Author: admin

  • Educational Attainment and the Presidential Elections

    Educational Attainment and the Presidential Elections

    I’ve been fascinated for a while by the connection between political leanings and education: The correlation is so strong that I once suggested that perhaps Republicans were so anti-education because, in general, places with a higher percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients were more likely to vote for Democrats.

    The 2024 presidential election puzzled a lot of us in higher education, and perhaps these charts will show you why: We work and probably hang around mostly people with college degrees (or higher).  Our perception is limited.

    With the 2024 election data just out, I thought I’d take a look at the last three elections and see if the pattern I noticed in 2016 and 2020 held.  Spoiler: It did, mostly.

    Before you dive into this, a couple of tips: Alaska’s data is always reported in a funky way, so just ignore it here.  It’s a small state (in population, that is) and it’s very red.  It doesn’t change the overall trends even if I could figure out how to connect the data to maps.  Hawaii’s data is fine, but I don’t put it on the map because it takes a lot of work to get it to fit so that you can read the other states.  It’s a blue state, but also small.  So they balance out.

    Some definitions: Bachelor’s degree attainment is the percentage of people in the county who have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher using 2020 data.  If a county has 100,000 people and 27,500 have a BA, that’s an attainment rate of 27.5.  Nationally, the rate is about 38%.  
    Median income is the Census Bureau statistic showing median earnings in the past twelve months for people who have earnings. 

    The statistic “Percent Democrat” is the percentage of voters who voted for Democrats, among those who voted Democrat or Republican.  In other words, it excludes third-party voters.  The Democrats and Republicans are the only parties with a candidate on every state’s ballot, so it’s the only fair comparison, I think. If you want to count people who throw away their vote, be my guest.

    Simpson’s Diversity Index is a way to talk about diversity that’s a little different than you might think. It is not the percentage of people of color.  Simpson’s Diversity essentially calculates the probability of selecting at random two different categories from a population.  So, if 95% percent of a county is White, it’s not very diverse.  Same as one that’s 80% Black or African-American, or 65% Hispanic.  Higher numbers on Simpson’s means more diversity of the group.  A group with one Hispanic person, one White person, one Black person, and one Asian person would be perfectly diverse, as you’d always pick two people from different groups in a random sample.

    Final tips: It’s important to interact here by using the sliders and/or filters, and/or highlighters.  You can’t break anything; you can always reset the view using the little arrow at lower right. 

    There are seven views here, accessible via the tabs across the top.  

    National View shows all the data from all the counties rolled up to a year.  You can see Democrat and Republican votes on the bars.  Use the sliders to only include counties with certain levels of income, diversity or educational attainment, nationally or in a single state.  You’ll probably quickly see the great American divide.

    Ed Attainment Splits is the same data, but divided.  Each group of bars shows increasing attainment, from left to right.  So at the far left is the aggregation of all counties with lower attainment, and as you move to the right within a year, you see higher levels of bachelor’s degree attainment. The three tallest blue bars tell the story of 2024 in a way no political scientist can.

    The next three views show scatter plots, with Percent Voting Democrat on the y-axis (vertical).  The three different views just swap out three different values: Bachelor’s degree attainment, Median Income, and Simpson’s Diversity.  These three things largely covary, so the similar patterns should not surprise.  The bubbles are sized by the number of voters, and you can hover over any bubble for details.  Use the Highlight Tool at top to focus only on Blue, Purple, or Red counties.

    The cleverly named view titled “Map” shows every county colored by its political lean.  You can choose a year at top left, and only show certain counties using the various filters at top. Again, you can’t break anything by interacting, and a reset is a click away.

    And finally, because there is one in every group who points to the preponderance of red on the map and thinks it’s meaningful, the final view shows Land Doesn’t Vote. Los Angeles County (in yellow) has more people by itself than all the blue states plus Hawaii combined. And it has more people than all the orange states combined, too.  

    I hope you find this as interesting as I did.  

    Source link

  • Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    February 10–16 is the Trades Union Congress ‘“HeartUnions” week, a week dedicated to celebrating the good work that trade unions do.

    I love trade unions and higher education. Given that unions primarily receive media coverage when their members take industrial action, it’s easy to forget that, at their heart, they are solidarity movements, whose campaigns have driven social change.

    Trade unions fought for and won a minimum wage, maternity and paternity rights, pension provision, and holiday and sickness entitlements. These victories have benefited every British person. Equally, those external to the sector may overlook the social impact higher education has due to the question of whether university still represents value for money for students.

    The current picture

    Higher education staff knowledge of how trade unions democratically work and the positive impact that a collective movement can have varies. Anti-union legislation over the past 50 years, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (1992) and the Trade Union Act (2016), has led to fewer people being members of trade unions or understanding their purpose, compared to previous generations.

    My personal experience as a trade union representative has shown me that it has become increasingly important to explain what a trade union is to new staff entering careers in higher education, as there is a likelihood that they, or their parents, may not have been members of a union. Indeed, in 2021, only 14.1 per cent of trade union members in the UK were aged between 20 and 29 years. Furthermore, in a more interconnected and mobile world, assumptions about trade unions can be very different from stereotypes and experiences in other countries. Overall, there are a range of misconceptions about unions’ purpose and value.

    Despite legislative challenges, trade unions in UK higher education have reasons to be optimistic. Some UCU branches have seen membership numbers grow and an increased level of member activism. A core reason for this appears to be that staff are increasingly viewing unions as part of the solution to overcoming problems faced in the sector. This seems to be driven by the successes branches are having locally, and by the number of universities currently undertaking or preparing to implement cuts.

    Trade union branches and university management will never see eye to eye on every issue. Trade unions are there to protect their members, whereas university management is there to protect the organisation. As many reading this will know, differing objectives undoubtedly lead to disputes and industrial unrest. Withholding labour can sometimes be the best and/or only strategy unions have to win disputes. It should never be forgotten that many of the successes trade unions have had which we now often take for granted, such as the two day weekend, came through intense campaigning and struggle, including strike action.

    I love trade unions and higher education, and see both for their flaws, including missed opportunities to collaborate. University management and trade unions often have shared purposes. Unfortunately, these are not always understood, limiting the impact trade union branches have.

    New legislation

    The Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, promises greater protection for workers, including repealing much of the Trade Union Act (2016). As written, it would significantly empower workers to act collectively, though it’s worth noting that parts of the bill are currently out to consultation and the legislation is not expected to receive Royal Assent until next year.

    In essence, the bill encourages employers to work more closely with trade unions. It strengthens the rights of trade unions to access workplaces, simplifies trade union recognition processes, introduces new protections for trade union representatives (including equality representatives), and introduces a duty for employers to inform employees that they have a right to join a trade union.

    Drilling down into the details of the bill as it stands, it can be seen how it will be easier for trade unions to successfully gain industrial action mandates. This makes it more vital than ever for university stakeholders, such as UCEA, as well as individual university management teams, to collaborate with trade union colleagues, enhancing how a diverse range of staff voices influence university decisions. This is important as staff working in various capacities across higher education may be well-placed to propose innovative ways of overcoming significant challenges faced by the sector.

    Working in partnership

    Trade unions and university leaders ultimately want the sector to be successful, with excellent teaching, research, and student support, as well as financial stability.

    Personal experiences from working at various institutions have shown that trade unions are typically consultative mechanisms. While consultation must occur, in line with recognition agreements, in many cases it may have been more effective for trade union representatives to have worked in partnership with the university prior to reaching a consultative or approval stage. For example, policies relating to health and safety or sustainability.

