Biden was elected, his Office of Civil Rights reimposed much of the Obama-era approach, until a judge blocked the policy in a nationwide injunction. Trump’s return to office effectively ended that legal fight, but there’s no telling what the next president will do.
2017年，特朗普政府接手，教育部长贝蒂·德沃斯（Betsy Devos）要求对被告学生进行新的保护。但是校园标题IX官僚机构仍然完好无损，而且大学仍在裁定投诉，而不知道下一任美国总统会有什么要求。确实，当拜登当选时，他的民权办公室重新施加了奥巴马时代的大部分方法，直到法官在全国禁令中封锁了该政策。特朗普的返回办公室有效地结束了这场法律斗争，但没有告诉下一任总统会做什么。
Under the new Trump administration, campus-civil-rights enforcement has focused on Title VI, the 1964 law that says no person shall, “on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under” any program that gets federal funds. The administration contends that universities have violated the Title VI rights of Jewish students by responding inadequately to anti-Semitic campus activism. Beyond that, Trump’s team insists that highly specific changes are required as a remedy if colleges want to keep their federal funding.
根据新的特朗普政府，校园右翼执法专注于第六章，1964年的法律说，“以种族，颜色或国籍为由，将任何人的理由排除在参与之外，被剥夺，或在任何获得联邦资金的计划下受到歧视的好处，或受到歧视的好处。政府辩称，大学通过对反犹太校园行动主义的反应不充分，侵犯了犹太学生的VI权利。除此之外，特朗普的团队坚持认为，如果大学想保留其联邦资金，则需要进行高度具体的更改。
Greg Lukianoff: Trump’s attacks threaten much more than Harvard
格雷格·卢基亚诺夫（Greg Lukianoff）：特朗普的袭击威胁到哈佛大
Trump’s team was not the first to apply Obama’s Title IX enforcement model to Title VI. After Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Palestine-aligned protests erupted on many campuses, political appointees at Biden’s Department of Education issued a letter to clarify colleges’ obligation to protect the rights of both Jewish and Arab students. The letter noted that protected speech wasn’t unlawful. But it also said that some protected speech could contribute to a hostile environment that violates the Title VI rights of students, obligating a response from administrators.
特朗普的团队并不是第一个将奥巴马冠军IX执法模式应用于标题VI的人。哈马斯于2023年10月7日对以色列发动袭击，在许多校园内爆发了巴勒斯坦一致的抗议活动后，拜登教育部的政治任命人发出了一封信，以澄清大学保护犹太学生和阿拉伯学生权利的义务。这封信指出，受保护的演讲不是非法的。但它还说，一些受保护的演讲可能会导致侵犯学生标题权利的敌对环境，从而使管理人员做出回应。
Once again, colleges were in a double bind: Cracking down on protected speech would create legal liability, but so would failing to respond to speech that the state deemed anti-Semitic. Scores of investigations for alleged failures to protect the rights of Jewish students quickly followed. The Knight First Amendment Institute published an article by two scholars arguing that there was good reason to believe that the Biden team was “leveraging its power to regulate discrimination” to force crackdowns on “protected student and faculty speech.” The Gersens felt that history was repeating itself. Their aforementioned paper goes on to show how the Office of Civil Rights under Biden once again created incentives for colleges to “over-police and over-punish” students and faculty, this time relying on Title VI. Driving out discrimination “is a laudable goal,” the Gersens write, but pursuing it “may also produce far ranging negative consequences that go to the heart of the academic mission.”
大学再次受到双重束缚：镇压受保护的言论会造成法律责任，但因此未能对国家认为是反犹太主义的言论做出回应。据称未能保护犹太学生权利的数十次调查很快就随之而来。骑士第一修正案学院发表了两位学者的文章，认为有充分的理由相信拜登团队正在“利用其权力来规范歧视”，以迫使“受保护的学生和教职员工”镇压。杰森斯（Gersens）认为历史正在重演。他们上述论文继续展示了拜登（Biden）领导下的民权办公室如何再次激励大学“依靠第六章”的学院“过度和过度的”学生和教职员工。杰森斯（Gersens）写道，驱散歧视“是一个值得称赞的目标”，但追求它“也可能产生远大的负面后果，这是学术任务的核心。”
The new Trump administration has policed Title VI even more fervently, with initiatives from the White House and multiple federal agencies. In statements and executive orders, Trump has put colleges on notice, vowing to combat anti-Semitism and to treat all DEI initiatives as suspect (though guidance from the Department of Education seems to have softened that position). Trump has suggested that colleges should “monitor” foreign students and staffers for anti-Semitism and “report” their activities to the feds in case the students are eligible to be deported. Another executive order pressures college accreditors to strip the accreditation status of institutions accused of wrongdoing by civil-rights bureaucrats.
