Author: admin

  • Trump order restricts PSLF eligibility for certain nonprofits

    Trump order restricts PSLF eligibility for certain nonprofits

    Despite a public push to cancel student debt among civil servants, only a small number of Public Service Loan Forgiveness applications were approved by the first Trump administration.

    Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    In his latest executive action, President Donald Trump directed the Education Department to limit eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

    The order, issued late Friday evening, would require the Education Department to go through a complex and lengthy process known as negotiated rule making, so the directive doesn’t change anything immediately. And Education Secretary Linda McMahon pledged at her confirmation hearing that PSLF will not be eliminated completely, as “that’s the law.” However, the changes could lead to the denial of student loan forgiveness for thousands of nonprofit employees.

    The administration argued the order was a necessary step to “restore the program” and end the subsidization of “illegal activities” such as “illegal immigration, human smuggling, child trafficking, pervasive damage to public property, and disruption of the public order.”

    But Democrats and debt relief and consumer protection advocates say it’s another attempt to weaponize the federal government and block funds from reaching public servants in fields the president disagrees with.

    “Don’t be fooled, today’s executive order is blatantly illegal,” Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, said in a statement Friday. “It is an attack on working families everywhere and will have a chilling effect on our public service workforce doing the work every day to support our local communities.”

    Like Trump’s other executive orders, this directive is likely to face legal challenges.

    Congress created the PSLF program in 2007 with bipartisan support under former president George W. Bush. It was designed to incentivize Americans to work in public service, by promising student loan forgiveness to federal, state, local or tribal government staff members; civilians working in the military; and the employees of certain nonprofit organizations after they make 10 years of qualifying payments on an approved federal loan repayment plan.

    Historically, recognized nonprofits have included emergency management and crime-reduction services, public interest and civil rights legal groups, and institutions of public health and education. More than two million borrowers are eligible for the program, according to December data from the Education Department, the Associated Press reported.

    But gaining access to the program’s benefits hasn’t always been easy. In 2019, during the first Trump administration, the American Federation of Teachers sued then–education secretary Betsy DeVos, alleging “gross mismanagement” of the program. Data showed that of the roughly 76,000 applications submitted between 2017 and the filing of the lawsuit, only about 1 percent had been approved.

    Although the department reached a settlement in fall 2021 and committed to reconsider every application it denied, when the first Trump administration exited office, only 7,000 Americans had received forgiveness. Comparatively, the Biden administration prioritized making the program easier to access and provided more than $74 billion in relief to more than one million borrowers over the course of four years.

    Now, under the new stipulations, fewer borrowers could see relief, advocates said.

    “The PSLF Program has misdirected tax dollars into activist organizations that not only fail to serve the public interest, but actually harm our national security and American values, sometimes through criminal means,” the order says. “The Secretary of Education shall propose revisions … that ensure the definition of ‘public service’ excludes organizations that engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose.”

    According to the order, activities that would disqualify a nonprofit include: aiding or abetting violations of federal immigration laws, supporting terrorism, engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing federal policy, the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children “or the trafficking of children to so-called transgender sanctuary States for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents,” and aiding and abetting illegal discrimination.

    Although the president didn’t say so directly, experts interpret the order as yet another attempt to discourage activism and chill efforts Trump disagrees with, such as diversity, equity and inclusion; LGBTQ+ advocacy; pro bono defense for undocumented immigrants; and Palestinian statehood.

    Representative Tim Walberg, a Republican from Michigan and chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, praised the president’s intentions in a statement, saying President Trump is protecting Jewish students from “the hatred they’ve been enduring” on college campuses.

    “Federal dollars shouldn’t fund antisemitism,” he said. “President Trump is stepping up by preventing these activists from receiving windfalls in forgiveness benefits footed by taxpayers.”

    Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington and former chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, says Trump is “holding resources owed to hardworking Americans hostage.”

    “President Trump is once again trying to use his office to force his extreme political views on the American people by choking off promised relief for people who’ve served our country in ways he disagrees with,” she said. “It is as outrageous as it is un-American.”

    But the Trump administration says the order is about more than just preventing “subsidized wrongdoing.” In his view, it’s also a matter of limiting “perverse incentives” for higher education institutions.

    Rather than alleviating worker shortages, the president said, PSLF encourages colleges and universities to increase the cost of tuition and load students in “low-need majors” with “unsustainable” debt.

    To that, debt-relief advocates like the Student Debt Crisis Center say, “Public service workers are the backbone of this country.”

    “This executive order is both illegal and deeply troubling for all nonprofit workers,” SDCC president Natalia Abrams said in a statement. “Relentless political attacks on education and existing programs are not just policy decisions—they disrupt the lives and financial stability of Americans with student debt and their families. This must stop.”