    A starting point to building any partnership is understanding how objectives align. Awareness of how trade union representative positions correlate with university structures and committees is a good way of identifying when objectives are shared. Trade union branches often have a range of different representatives who can actively contribute to committees and task-and-finish groups. Trade union health and safety representatives are very capable of assisting in evaluating workload, inspecting environments, drafting new policies, and many other tasks in partnership with the university.

    Although partnership working between trade union branches and universities can be improved, there are good examples of it occurring in the sector. Universities such as Glasgow Caledonian have a “learning agreement” with their recognised trade unions. This agreement specifies how the trade unions will work in partnership on staff development activities.

    Stories from Northampton

    At the time of composing this article, the University of Northampton (UON) is completing a consultation process that has placed many staff at risk of redundancy.

    Although the consultation process has been challenging for the UON UCU branch and the UON leadership team – as can be expected in these situations – UON UCU has continued to improve partnership working across the university, while simultaneously fighting hard to protect the jobs of all members at risk of redundancy.

    The branch has been involved in interview selection processes, work relating to building an improved sense of staff belonging, and a new Race Equality Charter. The branch’s approach of being able to traverse between challenging management on some issues, while simultaneously working in partnership with them on others, has advanced the interests of our members and saved jobs.

    It is also evident that UON UCU will come out of the consultation with enhanced credibility from UON management. Management has expressed willingness to work with recognised trade unions on issues such as workload stress risk assessments and its new learning development policy. It is also highly pleasing to note that membership and activism in the branch have increased. As part of HeartUnions week, activists are completing a live brief with fine art students. The students will be learning about trade unions while using skills developed in their programme to create a large UCU banner.

    HeartUnions

    If you like me love trade unions and higher education, and want them to be their best version going forward, now seems the perfect time to consider how we make their relationship work at every university.

    Yes, like most relationships, there will be times when disagreement occurs. However, equally, there will be opportunities to work together, which will benefit the sector.

    If this article or other activities that occurred as part of HeartUnions week have inspired you to join a trade union, a good starting point is to visit the TUC website. It’s worth checking out staff intranet pages too to learn what trade union agreements are in place at your university.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Churchill College, Cambridge

    Higher education postcard: Churchill College, Cambridge

    It’s 31 March 1949, and Winston Churchill, now Leader of the Opposition, was visiting the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    He was impressed by what he saw, and thought that the UK should have its own version, a postgraduate university focusing on science and technology. Fast forward six years, and Churchill had retired after his second spell as Prime Minister. His private secretary, John Colville, sought to progress the idea, but could not make as much progress as he had hoped.

    Parallel with, and unconnected to, Churchill’s idea, Shell Petroleum had since the early 1950s been hosting meetings at which leading British industrialists identified a need for a specialist institute to train people for the science and engineering industries. Again, this came to nothing.

    But then in 1957 the two schemes were revivified and brought together. Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, worked with Carl Gilbert, chairman of Gillette and sometime US trade representative, to make the case for a Cambridge college which would focus on science and technology. And one which would stand as a memorial to Churchill. And so in 1958 an appeal for funds was made (as can be seen from the Scotsman of 21 May 1958, no public funds would be available at first), with some £3.5 million being raised to finance the college and its initial activities.

    The money was raised, with contributions from industry and also from the Transport and General Workers Union (which all confirms L P Hartley’s motto in The Go-Between: “the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there”). And it was a period of industrial largesse to higher education: in researching this piece I came across a wonderful article – in the Brechin Advertiser (29 July 1958) but no doubt syndicated more generally – by Richard Martin, on the donations to Churchill College, St Catherine’s Oxford, and for new buildings fore engineering at UCL. “The universities have been given the financial tools, and they will not fail to finish the job.”

    Very deliberately, although the college was intended to focus on science and technology, it would not exclude the humanities. This was the period of C P Snow versus F R Leavis, two cultures versus one. Snow – scientist, civil servant, novelist – argued in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution that the problems of society were exacerbated by the failure of many who would be considered well educated (ie in the humanities and classics) to know anything about science:

    A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: ‘Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?’

    (To avoid embarrassment at this point, I will remind you that the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy or disorder of a closed system is always increasing. Which you already knew.)

    Snow’s view was attacked (there is no better word) by critic F R Leavis in 1962: Snow was a philistine; his vision soulless technocratic utilitarianism. Viewed as an attack which played the man not the ball (but note here a defence of Leavis from 2013), the row did not do much to damage Snow’s view.

    The founders of Churchill College clearly thought there was merit in Snow’s views; hence the requirement that only 70 per cent of the entry be for students of science and technology.

    The college was given a Royal Charter in 1960, and admitted a few postgraduate students in that year. The first undergraduates arrived the following year. By 1966 Churchill had been admitted as a full college of the university and by 1968 all of the original buildings had been completed and opened.

    Churchill College was amongst the first of Cambridge’s all-male colleges to admit women (in 1972). Its senior tutor – Dick Tizard – sought to broaden admissions to focus on grammar school and comprehensive school students, not focusing on the public schools. He also worked to achieve the admission of students to membership of the college governing body, in 1969.

    In 1970 the Churchill College JCR, along with the University of Bristol Students’ Union, persuaded the NUS to take up an appeal by two students – Julian Fox of Bristol, and Hugh Nelson Ricketts of Churchill – against decisions of the local returning officers to disbar them from the electoral register because they were not permanently resident at their term time addresses. The Court of Appeal – with Lords Denning, Widgery and Karminski – on 12 May 1970 granted the students appeal. The OfS now requires universities to assist students in registering to vote: quite some distance has been travelled in this matter!

    Winston Churchill is not without controversy. In 2020 the college announced a working party which would organise a year-long programme – on Churchill, race and empire. The university archives hold some recordings from this. Not, perhaps, surprisingly, this attracted a considerable amount of media attention and criticism: Churchill is a revered figure for some in Britain. The college cancelled the series of events in June 2021.

    There’s a very readable history of the college on its website (click on “the college’s first decade” in the fuchsia box), by the way, from which I’ve drawn fairly heavily in this account.

    And here’s your jigsaw of this week’s card – enjoy!

    Source link

  • Podcast: REF people and culture, spending review, apprenticeships

    Podcast: REF people and culture, spending review, apprenticeships

    This week on the podcast universities failing to promote diversity will face funding cuts – so said The Times. We chat through the controversy building around the REF.

    Plus we look at what the sector is asking for in the spending review, and consider the government’s push for lower-level, shorter apprenticeships.

    With Shitij Kapur, Vice Chancellor and President at King’s College London, Jess Lister, Director (Education) at Public First, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Read more:

    Universities UK submits to spending review

    The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Societies that are humane are thoughtful about promoting equality, diversity and inclusion

    Predictably bad education

     

    Source link

  • The secret life of university applicants

    The secret life of university applicants

    In Spring 2023, 150 students from humanities and social sciences at our university stepped up to share something deeply personal -their reasons for pursuing higher education.

    Through brief, heartfelt recorded monologues, they opened a window into what university truly means to them.

    We ended up with nearly 160 pages of raw, unfiltered transcripts. Inspired by the power of verbatim theatre, where authentic dialogue bridges the gap between characters and audience, we have curated a collection of student voices.

    These firsthand accounts cut through the cliches narratives often associated with university life. Instead, they reveal the real stories, struggles, and aspirations driving students forward in today’s complex world of higher education. This is their voice, their truth, shared directly with you.