新的特朗普政府对白宫和多个联邦机构的倡议更加热烈地监管第六章。在陈述和行政命令中，特朗普已引起大学的注意，誓言要战斗反犹太主义，并将所有DEI倡议视为犯罪嫌疑人（尽管教育部的指导似乎已经软化了该立场）。特朗普建议，大学应“监测”外国学生和工作人员的反犹太主义，并将其活动“报告”给美联储，以防学生有资格被驱逐出境。另一项执行命令的压力使大学认可者剥夺了由民权官僚被指控不法行为的机构的认证状况。
The Department of Education has launched various kinds of Title VI probes of more than 50 institutions and sent letters to 60 institutions warning of potential enforcement unless they act “to protect Jewish students.” At the Department of Justice, the civil-rights attorney Leo Terrell is leading a Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism; at the end of February, he announced visits to 10 campuses, and on March 7, the administration announced that Columbia would lose at least $400 million in federal grants “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” According to The New York Times, the Justice Department also recently demanded that the University of Virginia push out its president to “help resolve a Justice Department investigation into the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts”; the president resigned on Friday.
教育部已经发起了50多家机构的各种VI标题调查，并向60个机构发出了警告潜在执法机构，除非他们采取“保护犹太学生”。在司法部，民权律师利奥·特雷尔（Leo Terrell）领导着一个工作队来对抗反犹太主义。2月底，他宣布访问10个校园，并在3月7日宣布，哥伦比亚将在联邦赠款中损失至少4亿美元，“由于面对犹太学生的持续骚扰，学校的持续无所作为。”据《纽约时报》报道，司法部最近还要求弗吉尼亚大学推动其校长“帮助解决司法部对学校的多样性，公平和包容性工作的调查”；总统周五辞职。
As a critic of DEI and anti-Semitism, I understand the impulse to crack down on both, much as I understood the impulse to crack down on sexual violence. But the administration’s approach guarantees the same bureaucratic bloat and illiberal excesses that characterized Title IX enforcement.
作为对Dei和反犹太主义的批评，我理解这两者都会打击两者的冲动，就像我了解到要打击性暴力的冲动一样。但是，政府的方法保证了具有IX标题执行的特征的相同官僚主义的膨胀和自由主义的过剩。
Two of the administration’s primary targets have already been subjected to treatment that wildly exceeds reasonable and lawful oversight. In a March 25 letter to Columbia, the Trump administration demanded not only that the university “complete disciplinary proceedings” related to campus encampments, but that it impose a minimum penalty of expulsion or multiyear suspensions. But what if, in a given case, a one-year suspension is most just? The administration told Columbia to “centralize all disciplinary processes under the Office of the President.” What statute empowers it to dictate how administrators and faculty divide power? It demanded that the institution “formalize, adopt, and promulgate” a definition of anti-Semitism, as if institutional neutrality about that topic of debate is somehow at odds with Title VI. Most strikingly, it ordered Columbia to begin “placing the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department under academic receivership” for five years, a flagrant intrusion on faculty governance and academic freedom.
该政府的两个主要目标已经受到严重超过合理和合法监督的治疗。在3月25日给哥伦比亚的一封信中，特朗普政府不仅要求大学“完成纪律诉讼”与校园营地有关，而且还要求其对开除或多年停赛的最低罚款。但是，如果在给定的情况下，最只是一年的停职呢？政府告诉哥伦比亚“将所有纪律程序集中在总统办公室下”。什么法规使它赋予了管理员和教职员工如何划分权力？它要求该机构“正式化，采用和颁布”反犹太主义的定义，就好像关于该辩论主题的制度性中立性与第六章相反。最引人注目的是，它命令哥伦比亚开始“将中东，南亚和非洲研究部门置于学术接管之下”，这是五年的，这是对教师治理和学术自由的公然入侵。
In an April 11 letter to Harvard, the Trump administration made at least one legitimate demand––that the university comply with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that its admissions office cannot discriminate on the basis of race. But the administration also made demands that ought to be beyond the state’s purview. Harvard was ordered to reduce “the power held by students and untenured faculty” in its governance. It was told to pay for an external anti-Semitism audit that would list faculty members who discriminate against Jews so that they can be punished. Yet the next paragraph of the letter demanded that Harvard shut down all DEI initiatives. The letter even seeks to micromanage student groups; funding decisions “must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty,” it states.
在4月11日给哈佛大学的一封信中，特朗普政府至少提出了一项合法的要求 - 该大学遵守了最高法院2023年的裁决，即其招生办公室无法根据种族歧视。但是政府还提出了应该超出该州权限的要求。哈佛被命令减少其治理中的“学生和不稳定的教职员工的权力”。被告知要支付外部反犹太主义审计，该审计将列出歧视犹太人的教职员工，以便对他们进行惩罚。然而，这封信的下一段要求哈佛关闭所有DEI倡议。这封信甚至寻求微观管理学生团体；它说，资金决定“必须仅由大学教职员工做出”。
Harvard has rejected these demands in court filings, and it is suing the administration to stop it from enforcing the letter’s terms. Still, the overall effect of the administration’s enforcement is aptly summed up by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. In an amicus brief supporting Harvard’s lawsuit, the organization declared that the state’s “coercion of Harvard violates longstanding First Amendment principles and will destroy universities nationwide if left unchecked.”