    Source link

  • Columbia University Faces $400 Million Federal Funding Cut in the Wake of Antisemitism Concerns

    Columbia University Faces $400 Million Federal Funding Cut in the Wake of Antisemitism Concerns

    Dr. Katrina ArmstrongColumbia University is grappling with significant financial challenges after the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced $400 million in cuts to federal funding, a development that Interim University President Dr. Katrina Armstrong says will “touch nearly every corner of the University.”

    The task force described the cuts as a consequence of Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students” and warned that this represents only the “first round of action,” with “additional cancellations” to follow.

    This announcement comes just four days after the task force revealed it would consider stop work orders for $51.4 million in contracts between Columbia and the federal government and conduct a “comprehensive review” of more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments to the institution.

    In her communication to the Columbia community, Armstrong acknowledged that the cuts would have an immediate impact on research and critical university functions, affecting “students, faculty, staff, research, and patient care.” Federal funding constituted approximately $1.3 billion of Columbia’s annual operating revenue in the 2024 fiscal year.

    “There is no question that the cancellation of these funds will immediately impact research and other critical functions of the University,” Armstrong wrote in en email to the campus community, while emphasizing that Columbia’s mission as “a great research university does not waver.”

    The situation at Columbia highlights the increasing tensions between academic institutions and the Trump administration, particularly regarding how universities respond to claims of antisemitism on campus. Since October 2023, Columbia has been at the center of pro-Palestinian student protests, drawing federal scrutiny, especially from the Trump administration.

    President Trump recently stated on Truth Social that “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests.”

    Armstrong, who assumed her interim position following former University President Minouche Shafik’s resignation in August 2024, described Columbia as needing a “reset” from the “chaos of encampments and protests.” She emphasized that the university “needed to acknowledge and repair the damage to our Jewish students.”

    Armstrong affirmed the university’s commitment to working with the federal government on addressing antisemitism concerns, stating: “Columbia can, and will, continue to take serious action toward combatting antisemitism on our campus. This is our number one priority.”

    Armstrong, however, did not outline specific plans for how Columbia would adapt to the significant loss of federal funding, instead focusing on the university’s broader mission and values.

    “Antisemitism, violence, discrimination, harassment, and other behaviors that violate our values or disrupt teaching, learning, or research are antithetical to our mission,” Armstrong noted. “We must continue to work to address any instances of these unacceptable behaviors on our campus. We must work every day to do better.”

    The situation at Columbia raises important questions for higher education institutions nationwide about balancing free speech, campus safety, and federal compliance in the age of the Trump presidency. As universities increasingly face scrutiny over their handling of contentious social and political issues, the consequences—both financial and reputational—can be severe.

    Armstrong called unity within the Columbia community to maintain the university’s standing and continue its contributions to society.

    “A unified Columbia, one that remains focused on our mission and our values, will succeed in making the uncommonly valuable contributions to society that have distinguished this great university from its peers over the last 270 years,” she said. 

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Leaders Rally to Protect DEI Initiatives

    Higher Ed Leaders Rally to Protect DEI Initiatives

    Drs. Warren Anderson, Lisa Coleman, and Michael Anthony speaking on the President’s panel at NADOHE.Photos by Tim Trumble In a powerful gathering of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) professionals, university leaders from across the nation shared strategies for protecting critical DEI work on college campuses despite mounting opposition nationwide.

    The concluding panel discussion, moderated by Dr. Warren Anderson from Bradley University, featured Dr. Michael D. Anthony, the first African American president of Prairie State College, and Dr. Lisa Coleman, the first female and first Black president of Adler University.

    Coleman, who has over three decades of experience in inclusion work, emphasized the importance of strong communications and media representation in defending DEI efforts.

    “What I see is the evolution of a diversity equity inclusion field from multiculturalism to liberalism to diversity,” she noted, adding that leaders must determine their own risk tolerance and that of their institutions when navigating these challenges.

    Anthony, who leads Prairie State College—both a Predominantly Black Institution and Hispanic-serving Institution about 30 miles from Chicago—highlighted the increasingly polarized context in which DEI work takes place.

    “We’ve been under attack around the federal government… with citizens becoming more cynical, hostile, and divided,” he observed, stressing the importance of critical thinking in an era of fast, subjective media.

    Following the panel discussion, Dr. Clyde Wilson Pickett, vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh and board chairman of NADOHE shared a personal story about his great-grandmother that embodied the spirit of responsibility central to DEI work. He recounted how his great-grandmother, just one generation removed from slavery, would pick up garbage along the streets of her neighborhood every day after working a full day as a domestic worker.

    Thumbnail Img 8378Photos by Tim Trumble “She would take two buses out to be a domestic worker . When she got up in the morning at 5:00 AM to catch her first bus, she would walk down one side of the street picking up garbage,” Pickett explained. When he asked her why she did this, she responded, “We have to understand that we have a responsibility for our own and to take care of our own. So, what I’m doing is investing in our community.”

    Pickett drew a parallel to current DEI challenges that these frontline administrators are facing. “We have to do some things that we didn’t necessarily cause, but something that we had the responsibility to clean up.”

