UCLA Police: Targeting Black and Hispanic Local Residents?

The importance of demarcating a university’s campus from a municipality became more important once universities created their own police departments, which are distinct from a city’s police department both in terms of mission and democratic legitimacy. From the standpoint of a police department, being subject to a university’s administration is qualitatively different than being a department under a democratically-elected mayor and city council. I contend that in terms of how university-police employees treat Black and Hispanic local residents, this fundamental distinction is crucial even though it is seldom made. UCLA, located in the Westwood area of Los Angeles in California, is a case in point. So too—and even more so, is the private Yale University, located in New Haven in Connecticut.

The full essay is at "UCLA Police."

On University “Police Departments”: Accountability at Yale

Whereas in the E.U., universities do not have their own private police departments because the state governments hold the police power, the situation in the U.S. has devolved from such democratic accountability such that even small colleges (and even hospitals!) typically have their own “police departments.” This presents the unwitting American public with a potentially problem of conflict of interest: in disputes between a college or university administration, which is not democratically elected, and stakeholders, including students and the general public, the organizational police forces take orders from one side. This is especially problematic in cases, such as at Yale, in which the organizational police employees patrol off campus—off the university’s own “territory”—and arrest people who are unaffiliated with Yale and have not even been on the campus. Such a usurpation of the prerogative of the city of New Haven comes with the loss of democratic accountability.

The full essay is at "On University 'Police Departments'."

On Harvard's Inner Elite: The Case of Larry Summers

Should instructors themselves lead righteous, moral lives if they are going to be allowed to teach college students? Does the character of a teacher matter? Should a professor be inclusive rather than exclusivist? These questions are distinct from the much more easily answered question of whether convicted criminals should be allowed to teach college students. Harvard’s Larry Summers, the last U.S. Treasury Secretary of the Clinton presidency, a president of Harvard University, and a professor there, came to personify these moral questions in November, 2025 after Congress released a trove of Jeffrey Epstein’s email exchanges with Summers. Besides resigning from the board of OpenAI, Summers attempted to continue teaching, but then suddenly announced that he was taking a leave of absence from Harvard even though the semester had just a few weeks remaining (including Thanksgiving break). If as I suspect Harvard’s administration pressured him to bow out, at least temporarily in a leave of absence, the irony would be that such a sordid organizational culture casted one of its own kind away. I contend that Summers’ case at Harvard is more complex than first meets the eye.

The full essay is at "On Harvard's Inner Elite."

MIT: A University or a Government?

On the very same day in which Harvard’s president received a standing ovation during the university’s graduation ceremony in Harvard Yard and emphasized verbally that students from all around the world come to Harvard to study—U.S. President Trump having recently ordered Harvard’s international students either to transfer from Harvard or be sent home—MIT’s president barred the 2025 class president from attending her graduation ceremony on the next day because of her speech denouncing Israel’s decimation of Gaza in violation of international human-rights law. Whether extermination or genocide, that the International Criminal Court (ICC) had issued arrest warrants for Israel’s sitting prime minister and a former defense minister should be enough for MIT’s senior officials to recognize that speaking on behalf of human rights and against mass carnage and intentional starvation is laudatory rather than horrendous. Even with the political pressure that must have been coming the federal president, it was possible to resist such pressure, which is why Harvard’s graduates gave the president of Harvard a standing ovation of support. Sometimes international affairs really are simple. Opposing Israel’s military onslaught in Gaza is not only morally good; doing so is a duty. After all (but sadly not after all), Israel’s military actions over 1.5 years had already resulted in whole cities being leveled and 1.2 million residents facing starvation. The policy of U.S. Government and the money of the American military-industrial companies, both of which were still aiding Israel’s military, was also ripe for moral criticism. In effect, MIT’s “academic” officials felt justified in taking the draconian step of barring the graduating-class student-president from the campus on the day of graduation because she had spoken out for human rights. There surely are tough decisions in life given how subjective and even multivariate human judgment is, but condemning and even bypassing MIT in the wake of that institution’s highest officials barring the student from even receiving her diploma in the graduation ceremony even though her family had come to see it is not a difficult decision to reach. While dwarfed by the coldness of Israeli soldiers in Gaza, “heartless” is not an adjective that a university’s top officials want applied to them or a university itself, especially in regard to students on the cusp of being alumni with great earning, and thus donating, potential.

The full essay is at "MIT: A University or a Government?"

Harvard vs. Trump: Yale Doesn’t Matter

Less than a week before Harvard’s graduation ceremony in May, 2025, and about a month after Trump had frozen $2.2 billion in federal funding that would have gone to Harvard and then threatened to remove the university’s tax-exempt status, an Obama-appointed U.S. district judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s order that foreign students at Harvard must either transfer to other universities or leave the United States, effective immediately. In its complaint filed with the district court, Harvard argues that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law. It requires that a rational basis be given by the federal government, which must take administrative-law steps before such an order can be definitively executed against a university. Even then, a university can appeal the last administrative-law decision to federal district court. At the very least, a university must be provided with the alleged violation of visa law and given the chance to make corrections or defend itself rather than be caught off-guard by a fait accompli by fiat. Less noticeable in the midst of the brawl, it is no small matter that a director of the federal security agency so brazenly and obviously violated administrative-procedure law. At the very least, it is duplicitous and hypocritical for a government official tasked with enforcing law against criminals to knowingly violate law to which she herself is subject in her official capacity. At the very least, Noem’s conduct should raise concerns regarding the need for greater oversight over DHS by Congress and whether it should be easier for Congress to remove a Cabinet-level political appointee. Perhaps it should be within the purview of a federal judge to suspend and even dismiss a Cabinet secretary judged to have violated federal law in an official capacity. In the context of an increasingly imperial presidency, more checks are arguably necessary. This is not, however, the topic at hand; instead, my thesis here is that even though Harvard should indeed pursue its case in federal court against the Trump Administration, and the university’s values are superior to the way in which Yale has capitulated to that government, Harvard’s administration could improve the university by exercising the sort of maturity that recognizes the kernels of truth in the otherwise spurious claims. Such maturity would be two degrees of separation from the mentality of Yale’s administration with respect to spying on student with the help of the FBI.

The full essay is at "Harvard vs. Trump."