U.S. Investigates Alleged Shared-Ancestry Discrimination at 5 More HEIS, Including UC Berkeley

The US Department of Education has opened a federal investigation into the University of California, Berkeley, examining whether the institution violated campus safety laws following a protest that turned violent at a conservative student group event earlier this month.

The probe, announced Tuesday by Education Secretary Linda McMahon, focuses on potential violations of the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act—a federal law requiring colleges receiving federal funding to accurately report crime statistics and maintain campus safety protocols.

The investigation comes two months after Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University in September, lending heightened significance to campus security at subsequent events hosted by the conservative organization.

The November 10 Incident

Violence erupted on November 10 when protests broke out at a Turning Point USA event on the UC Berkeley campus. Four people were arrested during the confrontation, and at least one person was injured after being struck in the head by a thrown object, according to reports from Cal Matters and local authorities.

Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that promotes conservative values on high school and college campuses, has received newfound attention and scrutiny following the assassination of its co-founder Kirk—an ally of President Donald Trump—exactly two months before the Berkeley event.

"Just two months after Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was brutally assassinated on a college campus, UC Berkeley allowed a protest of a Turning Point USA event on its grounds to turn unruly and violent, jeopardizing the safety of its students and staff," McMahon said in a statement announcing the investigation.

The Education Secretary emphasized that the department would "vigorously investigate this matter to ensure that a recipient of federal funding is not allowing its students to be at risk."

Dual Federal Investigations

The Education Department probe represents the second federal investigation UC Berkeley now faces over the same incident. The Department of Justice previously announced its own investigation earlier this month, claiming that "Antifa"—a decentralized, left-wing movement—was involved in the November 10 protests.

The dual investigations signal an escalating confrontation between the Trump administration and UC Berkeley specifically, and liberal-leaning higher education institutions more broadly.

The Education Department's Office of Federal Student Aid will lead the investigation, giving UC Berkeley 30 days to produce extensive documentation including:

  • Copies of the university's 2025 Annual Security Report and any revised versions
  • An "audit trail" of all crime incidents from 2022-2024, organized by offense classification
  • All arrests made by UC Berkeley Police Department or other law enforcement agencies from 2022-2024
  • Referrals for disciplinary action against students or employees for weapons, drugs, or liquor violations
  • UC Berkeley Police Department activity, dispatch, and call logs for 2022-2025
  • Daily crime logs for 2022-2025
  • All Timely Warnings and Emergency Notifications issued
  • Campus patrol and sector maps utilized by police and security

The comprehensive document request suggests federal investigators are examining not just the November 10 incident but systemic compliance issues extending back several years.

History of Clery Act Violations

UC Berkeley's troubled history with the Clery Act adds significant context to the current investigation. The Education Department pointedly noted this history in its announcement, describing the university as having "a pattern" of violations.

In 2020, UC Berkeley was fined $2.4 million under a settlement agreement for the misclassification of 1,125 crimes and insufficient public crime logs. The six-year federal review that led to that penalty revealed thousands of crime incidents were misclassified—the majority related to liquor, drug, and weapons violations.

UC Berkeley acknowledged that it had referred students for disciplinary proceedings but wrongly classified many violations—particularly minors in possession of alcohol in residence halls—as campus policy violations rather than law violations, as required under the Clery Act.

The 2014-2020 investigation also uncovered:

  • Failure to comply with sexual violence policies and procedures
  • Failure to maintain accurate and complete daily crime logs
  • Failure to disclose accurate hate crime statistics
  • Failure to issue emergency notifications

Notably, the Education Department's finding about emergency notification failures centered on a February 2017 campus visit by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, which sparked violent protests causing $100,000 in campus damages. The investigation determined UC Berkeley failed to notify students of any violence until an hour after protests began escalating—a delay deemed unacceptable under Clery Act requirements.

As part of the 2020 settlement, UC Berkeley agreed to appropriately train Campus Security Authorities, review campus safety procedures and forms, and submit revised campus safety policies and updated crime statistics to the Department. The agreement stipulated ongoing federal monitoring, including periodic on-site visits.

The current investigation will examine whether UC Berkeley has maintained compliance with that settlement agreement or whether the November 10 incident reveals continued deficiencies in campus safety protocols.

The Clery Act Explained

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act—commonly known as the Clery Act—was enacted in 1990 following the rape and murder of 19-year-old Jeanne Clery in her Lehigh University residence hall in 1986.

The law requires colleges and universities receiving federal student aid to:

  • Annually disseminate a public Annual Security Report to employees and students
  • Include statistics of campus crime in these reports
  • Detail efforts to improve campus safety
  • Issue timely warnings of crimes that pose ongoing threats
  • Maintain publicly accessible daily crime logs
  • Develop and disseminate emergency notification procedures

The Federal Student Aid office is responsible for Clery Act enforcement and can undertake investigations of specific incidents or conduct broader program reviews examining systemic compliance challenges.

Violations can result in substantial fines—as UC Berkeley discovered with its $2.4 million penalty—and potentially even loss of eligibility for federal student aid, though such extreme sanctions are rare.