    He reminded attendees of their purpose during these “defining moments” that test values and resilience. “The ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but where they stand in times of challenge and controversy,” he said, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    Pickett urged DEI professionals to stay grounded in their values and purpose. “We have to understand when we face this adversity, we have to return to our why—why do we do what we do? Why we’re committed to what we’re committed to, and who we do it for.”

    He said that building connections rather than divisions is crucial in the fight ahead. Over the weekend, the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors voted to dissolve the college’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and Community Partnerships.

    “We know now more than ever, it’s important for us to do so by building bridges and not walls,” he said. “The same individuals who are leaving trash in our communities, who are causing conflict, want us to put up further walls between each other.”

    Pickett acknowledged the real challenges and potential for burnout in DEI work but urged professionals to practice self-care. “The work of diversity, equity, and inclusion is real. The burnout is real… And our ability to do this work can be compromised if we do not take care of ourselves.”

    The four-day conference, which coincided with International Women’s Day, served as both a celebration of progress and a rallying cry for continued advocacy. Despite growing opposition to DEI initiatives across American campuses, these leaders remain committed to protecting the progress made and supporting the professionals who advance this essential work every day.

    “I am leaving more reenergized and confident for the fight ahead,” said one attendee.

    Source link

  • International Women’s Day: Black Women Shaping the Future of Academia

    International Women’s Day: Black Women Shaping the Future of Academia

    • Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris is Professor of Public & Industry Understanding of Capability Driven Design in the School of Mechanical Engineering, and the Engagement Champion for the EPSRC EDI Hub+, at the University of Leeds.

    Women in higher education and industry leadership, especially in Engineering and STEM, have reshaped academia and industry through groundbreaking contributions. Over the past two centuries, they have advanced knowledge, dismantled systemic barriers, and set new standards in innovation and leadership. Yet Black women remain significantly underrepresented, highlighting the urgent need for institutional change.

    After all, when we lack diversity, we limit our ability to evolve and tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing world.

    Despite the progress made, the numbers remain stark. In the UK, women constitute 48% of overall academic staff, yet only 30% hold professorial roles. At present, among these, only 80+ Black women hold professorial positions across all disciplines. In the US, Black women account for just 2% of science and engineering roles. These figures underscore the persistent barriers that hinder progression into leadership roles in academia and industry.

    These disparities highlight the urgent need for fundamental change to ensure equitable access to opportunities and resources.

    The 200-year journey of Black women in academia has been shaped by structural barriers but also by resilience and advocacy. Initiatives like the Black Female Academics’ Network and the national EDI Hub+, led by the University of Leeds, have played pivotal roles in championing change and providing visibility and support for Black women in academia and higher education leadership. But the reality is that real change comes not just from support networks but from institutions and governance bodies truly committed to transformation through policy implementation and its incorporation into operational management.

    Black women have broken barriers in education, research, and industry, driving policy changes and fostering inclusivity. They have led pioneering research, challenged outdated structures, and risen to leadership in historically non-diverse sectors. In Engineering and STEM, figures like Dr. Aprille Ericsson, the first Black woman to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Howard University, have held key roles at NASA. Yewande Akinola, a Nigerian-born engineer, has advanced sustainable water systems while advocating for diversity. In the UK, Professor Esther Akinlabi has made significant contributions to academic leadership, engineering, research, and advocacy.

    These Black women, and countless others, have played critical roles, and yet their paths have not been easy. They have faced barriers, from being underestimated in their abilities to encountering biases that make progression in academia and industry far harder than it should be. It is important to highlight their successes but equally crucial to recognise the dramatic shifts needed to create a more inclusive landscape.

    As the first Black female professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Leeds, I have witnessed firsthand the impact of underrepresentation on individuals and institutions. Without diverse voices in leadership, we lose perspectives that drive innovation and meaningful change. True equity and inclusion require representation at the highest levels, where policies and practices are shaped.

    Mentorship and networking are vital for career progression, yet many Black women in academia and industry lack mentors with shared experiences. Institutions must formalise support systems rather than relying on individual efforts. A cultural shift is needed, one where diversity is not just discussed but reinforced through real structural changes that create lasting opportunities.

    Breaking barriers is not just about individuals but about how institutions respond. Are they fostering environments where Black women can thrive? Are they tackling unconscious bias in hiring and promotions? Are they offering real support for retention and advancement beyond just celebrating ‘firsts’? It’s time to move from symbolic gestures to tangible change that empowers the next generation in academia and industry.

    The legacy of Black women in academia and industry extends beyond their achievements to the opportunities they create for future generations. Recognising and amplifying their voices is essential. Their contributions must be seamlessly woven into the broader narrative of advancement and innovation in women’s higher education and industry leadership.

    Much work remains. Representation is not enough; true progress requires dismantling barriers to access and opportunity. Black women in academia and industry, especially in Engineering and STEM, must be empowered, supported, and able to lead without the constant need to justify their place.