    Going to university was the scariest and the best thing

    From “screaming at the back of the car” and “crying tears of joy” to “relief” and “apprehension”, we got a glimpse into the rollercoaster of emotions students felt when they got their university acceptance letters.

    For most, it was the first big decision of their adult lives, and it was not an easy one. One student said:

    …going to university was the scariest and the best thing, the best decision, that I’ve made so far in my 19 years of existence.

    Another felt the decision to enter higher education was made:

    …not with trepidation as a reasonable person [but] with courage and self-assuredness that only ignorance and youth can bestow in such abundance.

    Dealing with such conflicting emotions is rarely simple. So, it is not a surprise that some of the surveyed students thought about dropping out, especially in their first year. They found their degrees “boring” or “very difficult” or wondered “was the amount of work something I was prepared for?”

    I’d rather pursue a passion… than end up working a job

    A recurring thread in many students’ reflections during this study was the dilemma between entering the workforce immediately or pursuing higher education. No doubt pursuing higher education is largely viewed as the “only option towards a better paying career” and a “comfortable job without a lot of physical demands”.

    While some of them questioned whether university “is worth all the debt”, most agreed that the skills acquired through higher education are crucial for getting “further in life” and earning “more than the minimum wage”.

    But their testimonies revealed other considerations that go beyond material gains and jobs prospects.

    In our survey, students made it loud and clear – it is also about the love and passion for what they do. “Studying what I truly love”, “something I’d enjoy studying every single day of my life”, and chasing that “passion and interest to grow as a person” often took priority, leaving material gains or “just getting into a certain job” in the background.

    Just working a job for working sake didn’t feel like a good use of my time.

    Students, while contemplating their future, felt that:

    …university does feel like a good safety net to hop into… [the] perfect avenue to give myself more options to explore different careers.

    We also saw several students entering higher education determined to “dig, dig, dig [to find out their] passions”.

    More than rankings

    For some students, university felt like a “clear, logical” move toward their career goals. For others, it was more than a decision – they felt it was “compulsory” or even a personal “duty”.

    There were also students who approached their university pursuits with less conviction.

    I didn’t have anything else to do, so I ended up going to university.

    I was not ready for the 9 to 5 life.

    When else in my life would I be able to just decide to move away [from home] and receive funding from the government to help me?

    Some expected higher education to create for them “a pathway towards finding some meaning in my life”. Others choose their university because its name was the same “as my great grandmother’s”.

    As we see when it comes to university studies, students bring a whole mix of ambitions to the table. So, it is no surprise that choosing a subject or a university is a deeply personal issue influenced by several factors.

    Among these, university rankings often emerged as a decisive factor. Many students associated high rankings with better career prospects, with one stating:

    …it is a lot more important where the university stands in ranking over what degree you’re doing.

    Another shared:

    I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself if I hadn’t at least tried [to enter an Oxbridge institution]

    …highlighting the importance for them of the prestige tied to certain universities. This sentiment was echoed by another student who observed:

    …people were looked down on if they didn’t apply to Oxford and Cambridge.

    However, it is worth noting that some students in our sample cautioned against making decisions based solely on rankings. They acknowledged that prioritising rankings over programme suitability can lead to dissatisfaction.

    I realised that I can’t force myself to like a subject or excel in a subject that I don’t enjoy.

    …one student reflected, emphasising the importance of choosing a programme aligned with personal interests and strengths. Others recognised that decisions “purely because of rankings,” without considering the nature of the programme, may result in regret, as students risk enrolling in courses they ultimately dislike.

    Reading through the transcripts, it became clear that students do not make their choices in a vacuum. Instead, they are influenced by a network of factors, including family, friends, mentors, and the vast array of information available online. These influences collectively shape the way students see their future and guide their decisions.

    Family, as expected, is a primary source of influence and will be discussed in detail in a separate section. Friends, however, also play a significant role. As one student shared:

    …it feels like you are doing something big with your friends [from which you] didn’t want to be left out.

    Mentors were another important factor. One student explained:

    …before coming to university, I spoke to people who were in the positions that I wanted to be in,”

    …highlighting the impact of role models on their decisions. Additionally, many students turned to platforms like YouTube for guidance. One student described their process, saying:

    I watched so many videos… YouTube videos on people’s experiences in different towns from Manchester to London to Liverpool, to Bristol to Birmingham.

    This underscores the significant role of online content in shaping their choices.

    Surveyed students also highlighted factors such as facilities, location and the associated lifestyle as significant influences on their university decisions. One student remarked that it was more important studying in London than having a good university ranking.

    Since all students surveyed for this project were studying at a London institution, their comments frequently referenced the “dynamic lifestyle” of London, described as “the place to be” where “everything is happening”.

    For many, being in London was about more than academics. It was about the opportunity to “see new things […] and explore different cultures”, “take part in so many events”, live in a place which is “buzzing 24/7” where they can “randomly, spontaneously […] see Wicked”, reflecting the unique cultural vibrancy that London offers.

    Prospective students were looking for everything that matters to them, and this highlights the importance of providing students with proper guidance to navigate wisely the labyrinth of educational choices.

    Several students commented on the importance of universities’ open days. Initially perceived as an “excuse to have a day off school”, one student recounted that it was during an open day that university became a “real option” for them.

    Surveyed students express enthusiasm for these events, describing them as the “first actual experience” and an opportunity to “envision my new life”. During these visits, they engaged with current students and staff, feeling “the passion within the department”.

    More importantly, they feel heard. As one student remarked:

    [I got the opportunity] to talk about things that interested me with someone that was interested in hearing my perspective.

    University has given me the space to explore who I am as a person.

    To these students, university was the bridge to adulthood. It was for them the place to find “freedom” and “independence” – two words frequently encountered in the transcripts of their recordings.

    They leave home with some apprehension, that is true, but they embrace it. And they “love that element of university”, are “really excited for the independence that university promised”, and “do not regret it”. Many viewed university as the opportunity to “learn how to live life without living with your parents”. It is striking to see so many young people eager to learn

    …important life skills such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping.

    University has given me the space to explore who I am as a person.

    Expressions such as “get out of my shell”, “without hiding in the closet”, and “without feeling scrutinised by my parents” frequently appeared in the monologues. Moving away to study at university provided a unique opportunity to embrace independence.

    As one student put it, university offered the chance to “do what I wanted to do, how I wanted to do it, exactly when I wanted to do it”. Several of the students in this study deliberately chose universities far from home, often making these decisions “without telling my parents”.

    For the young individuals in this study, university is seen as more than just an academic journey. It represents a transformative space for personal growth. It is described as a place to “grow as a person in terms of independence, but also experiences”.

    Students also view university as a setting that provides the “freedom and encouragement to be myself, fully and unapologetically, both personally, professionally, and creatively”.

    You have to go to university… it’s what we expect you to do

    While friends, mentors, and lifestyle factors shape many aspects of students’ choices, family remains a key part of the narrative. From these monologues, we see its role as both inspiring and constraining.

    Constraining in that students appear to enter higher education out of guilt or obligation to their families.

    One student mentioned pursuing higher education studies due to “the cultural aspect and expectation within my family”, another to make “the family proud and happy despite not sharing the sentiment”, and another simply because it is “what my family wanted me to do anyway, so… I just end up doing it”.

    The desire to enter higher education was coerced by a feeling that otherwise they would have “wasted everything that my parents have done for me”, and “disappoint them”, and that “would have been the worst thing”.

