Category: Featured

  • Howard University Taps Antiracist Scholar Ibram X. Kendi to Head New Advanced Studies Institute

    Howard University Taps Antiracist Scholar Ibram X. Kendi to Head New Advanced Studies Institute

    Howard University has appointed renowned historian and bestselling author Dr. Ibram X. Kendi to lead its newly established Institute for Advanced Study, marking aDr. Ibram X. Kendi significant expansion of the historically Black university’s research capabilities. The institute will focus on interdisciplinary research addressing global African diaspora issues, including studies on race, technology, climate change, and systemic disparities.

    Kendi, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient and one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people, brings considerable scholarly credentials to the position. His appointment continues Howard’s legacy of housing influential Black intellectuals and fostering groundbreaking research on racial justice.

    “This is the most fulfilling career choice I have ever made,” said Kendi, who is currently a professor at Boston University but has held teaching positions at American University, University of Florida and SUNY Albany. “I have had my eye on the Mecca my entire career, studying its history and witnessing what Howard means to the culture.”

    The new institute will implement a competitive residential fellowship program, bringing together international scholars to pursue research projects across various disciplines. A unique aspect of the program pairs each fellow with a Howard student, creating mentorship opportunities while advancing research goals. The fellowship program will also be available to Howard’s faculty members.

    Howard’s Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Dr. Anthony K. Wutoh said there is a strong alignment between Kendi’s work and the university’s mission.

    “Dr. Ibram X. Kendi’s exceptional scholarship and unwavering commitment to social justice align perfectly with Howard University’s mission and values as we deepen our scholarship on the African Diaspora,” he said.

    The institute’s research agenda is ambitious, targeting persistent inequities across multiple sectors including technology, healthcare, education, environmental issues, economics, governance, and the criminal legal system. This comprehensive approach reflects Howard’s historical commitment to addressing systemic racism through scholarly inquiry.

    Kendi joins Howard at the height of his academic career. His work has significantly shaped contemporary discussions about racism, with his book How to Be an Antiracist achieving international bestseller status. His earlier work, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, won the National Book Award for Nonfiction and was recently adapted into an Emmy-nominated Netflix documentary.

    A trained historian, Kendi has also worked as a journalist and served for many years as a contributor to Diverse.

    His appointment connects to Howard’s rich tradition of housing influential scholars who have shaped American civil rights discourse. The university’s historical roster includes figures like Charles Hamilton Houston and William Hastie, who developed legal strategies against segregation, and Francis Cecil Sumner, whose research contributed to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.

    Kendi’s publication record includes sixteen books, with ten reaching The New York Times bestseller list. His recent adaptation of Howard alumna Zora Neale Hurston’s “Barracoon” and his co-edited volume Four Hundred Souls: A Community History of African America, 1619-2019″ demonstrate his commitment to preserving and analyzing Black historical narratives.

    The establishment of the Institute for Advanced Study under Kendi’s leadership represents Howard’s continued evolution as a center for critical research on race and society. It also positions the university as a major powerbroker who can attract well-known Black scholars. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is on Howard’s faculty as well as award-winning writer Ta-Nehesi Coates, who is the Sterling Brown Endowed Chair at the university.  As higher education grapples with questions of equity and inclusion, Howard’s new institute positions the university to lead scholarly discourse on these crucial issues while training the next generation of researchers and thought leaders.

    The institute’s focus on mentorship through its fellowship program suggests a commitment to developing future scholars while producing cutting-edge research. University leaders said that this approach aligns with Howard’s dual mission of academic excellence and community impact, creating opportunities for both established researchers and emerging scholars to contribute to the field.

    Source link

  • Trump’s threat to deport anti-Israel protesters is an attack on free speech

    Trump’s threat to deport anti-Israel protesters is an attack on free speech

    This article originally appeared in MSNBC on Jan. 31, 2025.


    The campus controversies inflamed by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza have reached a worrying conclusion. Now, with President Donald Trump’s promise to deport those he deems “pro-jihadist” protesters, we’re facing questions not just about which ideas and speech should be allowed on campus, but whether foreign students should be deported for expressing disfavored views.