    The goal should be that, in the future, their contributions are not exceptional but expected, and their presence in leadership roles is not a rarity but the norm.

    Source link

  • To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    It’s International Women’s Day. Today on the site, Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris explores the critical role of Black women in academia and industry leadership, particularly in Engineering and STEM, highlighting their groundbreaking contributions and the systemic barriers that persist. Read that piece here.

    Below, HEPI’s own Rose Stephenson challenges us to look at ‘the other side of the coin’ in the fight for gender equality – you can read that piece below.

    Firstly, Happy International Women’s Day 2025.

    The theme this year is ‘Accelerate Action.’ It’s a great theme, and to accelerate action in terms of gender equality, we have got to focus more on ‘the other side of the coin’. Let me explain three examples:

    1. We should do more to ensure that parenting is supportive and inclusive of fathers.

    Joeli Brearly, outgoing CEO of Pregnant then Screwed, recently gave evidence on Shared Parental Leave in parliament. She stated:

    ‘It’s time we asked ourselves a fundamental question about what sort of society we want this to be. Do we want to continue to perpetuate outdated and harmful gender stereotypes that tell us it is women who do the nurturing and the caring and the childrearing and are the homemakers and that men just need to pull their socks up and get back to work? They are strong, stoic breadwinners and don’t need this time [parental leave] to nurture and care for their family. The mental health of men in this country is in crisis. Boys are saying they feel lost and disconnected, and it’s no wonder when our laws are literally telling them: “you don’t need time to nurture and connect with your family.”’

    Inclusive parenting is good for dads, it’s great for kids, and it benefits Mums, too. My mantra is, ‘We will never have equality in the workplace until we have equality in the home’. Until we reach a point where an equal number of dads leave work in time for the school run, take time off for holiday care, or work part-time and flexibly, we will never reach parity in the workplace. And why would we want to? If women collectively reach equal pay, equal status and the resulting equal responsibility at work yet continue to shoulder most domestic and childcare duties, we have significantly undermined progress towards equality.

    The HEPI report I published last year, Show Me the Money, an exploration of the gender pay gap in higher education, demonstrated the importance of increasing paid paternity leave as a lever for narrowing the gender pay gap. If your institution is monitoring the uptake of senior or professorial roles by gender, are they also monitoring the uptake of post-birth parental leave, shared parental leave and statutory parental leave by the same measure? Is there monitoring and reporting on the genderisation of part-time work applications, flexible working requests and the granting of these requests? That is ‘the other side of the coin’ and we should not underestimate the hurdles fathers may have to overcome to ask – or be granted – the flexibility we more commonly expect for mothers.

    2. We should encourage boys and young men to work in teaching and social care roles to the same extent that we encourage women to work in engineering and tech.

    When working as a secondary and sixth-form science teacher, I undertook a project at my school that challenged pupils to critically think about the subject choices they were making at GCSE and A-Level and how this might be affected by gender stereotyping. There was plenty of support and encouragement for female pupils in science and maths subjects (as there should be). However, there was a notable vacuum in the equivalent campaigns to open up opportunities for boys.

    I witnessed first-hand how the gendering of subjects and occupations suppressed the potential of young men. One boy in my tutor group desperately wanted to complete his work experience at a hair salon. This pupil would have benefitted from a ‘hook’ that could have driven his interest in education and the future world of work. Unfortunately, his family disapproved of his choice, and he spent his work experience on a building site. This did nothing to enhance his motivation towards education or work. This was a valuable opportunity for a disengaged young man to pursue something that genuinely sparked his interest, and I have no doubt he would have excelled at. However, this opportunity was lost because it was not deemed ‘masculine’ enough. This was one example, but the boys I taught were quite open about feeling they couldn’t choose the subjects they wanted. There was an element of ‘acceptable’ choices.

    It is tragic that in 2025, UK society is still limiting the possibilities for young men to follow their real interests. As a sector, we should push hard against the narratives perpetuating this. Again, if your institution is monitoring and encouraging the uptake of subjects such as engineering or coding for female students, are they also monitoring the update of nursing courses by male students? Are there considerations of male uptake and completion of courses in your Access and Participation Plans?

    3. We should consider developing ‘Men’s Leadership’ courses.

    I’ve been lucky enough to partake in various forms of ‘Women’s Leadership training’ run by Advance HE and the Women’s Higher Education Network (WHEN), among others. Of course, non-gender-specific leadership training is available. However, women’s leadership courses have existed due to the historic and ongoing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Further, they provide a female-only space for women to develop their leadership skills.

    I vividly remember being told by a presenter on the Advance HE Aurora programme to ‘have heft’ and ‘take up space’. (I replay this memory regularly in all the privileged but occasionally intimidating speaking and media events I undertake in my current role.)