    Prior academic attainment of family members was also sometimes perceived as limiting students’ choices. In terms of degree choice, students mentioned that families with a background in certain fields “wouldn’t agree with me exploring [other] degrees” and “I feel like my parents just don’t understand that there are opportunities outside of this field”.

    Other students whose families had completed higher education claimed that their decision to join university was so that they would not be the “odd one out” or to prove that ”they are not dumb”, and that their intellectual ability reflects “somehow that of my family’s or my post-code’s”.

    My mum always wanted me to have a lot more. More choice in my life and so university really allows me that.”

    Family can also serve as a source of power and inspiration, fueling students’ academic journeys. Many said their family’s academic achievements and backgrounds inspired them to join university and choose specific subjects.

    One student cited the “admiration” for their grandfather’s life and job as “primarily the reason” to choose their subject. Another passionately spoke of wanting to “follow my parents’ first steps”. Another enthusiastically praised their parent’s commitment “to spend whatever they have saved in their lives to afford what they think is important” for their children.

    It was been fascinating to see what university meant for students whose family did not attend university. To them university was the opportunity to “take advantage of opportunities many of the members of my family didn’t have”, as “it was just seen as something unattainable for us of this economic class, race and learning difficulties”.

    The dialogues shared within families hold immense power. In these intimate moments, life altering decisions often take shape. A student recalled their mother’s wisdom:

    …university is not just about getting that qualification […] It’s personal worth. And once you have that education, no one can take it away from you.

    Another reflected on the life-story of their mother, her unfinished studies, and the aspirations that span generations:

    Oh child, you know when you graduate, it’s going to be like I’m graduating as well […] which I guess is true because the amount of support that I had from my mum and my family has been like insane.

    I can go to university so I can get one step closer to my dreams.

    For some of the students surveyed, university was more than a path to knowledge – it was a journey for recognition, a way to overcome societal barriers, and to “fulfil [their] dreams in life”.

    One student said their studies will help them reach “the standing in society” they think they deserve, and will allow them “to be taken more seriously”. A student with a disability told us it is a means to “overcome low expectations that people in the society have for people like me”.

    For this student, it is their “liberation mechanism” to “escape the oppression that I felt I was facing and move my life towards a more success-oriented trajectory”.

    In their testimonies, students expressed dreams of becoming Supreme Court judges, CEOs, working in politics or international organisations. They acknowledged that without university education, as one student said,

    …I just didn’t have the confidence to dream big

    …I do feel proud when I say hey, I’m a [. . . ] student. It’s kind of nice when people are like, wow!

    Reading the transcripts felt like tuning into the unfiltered thoughts of students standing at the crossroads of their academic and professional lives. Their stories form a vivid tapestry of dreams, ambitions, and doubts about joining university each one unique, each one unfiltered.

    Our aim was not to evaluate their motivations or rank the importance of the influences they shared with us. Instead, we gave space for their voices to be heard. Because listening to these stories matters.

    It reveals the beautiful complexity behind their decisions and helps us understand them better. And perhaps, it will inspire us to create a learning environment that truly supports them, one that meets them where they are and helps them get where they are going.

    We would like to thank Lyubomir Vasilev for valuable research assistance and helpful comments and discussion. Financial support for this project was provided by the Queen Mary University of London’s Westfield Fund for Enhancing the Student Experience. Authors: Dr. Emmanouil Noikokyris, Reader in Economics and Finance Education, School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary University of London; Emanuela Nova, Strategic Project Manager, School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary University of London

    Source link

  • 3 takeaways from Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearing

    3 takeaways from Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearing

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    WASHINGTON — U.S. education secretary nominee Linda McMahon told a Senate panel Thursday that, if confirmed, she would not defund public schools but would seek to reform the U.S. Department of Education by reducing federal bureaucracy and bringing schools back to the basics of reading and math. 

    McMahon also said her priorities as education secretary would be to expand school choice and skills-based learning, give local schools and parents more decision-making power, and to protect students from discrimination and harassment. 

    “I’m very hopeful that we will get back to the basics of education so that our children can read when they leave 3rd grade, and that 8th grade students can do math and reading proficiently,” McMahon said. “We are failing our students, our Department of Education, and what we are doing today is not working, and we need to change it.” 

    However, when asked about some specific changes she would make to Education Department programming, McMahon said, if confirmed, she would evaluate department functions before making recommendations. She said she would “reorient the department toward helping educators, not controlling them.”

    The 2 ½-hour confirmation hearing, held by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, was briefly interrupted five times by people protesting McMahon’s nomination. The Republican-controlled Senate is expected to approve McMahon’s nomination in the coming days.

    McMahon’s confirmation hearing comes amid drastic changes at the Education Department. President Donald Trump has already issued various executive orders that severely limit federal funding, call for expansion of private school choice, prohibit activities related to diversity, equity and inclusion, and call for an end to “indoctrination” in K-12 schools, which he said includes “gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.” 

    Trump is also expected to issue an executive order that would significantly reduce the Education Department’s authority and responsibility in the federal government. 

    Federal education funding represents just about 14% of total K-12 spending in 2024, with the rest provided by local and state governments and other sources. Still, education experts say federal investments are important for supporting funding equity and accountability.

    In fiscal year 2024, the Education Department received $79.1 billion from Congress. Lawmakers have yet to approve FY 2025 funding. 

    Among the Education Department’s responsibilities is managing $1.6 trillion in higher education student loans.

    District and state K-12 programs also received $189.5 billion over the past five years in federal COVID-19 emergency funds to support pandemic recovery efforts. 

    A person is standing near another person in a uniform. The room is full with other people sitting. Another person is standing and holding a cell phone

    A protester disrupts Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be U.S. education secretary, as she testifies during her Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Kayla Bartkowski via Getty Images

     

    Trump nominated McMahon just weeks after winning the November election. McMahon served as administrator of the Small Business Administration for two years in Trump’s first administration. She is also a former president and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment.

    McMahon is also board chair at America First Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank that supports free enterprise and nationalism. At the state level, McMahon served on the Connecticut State Board of Education. She also served as a trustee at Sacred Heart University, a private Catholic school in Fairfield, Connecticut. She is currently the treasurer on the university’s Board of Trustees, according to the school’s website.

    In 2012, she won the Connecticut Republican primary for U.S. Senate but lost to current Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who is a member of the HELP committee.

    If the Senate approves McMahon’s nomination, she would succeed Miguel Cardona as the 13th U.S. education secretary since the department’s founding in 1979.

    Here are three takeaway exchanges from the confirmation hearing.

    Closing the Education Department

    Several Democratic lawmakers probed McMahon about Trump’s push to eliminate the Education Department. On Wednesday, Trump referred to the department as a “big con job” and said he wanted the agency closed immediately. 

    “The president has given a very clear directive that he would like to look in totality at the Department of Education, and believes that the bureaucracy of it should be closed, that we should return education to our states, that the best education is that closest to the kids,” McMahon said.

    She acknowledged that only Congress has the power to shut down the agency. And McMahon noted that programs established by federal statute, such as Title I for low-income schools and services to students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, would need to continue with or without an Education Department. 

    Source link

  • McMahon confirms Trump’s plans to dismantle Department of Ed

    McMahon confirms Trump’s plans to dismantle Department of Ed

    Linda McMahon told senators Thursday that she won’t shut down the Education Department without their approval, quelling any doubt that the majority Republicans may have had about whether she deserved to be appointed to President Donald Trump’s cabinet.