哈佛大学在法庭文件中拒绝了这些要求，它正在起诉政府阻止其执行信件的条款。尽管如此，政府执法的总体影响还是由个人权利和表达基金会恰当地总结了。该组织在支持哈佛大学的诉讼的法庭之友摘要中宣布，该州“哈佛的胁迫违反了长期存在的第一修正案原则，如果不受组织检查，将在全国范围内摧毁大学。”
An aggressive regime of civil-rights enforcement is easy to defend in theory. Without bureaucrats focused on the obligations that colleges have under Title IX and Title VI, institutions can neglect the statutory rights of students. Federally dictated policies and procedures can enhance consistency and impartiality. Investment in the Office of Civil Rights and campus-compliance structures can reduce sexual assaults and bigoted harassment. And penalties can be meted out justly to particularly bad actors. But that isn’t how the civil-rights regime that arose in 2011 has worked in practice.
在理论上很容易捍卫民权执法的积极性政权。如果没有官僚的重点是大学标题和第六章标题的义务，机构就可以忽略学生的法定权利。联邦规定的政策和程序可以提高一致性和公正性。对民权和校园合并结构办公室的投资可以减少性侵犯和偏执的骚扰。可以公正地将处罚归因于特别不好的演员。但这不是2011年在实践中起作用的民权制度的方式。
Listen: Why Trump wants to control universities
听：特朗普为什么要控制大学
The new Title IX bureaucracy cost colleges hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, from 2011 to 2016. And for all the bureaucracy’s illiberal excesses, colleges ultimately reported an overall increase in forcible sex offenses during the same period. Meanwhile, policy making through the bureaucracy rather than Congress sowed dysfunction, with appointees of different presidents imposing wildly different, sometimes contradictory, accounts of what the law required, such that satisfying one administration got you in trouble with the next.
从2011年到2016年，新的IX官僚机构耗资数亿美元的大学才能实施数亿美元。对于所有官僚主义的无自由主义过分，大学最终报告说，同一时期内强迫性犯罪的总体增加。同时，通过官僚机构制定政策，而不是国会播下的功能障碍，而不同总统的任命者对法律要求的规定截然不同，有时是矛盾的，以至于使一个政府满足一个政府的情况使您在接下来的问题上陷入困境。
Similarly dismal results are likely as the Trump administration applies the Title IX playbook to Title VI. There is no reason to assume that Jewish students will be better off if colleges comply with every Trump-administration dictate. As Republican administrations used to understand, intense bureaucratic attention to a problem doesn’t automatically improve it. And often, state coercion can invite state abuses, yield unintended consequences (see the Israeli students who will have to leave Harvard if Trump succeeds in banning foreign students), and crowd out better solutions.
同样，由于特朗普政府将标题IX剧本应用于Title VI，因此可能会出现同样的惨淡结果。没有理由认为，如果大学遵守每一个特朗普管理的规定，犹太学生会更好。正如共和党政府过去理解的那样，对问题的强烈官僚关注并不能自动改善问题。通常，国家胁迫可以邀请州虐待，产生意想不到的后果（请参阅以色列学生，如果特朗普成功禁止外国学生，他们将不得不离开哈佛），并挤出更好的解决方案。
Returning to pre-2011 norms would be better than the status quo. But at this point, an act of Congress might be the only way to stop what one attorney has called the “regulation by intimidation” that threatens higher education. Congress could clarify what Title IX and Title VI require of colleges, in particular establishing that colleges can never be punished by the administrative state for allowing speech protected by the First Amendment or extending due-process rights to accused students that they would enjoy in a court of law. It could raise the bar for launching an investigation. It could afford colleges more due process before penalties are imposed. And it could silo penalties, so that violations in one part of a university, such as the law school, do not threaten another part, such as a cancer-research center. Many kinds of reform are possible.
返回2011年以前的规范将比现状更好。但是在这一点上，国会行为可能是制止一名律师所说的“恐吓法规”的唯一途径，威胁到高等教育。国会可以澄清大学的第IX和第六章要求，特别是确定大学永远不会受到行政国家的惩罚，因为允许在第一修正案保护的言论或扩大适当过程的言论，或者向法院享受的被指控的学生延长了应有的准则权利。它可能会提高发起调查的标准。在施加处罚之前，它可以为大学提供更多的正当程序。它可能会造成造成惩罚，以便在大学的一部分（例如法学院）中违规不会威胁其他部分，例如癌症研究中心。许多改革是可能的。
It is, in any case, unsustainable for colleges to be micromanaged by rival factions of coercive ideologues. Yet many Trump critics are still focusing on his administration’s glaring procedural violations, rather than the enforcement model that underlies them. Even if Trump’s team were as procedurally diligent as its predecessors (a low bar), the overly aggressive approach to civil-rights enforcement that began in 2011 and persists today would serve academia ill. Civil-rights enforcement on campuses has mutated into something with costs that outweigh its benefits.
在任何情况下，都不可持续地受到强制性思想家的竞争派系的微观管理。然而，许多特朗普的批评家仍在专注于他的政府严重的程序违规行为，而不是为他们带来的执法模式。即使特朗普的团队与前任一样勤奋（低标准），但始于2011年的民权执法的过于侵略性的方法，今天持续存在为学术界生病。校园内的民权执法已突变成一件成本超过其利益的成本。