    But as we move closer towards gender parity – and I know there is more work to do – should we be thinking about the other side of the coin? Women’s leadership courses can often focus on developing traits deemed to be held by traditional, therefore male, leaders. Having more confidence, making your voice heard, etc. Now that most of society accepts that women can also make great leaders – and there are many stand-out examples in the higher education sector – where is the equivalent training for men?

    Where are the male leadership courses that teach men the skills of making space for others, speaking inclusively, building relationships, the importance of being a mentor, and using coaching techniques to build confidence in their colleagues? Surely, some male colleagues who wish to become leaders can learn skills that may be (stereotypically) more prevalent in female colleagues, and developing these skills would benefit everyone.

    And sure, some men will already possess these skills, just like some women have a natural ability to take up space. My question is, if we accept that women are socialised in a particular way to be missing some leadership or workplace skills, then can we accept that for men? Do we value stereotypically ‘female’ leadership skills enough to offer a platform for developing these skills in male colleagues? Further, should leadership courses for men include panels discussing how to balance leadership roles with childcare responsibilities? (And yes, those panels exist in women-in-leadership courses) Perhaps when we get to this point, we really will be considering the other side of the coin.

    If you found this blog interesting, you may wish to look back at some of our previous International Women’s Day blogs:

    HEPI has also published the report:

    HEPI will soon publish an updated report on educational achievement by boys and young men, a significant and long-standing issue that has been largely ignored by policymakers. The report considers the consequences for individuals and societies and proposes several levers that could be used to drive change. This report will be published this month – March 2025. If you haven’t already, sign up for our blog below to get this report hot off the press.

    If you wish to write a blog for International Men’s Day on November 19th, submissions are very welcome.

    Source link

  • Trump admin cancels $400M in grants at Columbia U

    Trump admin cancels $400M in grants at Columbia U

    The Trump administration announced Friday that it’s cutting $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University as a result of what Republican officials say is “continued inaction” and failure to protect Jewish students at the Ivy League institution.

    The accusations were made in a joint news release from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and the General Services Administration, all of which are members of an antisemitism task force the president assembled just one month ago through an executive order. Earlier in the week, the task force said it was reviewing Columbia’s $5 billion in federal grants and hinted that it could halt some of the university’s contracts. That notice was the task force’s first major action, and other universities could face similar reviews, experts said Friday.

    “For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in the release. “Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

    It remains uncertain exactly what grants and contracts will be affected, and the Department of Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for clarity.

    Columbia officials said the university is “reviewing the announcement” and pledged to “work with the federal government to restore Columbia’s federal funding.”

    “We take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously … and are committed to combating antisemitism,” a spokesperson said in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    Columbia has been a frequent target for Republicans who have taken issue with how colleges responded to a spate of demonstrations protesting Israel’s war in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023. That criticism ratcheted up last spring after pro-Palestinian student protesters erected an encampment of tents and later took over a campus building in hopes of persuading the university to divest from companies affiliated with Israel. Those protests, and Columbia’s decision to call in city police in response, not only sparked a national movement but also attracted strong opposition from critics who declared the demonstrations antisemitic and accused the colleges of failing to defend Jewish students.

    Trump officials have pledged to crack down on campus antisemitism, and this action against Columbia could serve as an early test case of how exactly the new administration could follow through on campaign trail promises.

    But canceling a university’s grants and contracts would be unprecedented. Higher education policy experts say that even if it’s just a threat, the concept of pulling funds without proper investigation from the Office for Civil Rights is deeply alarming.

    “You don’t get to punish people just because you don’t like what they’re doing,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education. “The fact that the administration is choosing to simply ignore not just precedent, not just norms, but the actual law covering this should be concerning to a lot of people, not just people at Columbia.”

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is tasked with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, including antisemitic and Islamophobic discrimination. The department’s rules and regulations, which Fansmith said are mandated by Title VI, outline how OCR conducts investigations and what to do if the office finds a violation. OCR is required to attempt to reach a resolution with the institution. In the rare case that a college refuses to comply with the law, the case can be referred to the Department of Justice.

    “So while the law doesn’t specifically dictate the process, it dictates the necessity of the process,” Fansmith said. “Nowhere in federal law is the government given the authority to arbitrarily select different types of federal funding and withhold them from an institution absent any prior finding or decision.”

    Republicans from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on the other hand, praised the decision.

    “Americans do not want their money sent to institutions that serve as breeding grounds for hatred and support for terrorism,” Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the committee, said in a statement. “I applaud the Trump administration for listening to the American people and holding institutions accountable when they fail to combat antisemitic, anti-American values.”

    Walberg and then–committee chair Representative Virginia Foxx were key figures in a scathing interrogation of then–Columbia president Minouche Shafik last spring. They also subpoenaed the university for records in August and published a deep-dive campus antisemitism report in November.

    But these congressional actions, as well as the department’s civil rights investigations, are separate from the actions of the task force.

