Dartmouth joins Harvard lawsuit against Trump administration’s grant freeze 13%

By Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer0%

8/6/2026, 11:03:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.8% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 325 faulty-reasoning hits from 494 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.1% and a BS Rank of 13% (25,331 of 29,101 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.00% of the article peer group.

This story was originally produced by the Valley News. 
NHPR is republishing it in partnership with the Granite State News Collaborative. 
Dartmouth College is among the 36 colleges and universities to sign an amicus brief in support of Harvard University’s April lawsuit against the Trump administration, according to a filing made on July 22 with the First Circuit Court of Appeals. 
The brief represents a new development in an ongoing lawsuit in which Harvard sued the Trump administration after it froze $2.2 billion in federal grants. 
A federal judge in Boston ordered the Trump administration to reverse its cuts last September, Associated Press reported at the time. 
The Trump administration then appealed the ruling last December. 
The funding freeze came after Harvard refused to comply with the government’s demand that the university makes changes to its hiring and admissions practices and dissolve diversity, equity and inclusion practices amid an investigation into antisemitism on campus last year. 
The July amicus brief, signed by all other Ivy League universities in support of Harvard, argues that, “Simply put, academic research generates breakthroughs that save and improve lives, build economies, and foster human flourishing. 
And it requires federal funding to do so.” 
“Draconian cuts to federal research funding endanger this longstanding mutually beneficial relationship between institutions of higher learning and the American public…,” the brief continues. 
While Harvard has been faced with a funding freeze, the Trump administration has not rescinded funding from Dartmouth save for some research grants, a spokesperson for the college said in a Thursday email. 
Dartmouth has previously signed several other amicus briefs in support of Harvard, including one submitted on Jan. 20 in favor of the university opposing the federal government’s attempts to revoke Student and Exchange Visitor Information System records for international students, according to a college spokesperson. 
But at times, Dartmouth has been slow to decry the Trump administration’s threats to universities’ autonomy and access to federal funding. 
The college was the last Ivy League school to reject President Trump’s request to join a higher education compact, a 10-point proposal that asked universities to commit to the White House’s vision for academic institutions in exchange for priority in federal funding. 
The proposal required that universities disregard race and gender in their admissions and hiring processes; enforce single-gender bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams; and define “male” and “female” according to reproductive function, among other demands. 
Dartmouth’s decision to sign the July brief also coincides with a federal investigation into alleged discrimination in Geisel School of Medicine’s admissions practices, the Valley News reported last month. 
“Many schools seem to be more focused on meeting racial quotas than selecting individuals who have earned entrance based on merit,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey in a July 22 news release about the investigation. 
Four other medical schools also are under investigation. 
This story has been updated to include a response from Dartmouth College. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 4.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 3.5%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 6.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 4.2%Negativity Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 2.9%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 3.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.3%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 7.7%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 3.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Begging the Question7.7%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.7%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 5.9%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.1%Unattributed Quote11.7%This article: 7.7%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 3.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection7.7%This article: 4.3%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 2.1%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice4.3%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marion Umpelby — Valley News Staff Writer: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.7%attributed speech456writer words
Selected voice

Kimberly Richey

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words100% of attributed speech42% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kimberly Richey: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Kimberly Richey: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Kimberly Richey: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.