    But that doesn’t mean that McMahon and the Trump administration aren’t still looking to make considerable changes to the agency’s programs and potentially dismantle it from the inside out. She said at her confirmation hearing that the department has to go, or at the very least is in need of a major makeover, because it’s rife with bureaucracy that fails to serve students well.

    The goal, the former wrestling CEO told the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, is to “reorient” the federal agency and ensure it “operate[s] more efficiently”—not defund education, as some critics have suggested.

    “We’d like to do this right,” she said. “We’d like to make sure that we are presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with, and our Congress to get on board with.”

    Questions about the department’s future and whether McMahon would stand up to President Trump if he tries to break the law dominated the nearly three-hour hearing. McMahon, a Trump loyalist and veteran of the first administration, weathered the hearing just fine and will likely be confirmed by the Senate. The committee will vote Feb. 20 on her nomination.

    McMahon largely stuck by Trump and defended his actions so far. She also pledged to comply with and uphold the law, respecting Congress’s power over the purse strings by disbursing funds as lawmakers order. “The president will not ask me to do anything that’s against the law,” she later added.

    McMahon’s comments break slightly from the president’s record so far. In the first three weeks alone, Trump and Elon Musk have entirely shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, cut countless contracts and attempted to freeze all federal grants. The president has said he wants to get rid of the Education Department entirely, suggesting he didn’t need congressional action to do so.

    During and after the hearing, the majority of Republicans praised McMahon as the right person for the job.

    “It is clear that our current education system isn’t working. We have the status quo and that’s actually failing our kids,” Senator Katie Britt of Alabama said in her opening remarks. “Linda McMahon is someone who knows how to reform our education system.”

    But for Democrats and Senator Susan Collins, a more centrist Republican from Maine, McMahon’s comments left quite a few questions still lingering and seemed to be, at times, self-contradictory.

    “The whole hearing right now feels kind of surreal to me,” said Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire. “It’s almost like we’re being subjected to a very eloquent gaslighting here.”

    While many of the senators’ questions focused on special education, K-12, the separation of powers and getting rid of the Education Department, colleges and universities did come up a few times, offering some insight into McMahon’s plans as secretary.

    Here are five key higher ed takeaways from the hearing:

    Commitments but Few Specifics

    Prior to the hearing, Trump’s comments suggested his Education Department would prioritize cutting red tape, returning education to the states, cracking down on campus antisemitism and banning what he calls “gender ideology,” among other things. But speculation swirled about what McMahon would put at the top of her agenda.

    On Thursday she made it clear that she’s in lockstep with the president, saying in her opening remarks that “Trump has shared his vision and I’m ready to enact it.” She failed to provide much detail beyond that.

    The business mogul, who has limited experience in education, indicated she’ll have some studying to do if she gets confirmed. When asked about topics like diversity, equity and inclusion programs or accreditation, she said, “I’ll have to learn more” or “I’d like to look into it further and get back to you on that.”

    For example, when it came to addressing civil rights complaints filed by Jewish students, McMahon was quick to assure Republican lawmakers that colleges will “face defunding” if they don’t comply with the law. She also said that international students who participate in protests Trump deems antisemitic should have their visas revoked. But she didn’t provide further detail on how exactly either repercussion would be enforced.

    Additionally, when asked about how she would address a backlog of cases at the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination, she said, “I would like to be confirmed and get into the department and understand that backlog.”

    ‘Pretty Chilling’ Approach to DEI

    McMahon declined to say what specific programs or classes might violate Trump’s recent executive order banning diversity, equity and inclusion during a tense exchange with Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

    Policy experts said Trump’s executive order should have had little immediate impact on higher ed, as most of its provisions require agency action, but several colleges and universities moved quickly to comply after the order was signed Jan. 21, canceling events and scrubbing websites of DEI mentions.

    Murphy highlighted one of those examples, telling McMahon that the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., had shut down a number of its student affinity groups and clubs like the Society of Black Engineers.

    He then went on to ask her, “Would public schools be in violation of this order, would they risk funding if they had clubs that students could belong to based on their racial or ethnic identity?” To which McMahon responded, “Well, I certainly today don’t want to address hypothetical situations.”

    Murphy said that should be “a pretty easy question,” adding that her lack of response was “pretty chilling.”

    “I think you’re going to have a lot of teachers and administrators scrambling right now,” he said.

    McMahon did note, however, that all schools can and should celebrate Black History Month and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. She suggested that in saying individuals should be judged by “content of their character,” King was supporting a colorblind approach to policy and looking at all populations as the same, rather than addressing systemic inequities.

    Dems Take Issue With DOGE

    Several lawmakers had questions for McMahon about Trump’s efforts to cut spending via the Elon Musk–led Department of Government Efficiency, but she didn’t have many answers.

    Democrats, in particular, took issue with recent reports that DOGE staffers have access to sensitive student data and recently canceled $881 million in contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences. The Education Department is just one of several agencies under DOGE’s microscope. The Trump administration is also laying off employees at the agency or putting them on administrative leave as part of a broader plan to shrink the federal workforce.

    McMahon said she didn’t know “about all the administrative people who have been put on leave,” adding she would look into that. She also didn’t have more information about the IES cuts. But she defended DOGE’s work as an audit.

    “I do think it’s worthwhile to take a look at the programs before money goes out the door,” she said.

    But Democrats countered that Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to direct where federal funds should go.

    “When Congress appropriates money, it is the administration’s responsibility to put that out as directed by Congress, who has the power of the purse,” said Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat. “If you have input, if you have programs you have looked at that you believe are not effective, then it is your job to come to us, explain why and get the support for that.”

    Brief Mention of Accreditation

    Despite Trump’s promise to fire accreditors, the accreditation system and the federal policies that govern it received little attention during the hearing—aside from one round of questions.

    Senator Ashley Moody, a Florida Republican, said she thinks the current system is unconstitutional, echoing claims that she made as Florida attorney general. The state argued in a 2023 lawsuit that Congress ceded power to private accrediting agencies, violating the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge rejected those claims and threw out the lawsuit in October.

    Currently, federal law requires that colleges and universities be accredited by an Education Department–recognized accreditor in order to receive federal student aid such as Pell Grants. But in recent years, Republican-led states—most notably Florida—have bristled at what they see as undue interference from the accreditors and their power to potentially take away federal aid. State lawmakers in Florida now require public colleges to change accreditors regularly. But that process has been sluggish, and officials blame the Education Department.

    Moody asked McMahon to commit to review regulations and guidance related to colleges changing accreditors.

    “I look forward to working with you on that,” McMahon said. “And there’s been a lot of issues raised about these five to seven accreditors … I think that needs to have a broad overview and review.” (McMahon didn’t specify, but she seemed to refer to the seven institutional accreditors.)

    Support for Short-Term Pell

    Throughout the hearing, McMahon also reiterated her support for expanding the Pell Grant to short-term workforce training programs that run between eight and 15 weeks, and bolstering other nontraditional means of higher education like apprenticeships.

    The nominee noted multiple times that though “college isn’t for everyone,” there should be opportunities for socioeconomic mobility and career development for all. She believes promoting programs like short-term Pell “could stimulate our economy” by providing new routes to pursue skills-based learning and promote trade careers. This mindset could likely lead to less restriction on for-profit technical institutions like cosmetology schools.

