Author: admin

New legislation in Scotland increases the SFC’s powers, but only up to a point
Post-school reform in Scotland continues to chug along, following last month’s announcement of the preferred future shape of the funding body landscape.

Today sees the legislation that will enact the changes introduced in Holyrood: the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.

We’ve been over how responsibilities for further education student support and apprenticeships and skills funding will shift around, and the bill also contains expected changes to the governance arrangements of the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), as well as some technical changes relating to fees and private provision.

But what’s emerged as perhaps the more pressing question for the higher education sector is how the legislation will change SFC responsibilities and powers, as these apply to its work with universities. The legislation sets out the route the Scottish government will take here, and it’s a fairly balanced one – we are still a long way from an England-style “boots on the ground” regulatory environment, likely to the relief of many.

Tell us about your finances

Much of what the bill will do legislatively is through modifications to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. Section 22(4) of this gives the SFC various powers to “pull” information from universities – or strictly, from their governing bodies – but only where the funder knows that the information exists, or may exist.

The new legislation aims to create a landscape in which post-16 education bodies must “proactively notify SFC of certain developments of which the SFC might otherwise be unaware” in what the bill’s policy memorandum characterises as a “push” of information – a responsibility to notify the funding council of things it would not have known otherwise. Those who are more used to other UK systems will probably be thinking of “reportable events”.

It’s suggested that notifications would likely be sought in the following kinds of situation:
- Where a university is planning voluntary or compulsory severance (so no daily refreshing of the QMUL UCU cuts tracker for the SFC)
- Where a university has reached a certain threshold in a rapidly worsening financial viability situation
- A major data breach, such as resulting from a cyberattack.
But exactly how this will work is not specified on the face of the legislation – it would be determined by ministers via the laying of regulations, with consultation and an affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament, “given that they could potentially place significant obligations on post-16 education bodies.” But this does mean that there is a lack of clarity on exactly what the bill is going to mandate.

Part of the rationale for beefing up the legislation from what was previously anticipated (and let’s be honest, what was in the consultation) seems to be that ministers have not received enough clarity about the financial challenges being faced by certain universities and colleges. When the policy memorandum notes that “there can be challenges for SFC in getting information from post-16 education bodies about their financial sustainability,” you feel that really the issue is about ministerial oversight and the sense of having active levers to pull. This is given an explicit tweak elsewhere in the bill (again, quoting the policy memorandum):

New section 15A(2) allows the Scottish Ministers to seek information and advice from the SFC relating to post-16 education bodies, this could be an individual body or the bodies as a whole. Section 15A(3) requires the SFC to respond to any such request from the Scottish Ministers and the SFC may also offer information proactively when it considers it appropriate to do so. This is necessary because unforeseen circumstances may arise of which the Scottish Ministers might otherwise be unaware (and so would not know to enquire).

So what are you going to do about it?

Also in the 2005 Act is provision for the SFC to “secure the promotion or carrying out of studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of any fundable body” – but no such power exists where the matters are not related to financial support.

The new legislation would amend this, with the intention of making the SFC able to “address a broader range of matters to assist with performance improvement.” So in scope for an efficiency study would now be the needs and interests of learners:

The policy intention is that the SFC could, particularly where notified of certain adverse circumstances (such as course closures), instigate studies or reviews of the impact on students and learners so that assistance could be provided to ensure they are not negatively impacted. For example, if a college was heading towards needing to close courses before students could complete them, the SFC could help to make arrangements for the students to continue their education at different colleges.

Bringing the student interest in scope sounds sensible in theory, but there remains the question of what changes on the ground, beyond the production of a study. The 2005 Act allows the SFC to attend and speak to an institution’s governing body – the new section 15(4) of this bill will extend this to the issuing of a set of written recommendations.

So the SFC will be able to recommend setting specific improvement targets, or requiring the development of an improvement plan. And it will now even be able to publish these, “where there is wider interest amongst institutions, or the public, in the recommendations and they are not sensitive.” But it won’t be obliged to.

And what if its recommendations are ignored?