    “The entire House report would be—what I’m sure many people would consider—a great piece of evidence in an OCR investigation,” Fansmith said. “The Trump administration is just missing the step where OCR does an investigation … which they’re required to in statute.”

    The statement said that Columbia should expect more cancellations.

    ‘Weaponizing’ Funding Cuts

    Similarly to Fansmith, First Amendment advocates see the Trump administration’s move as an overreach designed to intimidate institutions and chill campus free speech rather than address civil rights violations and hate speech.

    Kristen Shahverdian, program director for campus free speech at PEN America, said in a statement that while universities must urgently respond to concerns about antisemitism and ensure that students can participate fully and equally in campus life, they also need to be given “space, time and resources” to do so. The task force has not allowed that, and as a result federal research funding hangs in the balance.

    The Trump administration is “weaponizing nearly every instrument it has to suppress ideas it disfavors and pressure institutions into enforcing ideological alignment,” Shahverdian said. “The threat is sure to reverberate across the higher education sector, just as it seems intended to do.”

    Tyler Coward, lead counsel of government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Inside Higher Ed that though the loss of funds is a potential consequence for institutions that violate antidiscrimination law, they may only face liability if they fail to address the unlawful conduct.

    “If the administration is cutting funding to Columbia for violating Title VI, it must be clear and transparent about how it arrived at that decision and follow all relevant procedural requirements before doing so,” Coward said. And First Amendment–protected speech cannot be punished with the retraction of federal funds, he added. (The release offered no specifics on how the task force made its decision.)

    This “immediate cancellation” violates the law. If the Admin thinks Columbia has violated Title VI by being deliberately indifferent to antisemitic harassment, it has to give Columbia a chance for a hearing first, make findings on the record, & wait 30 days.

    www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03…

    [image or embed]

    — Sam Bagenstos (@sbagen.bsky.social) March 7, 2025 at 1:27 PM

    Fansmith said he was “not in a position to say” whether Columbia’s response to the student protests, building raids and encampments of 2024 would qualify for punishment under a proper OCR investigation. But the Trump administration “clearly thinks so,” he added.

    “If they are so certain of what the outcome will be, then there’s no harm from conducting an investigation,” he said. But “there’s plenty of harm from not doing it.”

    Trump ‘Walking the Talk’

    But right-leaning advocates for the protection of Jewish students and faculty members say the move was justified and necessary.

    Kenneth Marcus, a prominent civil rights lawyer who ran OCR during Trump’s first term, described Trump’s latest actions as “incredible.”

    “If anyone wasn’t paying attention before, this will get their attention,” said Marcus, who also founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. “There can now be no doubt that the Trump administration has prioritized campus antisemitism far higher than any prior administration has done. They have Columbia University in their scopes today, but no one should doubt that they will be coming after other universities as well.”

    McMahon affirmed Marcus’s take on the situation in an interview with Fox News shortly after the funding cuts were announced.

    “The president has said he’s absolutely not going to allow federal funds to be going to these universities that continue to allow antisemitism,” she said. “Kids ought to go to college and parents ought to feel good about their kids going to college, knowing they’re in a safe environment.”

    Marcus also applauded the Trump administration for utilizing multiple agencies to tackle the problem at once. The Department of Justice was minimally involved in responding to campus antisemitism during Trump’s first term, he said, but this time “the DOJ is leading the charge” and “the difference is palpable.” This weekend, all university administrators should be meeting with their general counsels and ensuring they are doing everything they can to protect all students, Marcus advised.

    “The last administration spoke of a whole-of-government approach. This administration is walking the talk,” he said.

    Liam Knox contributed to this report.



    Source link

  • DOL files fresh appeal of a Texas decision vacating its new overtime rule

    DOL files fresh appeal of a Texas decision vacating its new overtime rule

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Labor has appealed a Texas federal judge’s 2024 decision blocking its Biden-era final rule which sought to expand overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a Feb. 28 court filing.
    • Last December, Judge Sam Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled against DOL in Flint Avenue, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor, vacating and setting aside the final rule. Cummings’ decision came just over one month after another Texas judge similarly vacated and set aside the rule in a separate lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and parties including the Plano Chamber of Commerce.
    • The appeal takes Flint Avenue to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court in which DOL filed an appeal of the decision in the State of Texas case last year. DOL’s public affairs staff did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the DOL, did not respond to a request for comment submitted via its online form.

    Dive Insight:

    The Feb. 28 notice of appeal may come as a surprise to employers who expected the Trump administration to abandon the final rule; attorneys who previously spoke to HR Dive said that the rule was effectively “dead” despite DOL’s State of Texas appeal because of the Trump administration’s conservative policy stance on overtime.

    In fact, the new administration had already filed motions in the 5th Circuit pertinent to overtime rule litigation. On Jan. 22, two days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, DOJ attorneys sent a letter to the 5th Circuit requesting a 30-day extension on the deadline set by the court to file an opening brief in the State of Texas appeal. The court granted the request and the agency’s filing deadline is currently set to March 7.

