"The Government engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination, the US district judge Colleen McMahon said in condemning what the Trump administration cast as a crackdown on diversity practices. The judge said the terminations violated the US constitution's first amendment, which provides free speech rights, and its fifth amendment's equal protection component. The ruling also said Doge did not have the legal authority to terminate the grants."
"What mattered to DOGE was not whether a grant lacked scholarly merit, failed to comply with its terms, or fell outside NEH's [the National Endowment for the Humanities] statutory purposes. What mattered was that the grant concerned a 'minority group', the judge wrote. DOGE swept in race and ethnicity including grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects); sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination."
"The judge also said that Doge staff's use of the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT to come up with the rationale to terminate some grants would not absolve the government of responsibility for its decisions. The government cannot escape liability for DOGE's work by scapegoating ChatGPT, the judge wrote."
"In April last year, Donald Trump's administration terminated more than 1,400 grants, representing more than $100m in congressionally appropriated funds awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations. The terminations were part of a cost-cutting drive that billionaire Elon Musk was leading at Doge."
More than 1,400 congressionally funded humanities grants were terminated as part of a cost-cutting effort led by the department of government efficiency. A federal judge ruled the terminations were unconstitutional, involved blatant discrimination, and violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment equal protection. The judge found the department lacked legal authority to end the grants. The decision criteria focused on whether grants involved protected characteristics rather than scholarly merit, compliance with grant terms, or alignment with statutory purposes. The ruling cited targeting based on race and ethnicity, national origin and immigration status, religion and religious identity, sex, and sexual orientation. The judge also rejected the use of ChatGPT-generated rationales as a defense for government responsibility.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]