As with the SFC’s right to address meetings, already provided for in section 16 of the 2005 Act, there is no corresponding duty on the fundable body to do anything in response to the recommendations. However, as a matter of good governance and practice, the Scottish Government would expect the fundable body to consider them appropriately.

But beyond these recommendations, in the legislation as it stands there would be proper statutory powers for the SFC to influence educational institutions’ behaviour, through the issuing of guidance, which currently is “purely administrative” (though presumably always very welcome). The Tertiary Education and Training Bill will change this, so that institutions must have regard to the guidance, in the carrying out of their funded activities (note that “have regard to” is quite woolly language – something that the Office for Students has exploited frequently within the way HERA was drafted). But the SFC will have to consult both ministers and institutions in issuing guidance.

It could have been otherwise

Various alternative approaches were considered and rejected. The use of codes of conduct (“for example to address concerns around breaches of fair work conditions”) was felt to potentially lead to complex interactions with other requirements, and diminish autonomy. Plus there would have been a need for “appropriate enforcement mechanisms,” which is a whole other question.

More powers of audit and investigation were also considered and not taken forward, which would have been a move towards a “more interventionist SFC.” Likewise for stronger enforcement and intervention action, including serving enforcement notices or the removing, suspending, or appointing of officers or governing body members.

But this would have been “a fundamental change to SFC’s role which requires more careful consideration” – and would have gone way beyond what was originally consulted on.

There’s still a long way to go here – Universities Scotland is already noting the “new, very broadly defined provisions regarding the monitoring of the financial sustainability of institutions,” and raising concerns that too much change in the relationship between the SFC and universities (or universities and the Scottish government) could jeopardise the classification of universities in the Office for National Statistics classification.

The Scottish government seems to be aware of this particular risk – but there are certainly MSPs keen for the SFC to become more “interventionist”, and the legislation now faces a complicated passage through a Parliament in which the SNP does not hold a majority. The ministerial statement to Holyrood launching the bill saw Ross Greer of the Scottish Greens concerned about whether the SFC would have the ability to intervene in matters relating to fair work – higher education minister Graeme Dey said he would be happy to discuss the issue further.

For now the legislation aims at a delicate balancing act between juicing up the SFC’s role and preserving universities’ autonomy. The next question is whether this persists in the face of deeper scrutiny and parliamentary compromises.
Source link
February 7, 2025
Higher education postcard: Taxila | Wonkhe

We’re doing anther historical incursion today – looking at what was an internationally renowned centre of higher learning in the Indus valley.

We have to wind the clock back a long way. In 535 BCE Persian emperor Cyrus the Great invaded the lands to the east, and by 540 BCE had taken all of the lands to the west of the Indus. A regional capital was established at Taxila, which by then had probably already been a city for about 500 years. It was the obvious choice, having been capital of the ancient kingdom of Gandhāra. We also need to note that in 326 BCE Taxila surrendered to Alexander the Great’s army; that a few years later it became part of the Mauryan empire for over 100 years; then part of the Yavana empire for another hundred years or so; then occupied by Indo-Scythians between 80-ish BCE and 30 CE; and the Kushan empire until about 375 CE.

The following account draws strongly on Roy Lowe and Yoshihito Yasuhara’s 2016 work, The origins of higher learning. After the Persian conquest, Taxila became a centre for Vedic learning. By the time of Alexander and the early Mauryan emperors, there was a demand for scholars who could speak Greek.

As well as the Vedic scriptures, medicine was taught at Taxila. Two eminent healers – Charaka and Jivaka – both studied at Taxila, perhaps under the teacher Disapamok Achariya. Other notable people associated with Taxila included Panini (who was neither the inventor of the sandwich nor the inventor of sticker albums, but was in fact a Sanskrit grammarian) and Chanakya, an early political economist.

Lowe and Yasuhara tell us something about academic life at Taxila. Individual teachers shared a building with their students, and would enrol up to five hundred students. Senior students were used as assistant teachers, as clearly 500 is too many for one person (it’s easy to recognise the doctoral-students-as-teaching-assistants model here).

