A Department of Justice attorney assigned to an antisemitism task force spoke out on Friday revealing that federal investigations into universities were outcome-driven to justify severe financial punishments.
Investigators Allegedly Ignored Objective Evidence and Faced Funding Blocks
- Federal investigators were reportedly pushed to confirm predetermined conclusions rather than collect objective evidence under Title VI standards.
- The Trump administration blocked five hundred million dollars in federal funding to Brown University before its investigation had even begun.
- Internal dissent among Department of Justice attorneys was met with an official whose look and comment about note-taking conveyed a message to staff not to record things in writing.
Investigations Driven by Predetermined Conclusions
As some other D.O.J. lawyers assigned to the task force suspected, Van Erem began to feel that the investigations were outcome-driven, The New Yorker reported. Instead of collecting facts and evaluating whether alleged discrimination was severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile environment—the standard practice in Title VI cases—the objective appeared to be confirming a predetermined conclusion.
The goal seemed focused on justifying severe punishments for universities. News coverage informed Van Erem on April 4th that the Trump administration had withheld five hundred million dollars in previously allocated federal grants from Brown University.
This funding freeze reportedly stemmed from an investigation launched by the task force that had scarcely begun. It had not turned up any evidence of culpability.
Internal Dissent and Warnings Against Note-Taking
Following this development, Van Erem and five other D.O.J. attorneys sent an e-mail to their superiors at the Department of Health and Human Services.
“We believe it would be inappropriate at this time to pull funding based on that investigation,” the attorneys wrote to agency leaders.
In response, Van Erem said that they were summoned to an in-person meeting at H.H.S. headquarters. There, they were assured that the funding freeze was unrelated to Title VI violations.
At the time, the agency’s acting general counsel, Sean Keveney, advised her and her colleagues that any future concerns should be brought directly to him in person.
Keveney looked at her disapprovingly and said that her note-taking was making him nervous. To Van Erem, the message was clear.
“The subtext was to tell us, Don’t record things, don’t keep things in writing, don’t raise your concerns in this manner.”
Van Erem told The New Yorker. Neither H.H.S. nor Keveney responded to a request for comment, and Keveney recently left the agency.
Contradictory Findings During Campus Investigations
A few weeks later, Van Erem attended another meeting where investigators who conducted an on-site visit to Brown presented their findings. When asked what the most severe antisemitic incidents were that they had discovered, investigators pointed to a threatening e-mail sent in February 2024 to upper-level personnel at the Glenn and Darcy Weiner Center, a campus building supporting Jewish students attending both Brown and the Rhode Island School of Design.
Brown responded by immediately alerting law enforcement and increasing security. During a university board meeting, members of the student group Students for Justice in Palestine held a protest outside the medical school and proceeded to track individuals as they exited, as recalled on a separate occasion by investigators who said that the group faced prompt suspension.
The standard used to hold schools liable for Title VI violations is deliberate indifference. Far from corroborating this standard, rabbis and Jewish student leaders interviewed by investigators praised Brown for its swift and effective response to potential threats.
One person described the university as a great place to be Jewish. After this meeting, Van Erem suggested that the task force send Brown a notice of no violation.
The higher-ups would not accept this, she was told by her superiors. Instead, the Trump administration and Brown reached an agreement to end the investigations and have the school’s research grants restored.
To fulfill the agreement, Brown committed to funding Rhode Island workforce-development initiatives with fifty million dollars distributed over the course of a decade.
Additionally, the institution consented to enforce the administration’s classification of gender for athletics and housing while stripping admissions evaluations of any racial criteria.
In a press release, the White House said that
“Brown’s failure to address anti-Semitism and ensure fair treatment for all students raised urgent concerns about student safety and equal opportunities.” White House
When asked whether she thought that this statement was accurate, Van Erem stated, “No, our investigation found that we would have a difficult time establishing that Brown had not appropriately responded to allegations of antisemitism.”
Reviewing Allegations at Columbia University
Misrepresenting the facts was one of Van Erem’s concerns, while violating the First Amendment was another. In one instance, she was tasked with examining a preliminary report outlining potential Title VI infractions at Columbia University.
Parallel to the situation at Brown, Columbia saw the suspension of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants due to accusations that it neglected to shield Jewish students from bias, whereas Van Erem said that a major portion of the cited misconduct constituted protected political expression.
Specifically, the text detailed speech about Israel and Gaza which she felt should be protected on campuses, not banned.
