this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
89 points (96.8% liked)

politics

22004 readers
4415 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Trump administration has frozen $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its policies allowing trans women to compete in women's sports.

A senior official said this is "just a taste" of further action, with UPenn at risk of losing all federal funding due to a Title IX investigation.

Trump signed an executive order on February 5 banning trans women from women's sports, citing fairness and safety concerns.

Advocacy groups are challenging the move, arguing it discriminates against trans athletes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 24 points 5 hours ago (9 children)

So universities are about to go 0-2 in the fight against a Trump takeover.

Columbia bent the knee almost immediately. It'll be interesting to see how long UPenn holds out.

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 2 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

I wouldn't really call it bending the knee. Schools offer services to students and while making the statement (that trans people are still people) is important denying services to hundreds if not thousands of students (due to lack of funding) who may or may not agree with that position just to make the statement isn't responsible as an institution.

I absolutely agree with their attempt to stand up for students rights, and I also agree with their turnaround. There's a significant and nonzero chance that they could have hurt students even inadvertently by losing that funding and it was responsible of them to think of the entire student body even though the message is very important.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Schools offer services to students and while making the statement (that trans people are still people) is important denying services to hundreds if not thousands of students (due to lack of funding) who may or may not agree with that position just to make the statement isn’t responsible as an institution.

I understand your rationale. And in fact, in 99% of circumstances I begrudgingly agree with it. Sometimes, you have to do what's right for the greater good even if you know it might hurt a few people in the process. But this is not one of those times. And it's not even because of the specific issues being raised (Protests at Columbia, trans athletes at UPenn, etc.).

The reason I'm against it is because by so quickly bending the knee for Trump on these issues is that you're telling your students, community, and alumni that the principles you claim to stand for are up for bid. You're in favor of trans rights -- until trans rights start actually costing you money. You're in favor of the rights of students to protest -- until it effects your funding. What happens when a school promotes support of LGBT issues and then comes in the crosshairs of the Trump Hate Machine? "Sorry guys, but we've gotta kick all the gays out. Trump threatened to pull $100 million in funding if we don't."? Where do you draw the line?

It's one thing to expect that of a regular business. Neither your local mom & pop store nor Wal-Mart are expected to be champions of our freedoms and hold such an important place in our society. Even if I strongly disagree with their decisions, I can understand if they follow where the political and financial winds are blowing. But universities are a completely different beast and play a completely different role in our society.

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee -1 points 1 hour ago

Sometimes, you have to do what’s right for the greater good even if you know it might hurt a few people in the process.

I also agree, however, you can't unilaterally hurt he student body regardless of their beliefs. They also have rights which need and deserve to be protected. Some students might not agree with the official stance of the University and that's a problem. In the end you're playing with their future too.

It would be different if the entirety of the student body stood up and said "We support this!" no one would have any ground to stand on. But this isn't a "majority rules" type of situation. The school cannot unilaterally make a political stance at the detriment of all students regardless of the student bodies political beliefs. It's just not appropriate.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)