The curriculum comprised “the three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments”. The three Vedas – books of verses – were the Rigveda (knowledge of the verses), the Yajurveda (knowledge of the sacrifice) and the Samaveda (knowledge of the chants). The eighteen accomplishments are not so clearly specified. On the evidence seen by Lowe and Yasuhara they may have included “elephant lore, magic charms, spells for reincarnating the dead, hunting, the study of animals’ cries, archery, the art of prognostication, charms, divining from bodily symptoms, and medicine”; to which was later added “logic, the atomic theory of creation, arithmetic, law, accountancy, agriculture and astronomy.”

This looks like a cracking degree programme to me. Particularly once I’d realised it was prognostication not procrastination, for which I’d want to submit a claim for accreditation of prior experiential learning. And, if you’re tempted to get sniffy about seriousness, it probably represented a good stab at the frontiers of knowledge at that time. Which is what first and second cycle qualifications of the UK higher education qualifications frameworks are about nowadays. So not so daft really.

The Kusham empire, in the first century CE, destroyed the city of Taxila to make way for their own city, rebuilt a little to the north. And in the fifth century the Hunas destroyed the rebuilt city. (It is not clear if these Hunas were connected to the Huns who were busy invading Europe at about this time.

And so there we have it; a very early institution of higher education. It is now a world heritage site, as suggested by the postcard, and a very popular tourist destination in Pakistan.

A final cultural connection. A favourite of mine from the 1970s TV schedules was Monkey! This was a TV adaptation of an early Chinese novel, the Voyage to the West.

The song played over the closing credits includes the lines “In Gandhāra, Gandhāra, they say it was in India…” – our heroes were escorting a Buddhist monk, Tripitaka, to being back some holy scrolls to help the emperor restore morality and order to China. It seems likely, I would suggest, that they were heading to Taxila.

And really finally, here’s a jigsaw of the card, in case you feel the need of some pleasant distraction.

Source link

February 7, 2025
Truth About Congo’s Crisis- DRC Vs Foreigners (Dr. Kenneth Ombongi)

Higher Education Inquirer : Explained: Truth About Congo’s Crisis- DRC Vs Foreigners (Dr. Kenneth Ombongi)

Explained: Truth About Congo’s Crisis- DRC Vs Foreigners (Dr. Kenneth Ombongi)

Source link

February 7, 2025
Podcast: Protection, visas, commuter students

firstname

surname

Email

Organisation

Job Title*

Job Area

Job Level

By submitting you agree to our terms and conditions

Source link

February 7, 2025
There’s nothing certain about the circumstances when a duty of care applies to students

The Secretary of State for Education was recently asked in Parliament if she would meet with campaigners to discuss the “duty of care” owed by higher education providers to their students.

Janet Daby – the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing in the Department for Education (DfE) responded on her behalf, and also outlined the department’s current view on the law for holding negligent institutions to account.

At first glance, her response was unhelpful – arguing the department’s position is that a duty of care in higher education may arise in “certain circumstances”:

Such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the specific facts and context of the case being considered, and will be dependent on the application by a court of accepted common law principles.

It would be easy to argue that lawmakers, including Janet Daby and skills minister Jacqui Smith, should not simply defer to the courts on matters of law and institutional accountability.

After all, lawmakers have the power to create laws – so overall responsibility doesn’t rest solely with judges and their judicial interpretation of common law principles.

But perhaps Daby’s response was more helpful than it looked – because it directly confronts misleading statements that have persisted since 2023, particularly those made by former Minister Robert Halfon.

Although some might view her answer as a cautious response, in reality, it was a breath of fresh air – a much-need step in addressing the confusion that has clouded our understanding of legal responsibilities in higher education.

From Halfon’s Law to Daby’s Law

To grasp the significance of Janet Daby’s correction, we must first revisit the origins of the confusion – what I’ll call here Halfon’s Law.

Introduced by Robert Halfon in 2023, it laid the foundation for a misrepresentation of the legal duties owed by higher education providers to their students. Halfon’s Law is a belief that stemmed from a misunderstanding of online material, initially presented in a now-deleted AMOSSHE blog that was published in 2015.