    The April 2024 final rule proposed a two-step process that would have eventually raised the minimum annual salary threshold for overtime pay eligibility under the FLSA from $35,568 to $58,656 by Jan. 1, 2025. The rule would then have implemented a mechanism for automatically adjusting the threshold every three years using current wage data beginning in July 2027.

    But a series of Texas court decisions froze the rule. The judge in State of Texas held that the rule exceeded DOL’s authority and was unlawful. Likewise, Cummings said in his decision that he found the State of Texas judge’s reasoning “persuasive,” and he adopted the same reasoning in ruling for the plaintiffs.

    There is some intrigue in how the 5th Circuit might rule on the two appealed judgments given that the court signed off on DOL’s overall use of a salary basis test for determining overtime pay eligibility in last year’s Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor. The Mayfield plaintiffs alleged that the salary basis test had no basis in the FLSA’s text, but the 5th Circuit disagreed. The court did hold, however, that DOL “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s text, adding that particular salary threshold may raise legal issues because of their size.

    Source link

  • Maine’s censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech

    Maine’s censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech

    Citizens elect representatives to advocate zealously on their behalf, empowering officials to vote according to their conscience and express themselves freely on controversial topics. That’s why the Maine House of Representatives’ recent actions are so alarming — withdrawing an elected representative’s right to speak or vote on the House floor for refusing to take down a Facebook post. 

    Three weeks ago, Representative Laurel Libby of Maine’s 64th District posted on Facebook that a high school athlete won first place in girls’ pole vaulting at the Class B state championship after having competed the year before in the boys’ event and finishing in a tie for fifth place.

    Libby’s post is constitutionally protected. She was speaking out about the policy in her state, set by the Maine High School Principals Association, that a high school athlete may participate in competitions for the gender with which they identify. Her post was also part of a nationwide debate. Maine Governor Janet Mills and President Trump have publicly sparred over the president’s executive order proposing to cut off education funding if states do not ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports. 

    But just days after Libby’s post, the Maine House speaker and majority leader demanded she take it down. When she refused, the majority leader introduced a censure resolution — to be heard in the House the next day — because Libby’s post had included photos and the first name of the student, who is a minor. Libby sought to defend herself in the hastily called House vote, but was repeatedly cut off. The censure resolution passed 75-70 on a party-line vote. 

    If all the censure did was express disapproval of Libby’s actions, that would be one thing.

    A state legislative body is entitled to express displeasure with a member’s actions, which by itself does not violate the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently ruled.

    But in Libby’s case, the Maine House went further, much further. When Libby refused to apologize for her protected speech, the House speaker declared she would be barred from speaking on the House floor or voting on any legislation until she capitulated. Thus, the House majority party has precluded Libby from doing her job and effectively disenfranchised her constituents, end-running Maine constitutional provisions that say a representative cannot be expelled absent a two-thirds vote or recall election. 

    These actions are a clear example of retaliation based on constitutionally protected speech and amount to removal of an elected representative essentially because the House majority disagrees with her views or how she chose to express them. Sixty-nine years ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state legislature could not refuse to seat a duly elected member because of his public statements about the Vietnam War: “The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy.” 

    This is still the law. Under the constitution, the Maine House cannot censor Libby as it has done.

    Source link

  • AI Support for Teachers

    AI Support for Teachers

    Collaborative Classroom, a leading nonprofit publisher of K–12 instructional materials, announces the publication of SIPPS, a systematic decoding program. Now in a new fifth edition, this research-based program accelerates mastery of vital foundational reading skills for both new and striving readers.

    Twenty-Five Years of Transforming Literacy Outcomes

    “As educators, we know the ability to read proficiently is one of the strongest predictors of academic and life success,” said Kelly Stuart, President and CEO of Collaborative Classroom. “Third-party studies have proven the power of SIPPS. This program has a 25-year track record of transforming literacy outcomes for students of all ages, whether they are kindergarteners learning to read or high schoolers struggling with persistent gaps in their foundational skills.

    “By accelerating students’ mastery of foundational skills and empowering teachers with the tools and learning to deliver effective, evidence-aligned instruction, SIPPS makes a lasting impact.”

    What Makes SIPPS Effective?

    Aligned with the science of reading, SIPPS provides explicit, systematic instruction in phonological awareness, spelling-sound correspondences, and high-frequency words. 

    Through differentiated small-group instruction tailored to students’ specific needs, SIPPS ensures every student receives the necessary targeted support—making the most of every instructional minute—to achieve grade-level reading success.

    “SIPPS is uniquely effective because it accelerates foundational skills through its mastery-based and small-group targeted instructional design,” said Linda Diamond, author of the Teaching Reading Sourcebook. “Grounded in the research on explicit instruction, SIPPS provides ample practice, active engagement, and frequent response opportunities, all validated as essential for initial learning and retention of learning.”

