BREAKING: “House GOP Takes Bold Action: Subpoenas Ivy League Giants Brown and Penn in Major Antitrust Investigation!”

The House Judiciary Committee has taken a definitive stand against Ivy League elitism by issuing subpoenas to both Brown University and the University of Pennsylvania. This move comes in the midst of a critical investigation into alleged antitrust violations related to tuition and financial aid policies among these prestigious institutions.

Following a previous subpoena directed at Harvard University, these latest actions underscore the growing concern over potential collusion among elite universities to increase tuition in ways that can only be described as undemocratic price-fixing.

Brown, Penn, and Harvard are part of a broader group of eight Ivy League schools that have been summoned by the committee in recent months, receiving letters demanding extensive documentation on their financial practices. It remains uncertain whether additional subpoenas will be issued to the remaining universities: Dartmouth, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, and Yale, but the pressure is mounting.

The committee’s investigation centers around the alarming possibility that these institutions may have manipulated tuition rates based on applicants’ financial profiles, maximizing their revenues at the expense of hardworking families. Such actions exemplify a blatant disregard for integrity and fairness in the educational system.

In their correspondence on Tuesday, committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and subcommittee chair Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin deemed the responses from Brown and Penn to previous document requests as “inadequate.” This stark characterization reflects a concerning refusal to fully cooperate with legitimate oversight—a hallmark of government accountability.

When presented with 11 topics requiring detailed records and internal communication over the past six years, the universities initially responded with a mockery of transparency.

A spokesperson for Brown University insists that the institution has “consistently cooperated” with the investigation. However, the fact remains that such cooperation should not necessitate subpoenas, yet the arrogance of these elite institutions may have left Congress no choice. With a calm defiance, they continue to engage, claiming to recognize the committee’s oversight authority even as they begrudge the necessity of subpoenas.

Penn has similarly professed its ongoing engagement with the committee, having produced more than 8,000 pages of documents. This token compliance, while ostensibly cooperative, speaks volumes about the culture of elitism that permeates these institutions.

With deadlines for compliance looming—July 22 for Brown and Penn, and July 17 for Harvard—the focus remains on how this material will meld into legislative considerations about whether current laws are robust enough to deter uncompetitive practices in higher education. The arrogance of our elite universities must be met with consequences, and the idea of personal accountability in academia must be restored.