In responding to the 128,000+ registered voters who signed our parliamentary e-petition calling for a statutory duty of care, Halfon asserted his department’s belief that universities already owed their students a broad and generalised duty of care. He said:

Higher Education providers do have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinarily competent institution and, in carrying out these services, they are expected to act reasonably to protect the health, safety and welfare of their students. This can be summed up as providers owing a duty of care to not cause harm to their students through the university’s own actions.

At first glance, this might sound reasonable, but in truth, it was far from accurate. By conflating a general moral and legal principle – to act in a way that avoids causing harm to others – with a formal, court recognised duty of care that only arises in specific, legally-defined circumstances and relationships, Halfon introduced a dangerous oversimplification.

It was a distortion used to justify dismissing the petitioners’ call for a statutory duty of care, effectively silencing important conversations about the protections that students need.

Halfon’s Law, with the documented source having now been quietly removed from its original website, was a misstep in understanding the complexities of legal responsibilities in higher education. Its fall from grace is something to be celebrated.

Enter Daby’s Law: Janet Daby’s response marks a shift towards legal clarity. A duty of care may arise in certain specific circumstances, but ultimately, it is the courts that will determine the existence and application of any such duty on a limited case-by-case basis – should lengthy and costly litigation ever actually occur.

As it stands therefore, nobody truly knows what protections are in place, leaving students vulnerable, and institutions at risk of being punished for failing to do the right thing. As such, Daby’s position not only corrects the errors of Halfon’s Law, but also raises significant concerns, including the urgent need for a properly codified duty that both universities and their students can understand.

The advocacy that led to Daby’s law

Daby’s correction of the record didn’t happen by chance. It was the direct result of relentless behind-the-scenes efforts from advocates, especially ForThe100, who recognised the need to dismantle Halfon’s contention? – since it was a significant barrier preventing meaningful progress.

For too long, Halfon’s Law and its sweeping and factually incorrect statements had clouded the conversation around student safety and wellbeing, effectively stopping us from moving forward and pushing for the protections students desperately need. Too many policymakers thought it true – and so dismissed the need for a dedicated duty.

The subtle shift in content and tone, while preferable to outright inaccuracy, introduces its own set of challenges. Without clear or codified guidance, students, families, and institutions are left to navigate a murky and uncertain legal landscape.

That vagueness is deeply problematic. It means widespread confusion about rights and responsibilities, leaving institutions uncertain of their obligation, and exposed to unforeseen legal liabilities – while students are left unsure of the protections they can depend on.

Worse, the lack of clear, direct, and upfront standards is a reactive rather than proactive system, shifting the burden onto individuals to seek legal recourse only after harm has occurred.

This approach neither prioritises prevention nor ensures accountability, leaving gaps in a system meant to put students first.

It is now crucial that the government corrects the public response to our petition without delay. Halfon’s Law remains embedded in the official narrative, and its continued presence in government communications perpetuates confusion, and blocks meaningful progress.

More importantly, for over five decades, students have been without adequate legal protection, and this gap continues to undermine their safety and wellbeing.

Nobody should be reassured by a duty that arises in “certain circumstances” where those circumstances would be a matter for “the courts to decide”. Students and universities need instead to know where they stand – with the same sort of clarity on offer for the duty of care that universities as employers owe to their staff.

The next step is for the government to act – taking concrete steps toward enacting statutory reform that holds higher education institutions accountable for their acts and omissions with regard to student safety and wellbeing, and giving students and their families the confidence that when they enrol into a university, they know the minimum “duty of care” that they can actually expect.

Source link

February 7, 2025
Ohio Northern sues professor for having the audacity to defend his rights in court

Following Professor Scott Gerber’s vocal opposition to his school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, Ohio Northern University ordered campus police to yank him out of class and march him to the dean, who demanded Gerber’s immediate resignation. A judge decried the school’s apparent “callous disregard for due process,” but because Gerber had the courage to fight back in court, ONU took things even further — filing a federal lawsuit to shut him up.

But Gerber is not having it. A longtime critic of ONU’s initiatives around DEI, Gerber’s objections made him a target of administrators, who launched an investigation into him in January 2023. From then until his sudden termination, ONU outright refused to disclose the specific accusations against him. When the school finally told Gerber he lacked “collegiality,” FIRE explained to ONU that this charge looked a lot like retaliation for his views on DEI, which would be a stark violation of the university’s commitment to academic freedom. We called on ONU in March, and again in May, to provide Gerber with the specifics of its collegiality concerns, to no avail.