    Personalized, AI-Powered Teacher Support

    Educators using SIPPS Fifth Edition have access to a brand-new feature: immediate, personalized responses to their implementation questions with CC AI Assistant, a generative AI-powered chatbot.

    Exclusively trained on Collaborative Classroom’s intellectual content and proprietary program data, CC AI Assistant provides accurate, reliable information for educators.

    Other Key Features of SIPPS, Fifth Edition

    • Tailored Placement and Progress Assessments: A quick, 3–8 minute placement assessment ensures each student starts exactly at their point of instructional need. Ongoing assessments help monitor progress, adjust pacing, and support grouping decisions.
    • Differentiated Small-Group Instruction: SIPPS maximizes instructional time by focusing on small groups of students with similar needs, ensuring targeted, effective teaching.
    • Supportive of Multilingual Learners: Best practices in multilingual learner (ML) instruction and English language development strategies are integrated into the design of SIPPS.
    • Engaging and Effective for Older Readers: SIPPS Plus and SIPPS Challenge Level are specifically designed for students in grades 4–12, offering age-appropriate texts and instruction to close lingering foundational skill gaps.
    • Multimodal Supports: Integrated visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile strategies help all learners, including multilingual students.
    • Flexible, Adaptable, and Easy to Teach: Highly supportive for teachers, tutors, and other adults working in classrooms and expanded learning settings, SIPPS is easy to implement well. A wraparound system of professional learning support ensures success for every implementer.

    Accelerating Reading Success for Students of All Ages

    In small-group settings, students actively engage in routines that reinforce phonics and decoding strategies, practice with aligned texts, and receive immediate feedback—all of which contribute to measurable gains.

    “With SIPPS, students get the tools needed to read, write, and understand text that’s tailored to their specific abilities,” said Desiree Torres, ENL teacher and 6th Grade Team Lead at Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School in New York. “The boost to their self-esteem when we conference about their exam results is priceless. Each and every student improves with the SIPPS program.” 

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • Saint Augustine’s University loses appeal to keep accreditation

    Saint Augustine’s University loses appeal to keep accreditation

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • Saint Augustine’s University announced Thursday that its appeal to keep its accreditation has been denied, striking a major blow to the struggling historically Black institution. 
    • Officials at the North Carolina university said they are entering a 90-day arbitration process in another bid to remain accredited. That will also ensure students graduating through May 2025 will earn their diplomas from an accredited institution, according to the university. 
    • Brian Boulware, Saint Augustine’s board chair, struck an optimistic tone in Thursday’s announcement about the arbitration process, saying that the university’s “strengthened financial position and governance will ensure a positive outcome.”

    Dive Insight: 

    Saint Augustine’s has been on the precipice of losing its accreditation for over a year. In 2023, the university’s accreditor — the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges — voted to terminate the university’s accreditation. However, college officials successfully contested that last year through arbitration. 

    Yet in December, SACSCOC once again voted to terminate Saint Augustine’s from its membership, citing issues with the university’s finances and governance. Saint Augustine’s Thursday announcement says that it lost its appeal of that decision, but arbitration once again gives the university another shot at retaining its accreditation. 

    Since the December vote, the university has sought to shore up its budget through widespread cuts and new sources of funding. 

    Still, Saint Augustine’s is grappling with steep declines in enrollment, with just 200 students in the 2024-25 academic year, WRAL reported. That’s down from over 1,100 students just two years ago. 

    In Thursday’s announcement, Saint Augustine’s officials announced they had secured up to $70 million, which they described as a bridge loan, “at competitive market rates and terms” in a deal that they expect to close later this month. University officials did not disclose where the $70 million in funding is coming from, citing nondisclosure agreements. 

    The announcement comes after Saint Augustine’s failed to get approval from the state attorney general’s office to enter a land lease deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, an athletics development firm. 

    In January, the attorney general’s office said the deal could put the university’s nonprofit status at risk, arguing that the upfront lease payment of up to $70 million was far too low for Saint Augustine’s 103-acre property. The office said the campus had been appraised at over $198 million. 

    Following the decision from the attorney general’s office, the two parties began restructuring the deal to lease less than half of Saint Augustine’s campus to 50 Plus 1 Sports, INDY Week reported. Under the new terms — which circumvent the need for the state office’s sign-off — the sports development firm would also share some of its revenue from its use of the land with the university. 

    Saint Augustine’s did not mention 50 Plus 1 Sports in Thursday’s announcement.

    “This funding is a game-changer,” Hadley Evans, vice chair on Saint Augustine’s board, said in Thursday’s announcement. “We now have the financial leverage to protect SAU’s legacy, enhance academic offerings, and create sustainable revenue streams through strategic campus development.”

    Saint Augustine’s has also drastically cut its workforce amid its financial woes. In November, the university said it was cutting over 130 staff and faculty positions to shave $17 million from its budget.

    Source link