    On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order on antisemitism that directs leaders of agencies, including the secretary of homeland security, to familiarize universities with grounds for inadmissibility for foreign nationals “so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds.” Those reports will then lead “to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.”

    This development should worry all Americans, regardless of their position on the Israel-Hamas war.

    The order implies that universities should be monitoring and reporting students for scrutiny by immigration officials, including for speech that is protected by the First Amendment. It follows last week’s executive order threatening denial of entry to foreign nationals, or even deportation of those currently in the country, who “espouse hateful ideology.”

    Free Speech Dispatch

    Page

    The Free Speech Dispatch is a new regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression.


    Read More

    Student visa holders in the U.S. already risk deportation by engaging in criminal activity, and did so long before the enactment of this order. Students who commit crimes — including vandalism, threats or violence — must face consequences, including potential revocation of visas when appropriate.

    The First Amendment does not protect violence, for visitors and citizens alike, and an executive order narrowly confined to targeting illegal acts would not implicate First Amendment rights.

    But a fact sheet released by the White House alongside the executive order goes well beyond criminal grounds for removal of foreign nationals to instead threaten viewpoint-motivated deportations. “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you,” Trump said. “I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”

    If that’s what the Trump White House expects agencies to read into its formal orders, this development should worry all Americans, regardless of their position on the Israel-Hamas war.

    Advocates of ideological deportation today should not be surprised to see it used against ideas they support in the future.

    Our nation’s campuses are intended to be places of learning and debate that facilitate a wide range of views, even ones that some consider hateful or offensive.

    This openness, albeit unpleasant or controversial at times, is a defining strength of American higher education. It’s one of the features attractive to students traveling from abroad who may hope to take part in the speech protections Americans have worked so hard to preserve. These are protections that they may very well be denied in their home countries.


    We won’t protect freedom on campus by making it inaccessible to the international students who study there. But, given the warning accompanying the order, international students will now be rightfully afraid that their words — not just their conduct — are under a microscope.

    There are already signs that critics of campus demonstrations expect the administration will expel protesters from the country. In the lead-up to the signing of this latest order, pro-Israel advocates claimed to be in contact with officials in the incoming Trump administration concerning lists of student protesters they hope to see deported. One group, Betar, told the New York Post it’s “using a combination of facial recognition software and ‘relationship database technology’” to identify protest attendees who are foreign nationals.

    Freedom of speech was never meant to be easy.

    At the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), where I work, we have seen firsthand the many speech-related controversies that have plagued higher education over the decades. In every case, adhering to viewpoint-neutral principles, rather than censorship, has been the proper solution. 

    If we open the door to expelling foreign students who peacefully express ideas out of step with the current administration about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we should expect it to swing wider to encompass other viewpoints too. Today it may be alleged “Hamas sympathizers” facing threats of deportation for their political expression. Who could it be in four years? In eight?

    Advocates of ideological deportation today should not be surprised to see it used against ideas they support in the future.

    Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech

    News

    Creating a “genocide” exception to free speech only opens the door to more speech restrictions and selective enforcement.


    Read More

    In Bridges v. Wixon, the Supreme Court’s 1945 decision rejecting the deportation of Australian immigrant Harry Bridges over alleged Communist Party connections, Justice William Douglas wrote, “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”

    Later decisions from the court complicate the question. The federal government retains significant authority over those who may enter and stay in the country. But the court’s reasoning in Wixon should provide lasting guidance.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy stated that he “cannot agree that the framers of the Constitution meant to make such an empty mockery of human freedom” by allowing the government to deport an alien over speech for which it could not imprison him.

    Freedom of speech was never meant to be easy. But it allows us the space we need to work through thorny social and political challenges, even when it’s fraught with friction and discomfort. The United States should preserve this freedom on our campuses — spaces for free learning that set us apart from more authoritarian nations around the world — not make an “empty mockery” of it.

    Source link

  • Statement: Trump restores crucial due process rights for America’s college students

    Statement: Trump restores crucial due process rights for America’s college students

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced today it agrees with a federal court ruling that appropriately found the Biden-era Title IX rules to unconstitutionally restrict student First Amendment rights.  