Out of work and still wondering what he did wrong, Gerber took ONU to court. His complaint centered on the university’s failure to provide him with the specific grounds for dismissal. This fundamental principle of due process protects the right of the accused to defend themselves. After all, if you don’t know what you’re accused of doing, it’s impossible to prove your innocence. Universities provide due process to ensure accurate disciplinary determinations, especially when a tenured professor’s livelihood hangs in the balance. That’s why an Ohio state court allowed Gerber’s breach of contract claim to proceed, criticizing ONU’s “troubling . . . lack of any detailed determination” of how its allegations “affected his fitness as a faculty member.”

That case is now headed to trial.

Professor suspended for reasons unknown — even to him

News

Why did Ohio Northern University suspend professor Scott Gerber? We have no idea, and neither does he.

Read More

But for defending his rights in state court, ONU sued Gerber in federal court on Jan. 20, claiming Gerber’s “perverted” lawsuit is apparently an “attempt to accomplish . . . personal vendettas” and “unleashing political retribution” against ONU — notwithstanding the state court holding Gerber’s claims warranted proceeding to a jury. ONU’s suit claims Gerber’s “true goal is to manufacture outrage, to influence political retribution, and to extract vengeance against” ONU. According to the lawsuit, Gerber’s attempt to hold the university to its own policies is an unlawful “abuse of process.”

Disturbingly, the crux of ONU’s complaint rests on Gerber’s protected speech. The university faults Gerber for expressing accurate information about his ordeal in the Wall Street Journal and through a press release published by his attorneys at America First Legal, maligned by ONU as a “manufactured narrative” designed to “manufacture outrage.” Yet Gerber and America First Legal cite the university’s own words and policies to make his case, which a state court has allowed to proceed by rejecting ONU’s efforts to dismiss his claims.

The irony of ONU refusing to provide Gerber with the bare minimum of process before summarily terminating him, then launching a whole federal lawsuit instead to get him to stop fighting, is palpable.

ONU’s suit is a classic example of abusing the legal system to silence your critics. Such a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, is a tactic that seeks solely to impose punishing litigation costs on their targets. The lawsuit is the punishment. Gerber must now bear the burden of defending this meritless suit while he prepares for trial in state court.

Why ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits chill free speech and threaten the First Amendment

Issue Pages

You can’t use the legal system to punish people for speech you don’t like.

Read More

On a larger note, if nonprofits like FIRE cannot convey truthful information about the cases we litigate without incurring a separate lawsuit, that will imperil a wide array of civil rights advocacy. Defending against an onerous SLAPP puts further strain on the already limited resources dedicated to protecting civil liberties.

Terminated professors must turn to courts to vindicate their rights as the option of last resort, and the First Amendment protects their right to do so. When universities seek in turn to use courts to bully professors into submission, judges must firmly reject these thinly veiled attempts to achieve censorship by lawsuit.

We’ll keep our readers updated.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

Source link

February 6, 2025
Franklin & Marshall College Names Dr. Andrew Rich as 17th President

FDr. Andy Richranklin & Marshall College has appointed Dr. Andrew “Andy” Rich, current dean of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at City College of New York (CCNY), as its 17th president following a unanimous vote by the Board of Trustees. Rich will take office in July, succeeding outgoing president Dr. Barbara K. Altmann, who has led the institution since 2018.

During his six-year tenure at the Colin Powell School, Rich demonstrated exceptional ability in institutional growth and fundraising, according to officials at the private school located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He spearheaded a 40 percent enrollment increase, bringing the student body to 4,000, while simultaneously launching innovative student success initiatives. Under his leadership, the school established eight new fellowship programs and created an Office of Student Success offering comprehensive mentoring, professional development, and career services.

One of Rich’s notable achievements at CCNY was the formation of a Public Service Career Hub, which more than doubled student placement in public service internships and jobs. The initiative’s success earned the 2023 Exemplary Model Award from the American Association of University Administrators. Rich also led a transformative fundraising campaign that generated over $85 million in new investments for scholarships, student services, faculty positions, and academic initiatives.