    One thing neither McMahon nor the Senate panel spent much time on, however, was the Office of Federal Student Aid, its botched rollout of a new application portal or how she would manage the government’s $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio. One of the few mentions of the student debt crisis came up in committee chair Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana’s opening remarks.

    “Too many students leave college woefully unprepared for the workforce while being saddled with overwhelming debt that they cannot pay off,” he said. “Your previous experience overseeing [Small Business Administration] loans will be a great asset as the department looks to reform its student loan program.”

    Source link

  • Love, loyalty, and liberty: ASU alumni unite to defend free speech

    Love, loyalty, and liberty: ASU alumni unite to defend free speech

    Late last year, a group of Arizona State University alumni gathered on the rooftop of the Canopy Hotel — high enough to see the headlights snake through the city of Tempe, but low enough to feel the pounding bass line of Mill Avenue’s nightlife. 

    Though the setting was casual, the conversation was anything but. A simple question had brought them together: What obligations do alumni have to their alma mater? 

    For most graduates, the answer is simple. Come back for Homecoming, buy the sweatshirt, scribble a check when the fundraising office calls. Thanks for your generosity! Click. 

    But for the assembled Sun Devils — spanning the classes of ’85 to ’24 — their connection to ASU is more than rah–rah nostalgia. They feel a duty to protect what made the university worth attending in the first place. 

    And so, that evening, they formed ASU Alumni for Free Speech. Their mission? “To promote and strengthen free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity, both on campus and throughout the global ASU community.” 

    The group’s inaugural chairman is Joe Pitts, ASU class of ’23 — whose beard, broad shoulders, and sage intellect belie his youth. For him, alumni should be more than mere spectators or “walking check books,” as he puts it, “endlessly giving and expecting little in return.” Instead, they should be invested stakeholders. 

    Pitts says it’s now fashionable to view a college diploma as little more than a fancy receipt. People think, I paid my tuition, endured the required courses, and behold: I’m credentialed! A neat little market transaction — no lingering ties, no ongoing investment.

    But this mindset, Pitts argues, is both morally bankrupt and pragmatically wrong-headed. As a practical matter, he says, “the value of your degree is tied to the reputation of your school — if your alma mater improves over time, your degree becomes more prestigious. If it declines, so does the respect it commands.” 

    And in the cutthroat world of status-signaling and social capital that matters — a lot. 

    ASU alumni have already petitioned the Arizona Board of Regents, urging them to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, which would prevent the university from taking positions on current political issues and weighing in on the cause-du-jour.

    As a moral matter, “spending four years (or even more) at a university inevitably shapes you in some way,” Pitts says. “And in most cases, it’s for the better — even if we don’t exactly realize it at the time.” Think about it: how many unexpected friendships or serendipitous moments of clarity, insight, rebellion, and revelation do we owe our alma mater? 

    To discard that connection the moment you graduate — to treat it like an expired gym membership — isn’t just ungrateful. It’s a rejection of one’s own formation.

    But beyond these considerations, Pitts insists that what united them on the Canopy Hotel rooftop last year was — love, actually. Not the saccharine, Hallmark kind or the fleeting thrill of a Tinder rendezvous, but the sort of love that drives men to build cathedrals and forge legacies.

    Echoing St. Thomas Aquinas, Pitts says, “We love ASU, and to love is to will the good of the other — not to sit idly by.” And what is the good? It’s a campus where students unapologetically speak their minds; where professors dare to probe the perilous and the provocative; where administrators resist the temptation to do their best Big Brother impression! 

    Fortunately for ASU Alumni for Free Speech, their alma mater is already a national leader when it comes to free speech on campus — though, as Pitts notes, that’s “a damn low bar.”

    ASU ranks 14 out of 251 schools in FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, and has maintained a “green light” rating from FIRE since 2011, meaning its official policies don’t seriously imperil free expression. In 2018, ASU adopted the Chicago principles, committing to the “free, robust, and uninhibited sharing of ideas” on campus.

    The university didn’t stop there. This spring, ASU will launch a Center for Free Speech alongside an annual Free Speech Forum. 

    But despite these credentials, the specter of censorship still lingers at ASU, and the numbers tell the tale:

    • 68% of ASU students believe shouting down a speaker is at least rarely acceptable.
    • 35% believe violence can sometimes be justified to silence speech.
    • 37% self-censor at least once or twice a month. 
    • Over one-third of surveyed ASU faculty admit to self-censorship in their writing.

    And so — like the cavalry cresting the hill — ASU Alumni for Free Speech arrives just in time.

    “When controversy inevitably arises on a campus of 100,000 students,” Pitts argues, “the defense of free expression shouldn’t be left solely to outside organizations or political bodies. Instead, those speaking up should be people who genuinely care about ASU and have its best interests at heart.”

    ASU Alumni for Free Speech aims to be that voice. “In the long run, we want to have a seat at the table,” Pitts explains. “We want to build relationships not just with the ASU administration but also with the Arizona Board of Regents.”

    Along with FIRE, ASU alumni have already petitioned the Arizona Board of Regents, urging them to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, which would prevent the university from taking positions on current political issues and weighing in on the cause-du-jour.

    SIGN THE PETITION TO ADOPT INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY!

    Pitts and the rest of ASU Alumni for Free Speech are tired of playing cheerleader. They’re here to ensure that ASU flourishes not just today, but for every Sun Devil yet to step onto Palm Walk for the first time.

    “Sometimes that may look like applause,” Pitts says. “Other times, that may look like criticism.” 

    In either case, he insists, it’s an act of love.

    If you’re ready to join ASU Alumni for Free Speech, or if you’re interested in forming a free speech alumni alliance at your alma mater, contact Bobby Ramkissoon at [email protected]. We’ll connect you with like-minded alumni and offer guidance on how to effectively protect free speech and academic freedom for all. 

    Source link

  • Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems

    Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems

    AI is enhancing our ability to communicate, much like the printing press and the internet did in the past. And lawmakers nationwide are rushing to regulate its use, introducing hundreds of bills in states across the country.  Unfortunately, many AI bills we’ve reviewed would violate the First Amendment — just as FIRE warned against last month. It’s worth repeating that First Amendment doctrine does not reset itself after each technological advance. It protects speech created or modified with artificial intelligence software just as it does to speech created without it.

    On the flip side, AI’s involvement doesn’t change the illegality of acts already forbidden by existing law. There are some narrow, well-defined categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment — such as fraud, defamation, and speech integral to criminal conduct — that states can and do already restrict. In that sense, the use of AI is already regulated, and policymakers should first look to enforcement of those existing laws to address their concerns with AI. Further restrictions on speech are both unnecessary and likely to face serious First Amendment problems, which I detail below.

    Constitutional background: Watermarking and other compelled disclosure of AI use

    We’re seeing a lot of AI legislation that would require a speaker to disclose their use of AI to generate or modify text, images, audio, or video. Generally, this includes requiring watermarks on images created with AI, mandating disclaimers in audio and video generated with AI, and forcing developers to add metadata to images created with their software. 

    Many of these bills violate the First Amendment by compelling speech. Government-compelled speech—whether that speech is an opinion, or fact, or even just metadata—is generally anathema to the First Amendment. That’s for good reason: Compelled speech undermines everyone’s right to conscience and fundamental autonomy to control their own expression.

