Throughout his first term, three campaigns and his second term thus far, President Donald Trump has not been the biggest proponent of civil rights, and he doesn’t pretend to be.
Trump attacked voting rights and the validity of fair elections, banned diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and took steps to reverse LGBTQ+ rights for workers and students.
Given this stellar disregard for civil rights, it is utterly hypocritical that the investigation into five universities, including the University of Minnesota, over allegations of antisemitism stemmed from the Justice Department using its power to launch a civil rights review. This method is less common, as most investigations the department launches stem from complaints, according to the Associated Press (AP).
The investigation is part of the Trump administration’s efforts to address antisemitism illustrated in a Jan. 29 order. This investigation follows the 2024 protests on college campuses across the country protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza and multiple reported instances of hostility toward Jewish students.
Creating a safe campus environment must be a top priority for the University. No one should feel threatened or in danger on campus, and the violence and threats Jewish students experienced should not be tolerated.
Student safety, however, is not a top concern of the Trump administration.
If Trump cared about making campuses safe for all students, he would not threaten to withdraw federal funding from universities with DEI programs that provide opportunities for students who, historically, have not been welcomed on campus. He would not enable immigration enforcement on campuses. He would not threaten to deport international students who protest.
This investigation is about suppressing and discouraging student protests, not creating a safe environment for students.
Trump’s order has prompted criticism that it violates political speech protected under the First Amendment, according to AP.
The order also advocates for institutions to monitor and report activities of international students that could violate federal law prohibiting support of terrorist organizations. These students could then be investigated and potentially deported.
This order walks a dangerous line by giving institutions and the government an excuse to monitor the actions of students and investigate speech the government simply does not like.
Creating an environment that enables surveillance and potential deportation of international students does not make campuses safer. If anything, it makes them less safe and discourages students from using their voices out of fear of repercussions and deportation.
The University responded to the Feb. 3 notification of this investigation from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights by emphasizing a commitment to make campus a safe space for all students.
“We are confident in our approach to combating hate and bias on our campus and will fully cooperate with this investigation,” University spokesperson Jake Ricker said in an email statement. “The University continues to stand firmly against antisemitism. We have and will continue to respond promptly and fully to any reports of harassment, intimidation, or bias against Jewish students — or any other members of our University community — in accordance with our University values, our own policies, and our responsibility under the law.”
Students who commit acts of violence and vandalism should be held accountable, but the students exercising their right to peacefully protest should not be targeted.
The minute the administration seeks to punish peaceful student protesters, it launches an attack on universities and students everywhere.
Setting the details of the investigation aside, Trump’s rhetoric that the intent behind this investigation is to create a safer environment for students is not backed up by his actions.
If Trump cared about student safety, he would take measures to improve gun control as firearms remain the leading cause of death for minors in the U.S., according to Johns Hopkins. He would not ban DEI, and he would not threaten to deport students or villainize the educational system.
A president cannot choose to protect some rights but not others and retain integrity. Infringing on rights in the name of protecting rights should be seen as a dangerous contradiction.
Civil rights are not selective. Once one right is compromised, the rest stand in danger of the domino effect.