“I am excited to become an F&M Diplomat,” said Rich. “For more than 235 years, Franklin & Marshall has been a beacon for excellence in liberal arts education. We prepare students for fulfilling lives, inspiring them to achievements that enrich every sector of society.”

Prior to his role at CCNY, Rich served as CEO and executive secretary of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation from 2011 to 2019, where he oversaw the prestigious federal program supporting future public service leaders. His connection to F&M includes oversight of two recent Truman Scholars from the college: Makaila Ranges, a 2022 graduate and Akbar Hossain, who graduated in 2013. Rich also served as president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, a national think tank and leadership development organization, from 2009 to 2011.

Eric Noll, chair of the College’s Board of Trustees, praised Rich’s appointment:

“He will build on Barbara Altmann’s successful presidency with his sharp strategic sensibilities and deep appreciation for our excellent liberal arts college and its importance in our society’s future,” he said.

Rich’s academic credentials include a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Richmond, where he was awarded a Truman Scholarship, and a doctorate in political science from Yale University. He has taught at both CCNY and Wake Forest University and is known for his scholarship on think tanks and foundations in American politics, having authored Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise.

Source link

February 6, 2025
IBM’s Armand Ruiz Presents Vision for AI Agents in the Workplace

In a recent presentation to RNL’s AI Leadership Council, Armand Ruiz, Vice President of Product – AI Platform at IBM, shared his vision for the future of work and the role of AI agents in making it more efficient.

According to Ruiz, AI agents will become a key component of the future of work, enabling tasks to be completed autonomously and freeing up humans to focus on higher-level thinking. “The real promise of AI is in agents, which can actually do work and take action,” he said. “We’re moving into a world where we have multi-agent assistance, where multiple agents work together to achieve a common goal.”

Ruiz also highlighted the importance of addressing the challenges of security, governance, and compliance in the use of AI agents in enterprise settings. “We cannot allow these agents to leak sensitive and confidential information, delete files or send data to the wrong recipients,” he emphasized.

In terms of the future of work, Ruiz predicted that most General AI interactions will be in the form of autonomous agents, with 2/3 or 3/4 of the General AI workforce consisting of agents. He cited the example of GitHub, where an agent can automatically fix bugs and issues, freeing up developers to focus on higher-level tasks.

Ruiz also discussed the potential impact of AI agents on education, citing the example of a tool that can take notes and create an outline from handwritten notes. “We’re moving into a world where AI will develop AI by itself, and AI will develop agents automatically,” he said.

Regarding the recent developments in deep learning, Ruiz said that the market’s reaction to the release of the DeepSeek model was an overreaction. “We’ve been pushing for open innovation and open source at IBM, and it’s not surprising that someone else has come into the market with a similar model,” he said. “This will actually increase the demand for chips and energy and will unlock more consumption of AI and more use cases.”

When asked about the potential impact on decisions related to data centers, Ruiz said that the increased demand for chips and energy will lead to a surge in consumption of AI, particularly in inference workloads. “We see a lot of micro inference going on, and it requires more compute than a regular model,” he explained.

The presentation sparked a lively discussion among the attendees, with several questions and comments from the audience. Ruiz emphasized the importance of addressing the challenges of governance, compliance, working with a trusted partner who understands what you are trying to accomplish with AI, and the need for education and training in the use of these tools.

As the presentation came to a close, Stephen Drew, COO of RNL and chair of the AI Leadership Council, reflected on the importance of working with companies that understand the unique needs of higher education and are committed to the responsible use of AI. “As institutions like RNL continue to navigate the complex landscape of AI and its applications, we are focused on working with our partner universities to help them establish AI governance frameworks, educate their teams on responsible AI, and incorporating AI into our services so our clients benefit from the efficiencies AI offers along with the higher education expertise at RNL,” he said.

Learn more about RNL’s AI governance services and how they can support your institution’s AI initiatives here.

