Democrats are now defending elite universities like Harvard and Columbia from threats to their federal funding and tax-exempt status for allegedly violating public policy despite once championing the same legal precedent now being used against them.
The left championed the 1983 Bob Jones University v. United States ruling, which upheld the IRS’ decision to revoke tax benefits from a religious college that banned interracial dating. At the time, Democrats agreed with the federal government’s argument that no institution engaging in discrimination should receive public funds, even on religious grounds.
Now, as the Trump administration cites that very precedent in urging the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status over claims the university is tolerating antisemitism and campus unrest, the left is accusing the administration of violating free speech laws to target ideological opponents.
‘SAFER WITHOUT HIM’: COLUMBIA STUDENT CLAIMS CLASSMATE ARRESTED BY ICE ‘HATES AMERICA’
“The Bob Jones case is a very strong precedent in the government’s corner on this,” Joe Bishop-Henchman, vice president of tax policy and litigation at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
“The Bob Jones precedent makes it a hard case for Harvard to win. It’d be a lot easier if that case wasn’t there, because I think they’ll have to argue that they’re being singled out, that this is politics,” he said. “If the administration can argue that it’s a violation of public policy, then the Bob Jones precedent follows.”
Today, Bob Jones University, a Christian liberal arts college in Greenville, South Carolina, has a student body of more than 2,700. In 1983, it had policies banning interracial dating and marriage among students and expelled students who violated that policy. The IRS said that because of those racially discriminatory policies, the school did not qualify for tax-exempt status.
TRUMP ADMIN ASKS IRS TO REVOKE HARVARD’S TAX-EXEMPT STATUS
The school argued that revoking its tax-exempt status violated its religious freedom and that it was being punished for adhering to sincerely held beliefs. However, the government countered that it should not subsidize organizations—through tax breaks—that defy established public policy, particularly laws against racial discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of the federal government in the landmark Reagan-era case. The justices determined the IRS was allowed to deny tax-exempt status to schools that practice racial discrimination since it was against public policy. Even though the school claimed religious freedom, fighting racial discrimination was a “compelling government interest.”
“That is the letter of what Bob Jones said, but maybe it shouldn’t just be one university,” Henchman said.
The high court held that the institutions failed to provide the “beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life” required to receive special tax status supported by taxpayers, according to the judicial archive Oyez. Because of their bans on interracial relationships, the schools could not meet that standard.
The justices concluded that racial discrimination in education conflicted with a “fundamental national public policy.” While acknowledging the schools’ religious beliefs, the Court found that the government may limit religious liberties when it is necessary to serve an “overriding governmental interest,” in this case, prohibiting racial discrimination. As the court noted, “not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.”
As such, the Trump administration argues that Harvard’s handling of antisemitism on campus should disqualify the university from keeping its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The IRS is expected to make a final decision soon, according to a report from CNN, which first broke the story.
Read the full article here