    To illustrate: Last year, in X Corp. v. Bonta, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit  reviewed a California law that required social media companies to post and report information about their content moderation practices. FIRE filed an amicus curiae — “friend of the court” — brief in that case, arguing the posting and reporting requirements unconstitutionally compel social media companies to speak about topics on which they’d like to remain silent. The Ninth Circuit agreed, holding the law was likely unconstitutional. While acknowledging the state had an interest in providing transparency, the court reaffirmed that “even ‘undeniably admirable goals’ ‘must yield’ when they ‘collide with the . . . Constitution.’”

    There are (limited) exceptions to the principle that the state cannot compel speech. In some narrow circumstances, the government may compel the disclosure of information. For example, for speech that proposes a commercial transaction, the government may require disclosure of uncontroversial, purely factual information to prevent consumer deception. (For example, under this principle, the D.C. Circuit allowed federal regulators to require disclosure of country-of-origin information about meat products.) 

    But none of those recognized exceptions would permit the government to mandate blanket disclosure of AI-generated or modified speech. States seeking to require such disclosures will face heightened scrutiny beyond what is required for commercial speech.

    AI disclosure and watermarking bills

    This year, we’re also seeing lawmakers introduce many bills that require certain disclosures whenever speakers use AI to create or modify content, regardless of the nature of the content. These bills include Washington’s HB 1170, Massachusetts’s HD 1861, New York’s SB 934, and Texas’s SB 668.

    At a minimum, the First Amendment requires these kinds of regulations to be tailored to address a particular state interest. But these bills are not aimed at any specific problem at all, much less being tailored to it; instead, they require nearly all AI-generated media to bear a digital disclaimer. 

    For example, FIRE recently testified against Washington’s HB 1170, which requires covered providers of AI to include in any AI-generated images, videos, or audio a latent disclosure detectable by an AI detection tool that the bill also requires developers to offer.

    Of course, developers and users can choose to disclose their use of AI voluntarily. But bills like HB 1170 force disclosure in constitutionally suspect ways because they aren’t aimed at furthering any particular governmental interest and they burden a wide range of speech.

    Because no reliable technology exists to detect whether media has been produced by AI, candidates can easily weaponize these laws to challenge all campaign-related media that they simply do not like. 

    In fact, if the government’s goal is addressing fraud or other unlawful deception, there are ways these disclosures could make things worse. First, the disclosure requirement will taint the speech of non-malicious AI users by fostering the false impression that their speech is deceptive, even if it isn’t. Second, bad actors can and will find ways around the disclosure mandate — including using AI tools in other states or countries, or just creating photorealistic content through other means. False content produced by bad actors will then have a much greater imprimatur of legitimacy than it would in a world without the disclosures required by this bill, because people will assume that content lacking the mandated disclosure was not created with AI.

    Constitutional background: Categorical ‘deepfake’ regulations

    A handful of bills introduced this year seek to categorically ban “deepfakes.” In other words, these bills would make it unlawful to create or share AI-generated content depicting someone saying or doing something that the person did not in reality say or do.

    Categorical exceptions to the First Amendment exist, but these exceptions are few, narrow, and carefully defined. Take, for example, false or misleading speech. There is no general First Amendment exception for misinformation or disinformation or other false speech. Such an exception would be easily abused to suppress dissent and criticism.

    There are, however, narrow exceptions for deceptive speech that constitutes fraud, defamation, or appropriation. In the case of fraud, the government can impose liability on speakers who knowingly make factual misrepresentations to obtain money or some other material benefit. For defamation, the government can impose liability for false, derogatory speech made with the requisite intent to harm another’s reputation. For appropriation, the government can impose liability for using another person’s name or likeness without permission, for commercial purposes.

    Misinformation versus disinformation, explained

    Issue Pages

    Confusingly, the terms are used interchangeably. But they are different — and the distinction matters.


    Read More

    Like an email message or social media post, AI-generated content can fall under one of these categories of unprotected speech, but the Supreme Court has never recognized a categorical exception for creating photorealistic images or video of another person. Context always matters.

    Although some people will use AI tools to produce unlawful or unprotected speech, the Court has never permitted the government to institute a broad technological ban that would stifle protected speech on the grounds that the technology has a potential for misuse. Instead, the government must tailor its regulation to the problem it’s trying to solve — and even then, the regulation will still fail judicial scrutiny if it burdens too much protected speech.

    AI-generated content has a wide array of potential applications, spanning from political commentary and parody to art, entertainment, education, and outreach. Users have deployed AI technology to create political commentary, like the viral deepfake of Mark Zuckerberg discussing his control over user data — and for parody, as seen in the Donald Trump pizza commercial and the TikTok account dedicated to satirizing Tom Cruise. In the realm of art and entertainment, the Dalí Museum used deepfake technology to bring the artist back to life, and the TV series “The Mandalorian” recreated a young Luke Skywalker. Deepfakes have even been used for education and outreach, with a deepfake of David Beckham raising awareness about malaria.

    These examples should not be taken to suggest that AI is always a positive force for shaping public discourse. It’s not. But not only will categorical bans on deepfakes restrict protected expression such as the examples above, they’ll face — and are highly unlikely to survive — the strictest judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.

    Categorical deepfake prohibition bills

    Bills with categorical deepfake prohibitions include North Dakota’s HB 1320 and Kentucky’s HB 21.

    North Dakota’s HB 1320, a failed bill that FIRE opposed, is a clear example of what would have been an unconstitutional categorical ban on deepfakes. The bill would have made it a misdemeanor to “intentionally produce, possess, distribute, promote, advertise, sell, exhibit, broadcast, or transmit” a deepfake without the consent of the person depicted. It defined a deepfake as any digitally-altered or AI-created “video or audio recording, motion picture film, electronic image, or photograph” that deceptively depicts something that did not occur in reality and includes the digitally-altered or AI-created voice or image of a person.

    This bill was overly broad and would criminalize vast amounts of protected speech. It was so broad that it would be like making it illegal to paint a realistic image of a busy public park without obtaining everyone’s consent. Why make it illegal for that same painter to take their realistic painting and bring it to life with AI technology?

    Artificial intelligence, free speech, and the First Amendment

    Issue Pages

    FIRE offers an analysis of frequently asked questions about artificial intelligence and its possible implications for free speech and the First Amendment.


    Read More

    HB 1320 would have prohibited the creation and distribution of deepfakes regardless of whether they cause actual harm. But, as noted, there isn’t a categorical exception to the First Amendment for false speech, and deceptive speech that causes specific, targeted harm to individuals is already punishable under narrowly defined First Amendment exceptions. If, for example, someone creates and distributes to other people a deepfake showing someone doing something they didn’t in reality do, thus effectively serving as a false statement of fact, the depicted individual could sue for defamation if they suffered reputational harm. But this doesn’t require a new law.

    Even if HB 1320 were limited to defamatory speech, enacting new, technology-specific laws where existing, generally applicable laws already suffice risks sowing confusion that will ultimately chill protected speech. Such technology-specific laws are also easily rendered obsolete and ineffective by rapidly advancing technology.

    HB 1320’s overreach clashed with clear First Amendment protections. Fortunately, the bill failed to pass.

    Constitutional background: Election-related AI regulations

    Another large bucket of bills that we’re seeing would criminalize or create civil liability for the use of AI-generated content in election-related communications, without regard to whether the content is actually defamatory.

    Like categorical bans on AI, regulations of political speech have serious difficulty passing constitutional muster. Political speech receives strong First Amendment protection and the Supreme Court has recognized it as essential for our system of government: “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”

    Under strict scrutiny, prohibitions or restrictions on AI-modified or generated media relating to elections will face an uphill battle.