Source link

February 6, 2025
Cancel culture, legal education, and the Supreme Court with Ilya Shapiro

Over the years, elite institutions shifted from
fostering open debate to enforcing ideological conformity. But as
guest Ilya Shapiro puts it, “the pendulum is swinging back.” He
shares his firsthand experience with cancel culture and how the
American Bar Association’s policies influence legal education.
Shapiro also opines on major free speech cases before the Supreme
Court, including the TikTok ownership battle and Texas’ age
verification law for adult content.

Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of
constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He previously
(and briefly) served as executive director and senior lecturer at
the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and as a vice president
at the Cato Institute. His latest book, “Lawless:
The Miseducation of America’s Elites,” is out now.

Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
more. If you became a FIRE Member
through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
[email protected].

Read the transcript.

Timestamps:

00:00 Intro

02:58 Shapiro’s Georgetown controversy

15:07 Free speech on campus

26:51 Law schools’ decline

40:47 Legal profession challenges

42:33 The “vibe shift” away from cancel culture

56:02 TikTok and age verification at the Supreme
Court

01:03:37 Anti-Semitism on campus

01:09:36 Outro

Show notes:

– “The
illiberal takeover of law schools” City Journal (2022)

– “Poll
finds sharp partisan divisions on the impact of a Black woman
justice.” ABC News (2022)

– “Why
I quit Georgetown.” Ilya Shapiro, The Wall Street Journal
(2022)

– “Georgetown’s
investigation of a single tweet taking longer than 12 round-trips
to the moon.” FIRE (2022)

–
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

–
Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965)

– TikTok Inc
v. Garland (2025)

–
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2024)

– Ginsberg
v. New York (1968)

–
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working
definition of antisemitism (last updated 2025)

Source link

February 6, 2025
Former Rep. Justin Amash joins FIRE’s Advisory Council

When former Representative Justin Amash announced that he would not be seeking reelection to the House of Representatives in 2020, a lot of people wondered what he was going to do next. Voters in western Michigan first elected him to the House in 2010, and Amash won reelection four times. In office, he developed a reputation as a principled independent who wasn’t afraid of calling out members in his own party — including the president — when he thought their actions threatened Americans’ civil liberties.

Since leaving Congress, Amash has remained an outspoken advocate for the individual freedoms protected under the Constitution, especially free speech.

“The value of free speech comes from encountering views that are unorthodox, uncommon, or unaccepted. Humans learn and grow by engaging with ideas that challenge conventional thinking,” he wrote on Twitter back in 2022. “Free speech is a barren concept if people are limited to expressing views already widely held.”

FIRE is excited to announce that Amash has joined our Advisory Council, where his expertise in constitutional law and federal policymaking will support FIRE’s mission to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty.

Amash remains politically active and is a vocal opponent of all efforts — from both the left and the right — to undermine constitutional protections and individual liberty.

Amash was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has spent most of his life there. His father, a Palestinian refugee, and his mother, a Syrian immigrant, inspired his dedication to the cause of liberty.

“When I was a child, they spoke often about the value of freedom and how blessed we were to live in America,” says Amash.

A graduate of the University of Michigan, with a bachelor’s degree in 2002 and juris doctor in 2005, Amash practiced law until his election to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2008, where he served one term before being elected to Congress in 2010, where he served until 2021.

While in office, much of Amash’s work focused on civil liberties issues and protecting constitutionally secured rights. He was the chairman of the House Liberty Caucus — a nonpartisan congressional caucus supporting limited, constitutional government — and he was a member of the Second Amendment Caucus and co-chair of the Fourth Amendment Advisory Committee. His sponsored legislation included bills to rein in warrantless government surveillance, eliminate civil asset forfeiture, and end qualified immunity for government officials who violate constitutional rights. Since leaving office, Amash has also called for repealing the Espionage Act, which the federal government has used to punish protected free speech for more than 200 years.

Amash was known for explaining his votes online as part of a commitment to government transparency and accountability. Amash remains politically active and is a vocal opponent of all efforts — from both the left and the right — to undermine constitutional protections and individual liberty. His commentary can be found on X and Substack, and his words have recently appeared in Reason Magazine, The Free Press, and other outlets.

Source link

February 6, 2025