UC Berkeley's Response

Dan Mogulof, a UC Berkeley assistant vice chancellor, responded to the investigation announcement by email, stating that the university "has an unwavering commitment to abide by the laws, rules and policies that are applicable to the university."

Mogulof confirmed UC Berkeley "will continue to cooperate with governmental inquiries and investigations."

The university provided public reports about two violent crimes that occurred November 10, according to Mogulof, suggesting officials believe they met their immediate notification obligations under the Clery Act for that specific incident.

However, the federal investigation's scope extends well beyond a single day's events, examining whether systemic compliance issues persist despite the 2020 settlement agreement and whether the university has adequately reformed its campus safety reporting and response protocols.

Broader Pattern of Federal Scrutiny

The Education Department investigation represents just one thread in an increasingly complex web of federal scrutiny facing UC Berkeley and the broader University of California system.

In June, the Department of Justice announced it would investigate hiring practices at UC Berkeley to examine whether efforts to boost faculty diversity violate anti-discrimination laws—a probe reflecting the Trump administration's broader campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at universities.

UC Berkeley and other California schools were also included in a March 10 list of 60 universities and colleges under investigation by the Education Department for antisemitism, reflecting heightened federal attention to campus climate issues surrounding Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Jewish student safety.

A federal judge recently ruled against the federal government's "blanket policy of denying any future grants" to UCLA, determining that the Trump administration can't demand payouts from University of California member institutions as it conducts civil rights investigations. This ruling may have implications for how aggressively federal agencies can leverage funding threats during investigations.

Political Context: Trump vs. California Higher Education

The multiple simultaneous federal investigations of UC Berkeley should be understood within the broader political context of the Trump administration's confrontational approach to higher education, particularly institutions perceived as liberal bastions.

UC Berkeley has long held symbolic importance as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement in 1964—a legacy that has evolved into contemporary tensions over whose speech receives protection and when security concerns justify limiting events or demonstrations.

Conservative groups and Republican politicians have repeatedly accused Berkeley of creating hostile environments for right-wing speakers while tolerating disruptive protests against conservative events. The 2017 Milo Yiannopoulos incident remains a touchstone in these debates, with conservatives citing it as evidence of Berkeley's failure to protect conservative speech.

The current investigations—launched shortly after Kirk's assassination at another university—suggest the Trump administration views campus safety around conservative events as a civil rights and regulatory compliance issue worthy of aggressive federal intervention.

The Free Speech Paradox

UC Berkeley finds itself navigating an extraordinarily complex challenge: how to simultaneously protect free speech rights of controversial speakers, ensure safety of students and speakers, respect rights of protesters to demonstrate, and maintain orderly campus operations—all while complying with detailed federal reporting and notification requirements.

When protests turn violent or disruptive, university administrators face criticism regardless of their response. Aggressive security measures prompt accusations of suppressing protest rights; more permissive approaches invite charges—like those now leveled by the Trump administration—of failing to maintain campus safety.

The Clery Act investigation focuses narrowly on procedural compliance issues: Did Berkeley accurately report crimes? Did it issue timely warnings? Did it maintain proper logs and documentation? But these technical questions sit atop deeper, more contentious debates about free speech, protest rights, and whose safety universities should prioritize when conflicts emerge.

What It Means for Other Universities

The UC Berkeley investigation sends clear signals to universities nationwide about the Trump administration's enforcement priorities regarding campus safety, particularly around conservative speaker events.

Universities hosting Turning Point USA or similar conservative groups can expect heightened scrutiny of their security planning, incident reporting, and compliance with Clery Act notification requirements. Any violence or disruption at such events may trigger federal investigations examining not just the immediate incident but years of compliance history.

The comprehensive document requests—demanding logs and records extending back to 2022—suggest investigators are looking for patterns of non-compliance rather than evaluating single incidents in isolation. Universities with histories of Clery Act violations, like Berkeley, face particularly intensive scrutiny.

Institutions may respond by implementing more aggressive security measures for controversial events, potentially including separation of protesters and attendees, enhanced law enforcement presence, or restrictions on protest locations—measures that themselves generate controversy about free expression rights.

Looking Ahead

The investigation's outcome remains uncertain. UC Berkeley could face additional fines if violations are found, enhanced monitoring requirements, or mandated reforms to campus safety protocols. In extreme cases—though unlikely given Berkeley's stature and federal funding dependencies—Clery Act violations can theoretically result in loss of federal student aid eligibility.

More likely, the investigation will conclude with findings of specific deficiencies, additional settlement requirements, and continued federal oversight extending the monitoring relationship that began with the 2020 settlement.

The broader political dynamics suggest this represents just one battle in an extended campaign by the Trump administration to reshape higher education's approach to campus culture, free speech, and political expression—with UC Berkeley serving as both symbol and test case for federal enforcement strategies.

For now, UC Berkeley has 30 days to compile and submit the requested documentation, beginning a process that will determine whether the university has successfully reformed its campus safety practices or whether the November 10 incident reveals persistent institutional failures to meet federal requirements for protecting campus communities.