    As noted above, the First Amendment protects a great deal of false speech, so these regulations will be subject to strict scrutiny when challenged in court. This means the government must prove the law is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieving that interest. Narrow tailoring in strict scrutiny requires that the state meet its interest using the least speech-restrictive means.

    This high bar protects the American people from poorly tailored regulations of political speech that chill vital forms of political discourse, including satire and parody. Vigorously protecting free expression ensures robust democratic debate, which can counter deceptive speech more effectively than any legislation.

    Under strict scrutiny, prohibitions or restrictions on AI-modified or generated media relating to elections will face an uphill battle. No elections in the United States have been decided, or even materially impacted, by any AI-generated media, so the threat — and the government’s interest in addressing it — remains hypothetical. Even if that connection was established, many of the current bills are not narrowly tailored; they would burden all kinds of AI-generated political speech that poses no threat to elections. Meanwhile, laws against defamation already provide an alternative means for candidates to address deliberate lies that harm them through reputational damage.

    Already, a court has blocked one of these laws on First Amendment grounds. In a First Amendment challenge from a satirist who uses AI to generate parodies of political figures, a federal court recently applied strict scrutiny and blocked a California statute aimed at “deepfakes” that regulated “materially deceptive” election-related content.

    Election-related AI bills

    Unfortunately, many states have jumped on the bandwagon to regulate AI-generated media relating to elections. In December, I wrote about two bills in Texas — HB 556 and HB 228 — that would criminalize AI-generated content related to elections. Other bills now include Alaska’s SB 2, Arkansas’s HB 1041, Illinois’s SB 150, Maryland’s HB 525, Massachusetts’s HD 3373, Mississippi’s SB 2642, Missouri’s HB 673, Montana’s SB 25, Nebraska’s LB 615, New York’s A 235, South Carolina’s H 3517, Vermont’s S 23, and Virginia’s SB 775.

    For example, S 23, a Vermont bill, bans a person from seeking to “publish, communicate, or otherwise distribute a synthetic media message that the person knows or should have known is a deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media of a candidate on the ballot.” According to the bill, synthetic media means content that creates “a realistic but false representation” of a candidate created or manipulated with “the use of digital technology, including artificial intelligence.”

    Under this bill (and many others like it), if someone merely reposted a viral AI-generated meme of a presidential candidate that portrayed that candidate “saying or doing something that did not occur,” the candidate could sue the reposter to block them from sharing it further, and the reposter could face a substantial fine should the state pursue the case further. This would greatly burden private citizens’ political speech, and would burden candidates’ speech by giving political opponents a weapon to wield against each other during campaign season. 

    Because no reliable technology exists to detect whether media has been produced by AI, candidates can easily weaponize these laws to challenge all campaign-related media that they simply do not like. To cast a serious chill over electoral discourse, a motivated candidate need only file a bevy of lawsuits or complaints that raise the cost of speaking out to an unaffordable level.

    Instead of voter outreach, political campaigning would turn into lawfare.

    Concluding Thoughts

    That’s a quick round-up of the AI-related legislation I’m seeing at the moment and how it impacts speech. We’ll keep you posted!



    Source link

  • Howard University Makes History as First HBCU to Achieve Top Research Status

    Howard University Makes History as First HBCU to Achieve Top Research Status

    In a groundbreaking achievement that marks a significant milestone for historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Howard University has become the first HBCU to receive the prestigious Research One (R1) Carnegie Classification, placing it among the nation’s most elite research institutions.

    The announcement from the American Council of Education (ACE) on Thursday, recognizes Howard’s designation as an institution of “very high research spending and doctorate production,” a status that fewer than 150 universities nationwide have achieved. This accomplishment not only highlights Howard’s commitment to academic excellence but also represents a historic moment in the evolution of HBCUs in American higher education.

    According to ACE’s stringent criteria, universities must demonstrate exceptional research capabilities through substantial financial investment and doctoral program success. The minimum requirements include at least $50 million in annual research spending and the production of at least 70 research doctorates. Howard University has significantly surpassed these thresholds, showcasing its commitment to advancing knowledge and fostering innovation.

    Dr. Bruce A. Jones, Howard University’s senior vice president for research, provided specific details about the university’s achievements. “In Fiscal Year 2023, the most recent evaluation year in the classification cycle, the University’s productivity was significantly higher than the R1 base criteria, recording just under $85 million in research expenditures and awarding 96 doctorates in an array of fields,” Jones said. “This includes the highest number of doctorates awarded to Black students at any college or university in America.”

    The impact of such a designation has broader implications beyond Howard, said Dr. Robert T. Palmer, chair and professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the university.

    “Howard reaching R1 status is phenomenal. This status will help Howard to attract more highly competitive research grants and talented faculty and students,” said Palmer, who added that the university’s status as an R1 will also help to position itself as a premier institution “and help to amplify the great work being done by faculty, staff, and students, alumni”

    Palmer noted that there are other HBCUs, including his alma mater, Morgan State University that is currently seeking R1 status.

    “It would be great for HBCUs seeking R1 status to form a coalition and work collectively to support each other towards this goal,” he added.

    University President Dr. Ben Vinson III emphasized the broader implications of this achievement for both Howard and the communities it serves.

    “Howard University’s achievement of R1 status demonstrates our research capacity and reaffirms our deep commitment to tackling society’s most pressing questions through cutting-edge scholarship and technological innovation,” Vinson said. “As a leader in the evolution of next generation HBCUs, we are dedicated to ensuring that the benefits of discovery and progress reach all communities, including those historically overlooked and underrepresented.”

    Vinson noted that the university’s research portfolio showcases its comprehensive approach to addressing critical societal challenges. For example, Howard hosts one of only fifteen U.S. Department of Defense University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) in the nation, focusing on tactical autonomy, human-machine teaming, and artificial intelligence through its Research Institute for Tactical Autonomy.

    In the medical field, Howard’s pioneering spirit is evident in its Center for Sickle Cell Disease, which was the first center in the nation devoted to studying and treating the disease. The university’s Cancer Center holds the distinction of being the only such facility at an HBCU providing comprehensive cancer treatment services while training future oncology professionals and researchers.

    The university’s commitment to preserving and studying Black history and culture is exemplified by the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, which stands as the nation’s largest and most comprehensive repository of materials on the global Black experience. Additionally, Howard’s Center for African Studies holds the unique position of being the only comprehensive National Resource Center at an HBCU, as designated by the U.S. Department of Education.

    Higher education experts point out that Howard’s R1 designation represents not just an achievement for Howard University but a significant advancement for the entire HBCU community, potentially paving the way for other institutions to follow. As Howard continues to expand its research capabilities and influence, its impact on American higher education and scientific advancement promises to grow even stronger.

    “I think it’s incredibly exciting that Howard University — a powerhouse for decades in research — is being recognized as a Research 1 institution,” said Dr. Marybeth Gasman, who is the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Endowed Chair in Education and University Distinguished Professor at Rutgers University. An expert on HBCUs, Gasman added that the important research contributions across disciplines at Howard have significantly impacted students, communities (regional, national, and international), and leaders.

    “I’m excited to see what the institution does to build on this recognition as it progresses,” she said. “As a Research 1, it will be vital to ensure that all tenure-track faculty are supported through reduced course loads (4 courses a year max), research start-up funds across the disciplines, ample conference travel funding, and that Ph.D. students are supported with fully funded fellowships and assistantships.”

    Source link