    Those rules, effective in August 2024, infringed on constitutionally protected speech related to sex and gender. They also rolled back crucial due process rights for those accused of sexual misconduct on campus, increasing the likelihood that colleges would arrive at unreliable conclusions during those proceedings. OCR announced it will instead enforce the 2020 rules adopted during the first Trump administration which carefully considered the rights of complainants and respondents alike, while providing robust free speech and due process protections. 

    The following can be attributed to Tyler Coward, FIRE lead counsel for government affairs:

    The return to the 2020 rules ensures that all students — whether they are the accused or the accuser — will receive fair treatment and important procedural safeguards. That includes the right of both parties to have lawyers present during hearings, the right for both attorneys to cross-examine the other party and witnesses, and the right to receive all of the evidence in the institution’s possession. Colleges are also required to adopt a speech-protective definition of sexual harassment that enables schools to punish genuine harassment instead of merely unpopular speech. 

    Restoring the Trump administration’s rules means that students can once again feel secure that their rights to due process and free speech will be respected while ensuring administrators have the tools they need to punish those who engage in sexual misconduct and harassment.

    Source link

  • UK private schools take next step in VAT policy legal row

    UK private schools take next step in VAT policy legal row

    The case will be heard at London’s High Court April 1-3, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents private schools in the UK, revealed this week.

    It’s the latest step in its furious battle to overturn a policy – key to the Labour party’s election manifesto before it regained power in July 2024 – to start levying VAT on private school fees.

    The ISC said its case, led by prominent human rights barrister Lord Pannick KC, would argue that the VAT policy “impedes access to education in independent schools” and is therefore incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

    In the case, the ISC is supporting six families impacted by the policy, and the defendent in UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

    The case is being heard on an expedited basis following a successful argument from Lord Pannick that parents needed certainty because they are already feeling the effects of the policy.

    ISC CEO Julie Robinson said the organisation’s aim was to “protect the rights” of families and young people “who are having their choice removed from them”.

    “This is an unprecedented tax on education – it is right that its compatibility with human rights law is tested,” she continued. “We believe the diversity within independent schools has been ignored in the haste to implement this damaging policy, with families and, ultimately, children, bearing the brunt of the negative impacts this rushed decision is already having.”

    This is an unprecedented tax on education – it is right that its compatibility with human rights law is tested
    Julie Robinson, ISC

    Reeves confirmed in October that the party would be slapping a 20% tax on fees for January 2025, leading to fears from independent boarding schools that their intake of international students could plummet.

    Experts predicted that although some schools would choose to swallow the loss of revenue, most would be forced to raise their fees an average of 10-15% to cover costs.

    An online private school told The PIE News earlier this month that it has seen a “five-fold” surge in interest from parents since the VAT policy was announced last year.

    CEO of Minerva’s Virtual Academy, Hugh Viney, credited the rise in demand to the VAT policy, as he said the school’s fees are “good value” and much less than most private schools at under £8,500 per year – a price that has always included VAT and is therefore unchanged by the new legislation.

    Source link

  • AI and Student Recruitment: Bridging Technology and Human Connection 

    AI and Student Recruitment: Bridging Technology and Human Connection 

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing student recruitment, offering tools to meet the growing demands of efficiency and personalization. As higher education institutions face shrinking pools of applicants and increased competition, the ability to deliver targeted, meaningful engagement is more critical than ever. AI not only enhances how a college or university understands prospective students but also how it interacts with them at every stage of the enrollment journey. 

    Leveraging AI for Data-Driven Decision Making 

    At the core of these advancements are customer relationship management (CRM) systems like TargetX and Outcomes, which centralize student data and lay the groundwork for AI-driven insights in higher education. By integrating AI with CRMs, institutions can unlock the potential of their data to deliver smarter, more effective recruitment strategies. However, the key lies in leveraging AI to augment human effort, not replace it

    Analyzing Data for Actionable Insights 

    Enrollment marketing thrives on data, and AI enables institutions to transform raw information into meaningful insights. With centralized student data in place, AI tools can: 

    • Identify high-value prospects | Predictive modeling analyzes behaviors, such as frequent visits to financial aid resources or high engagement with email campaigns, to identify students with the greatest likelihood to enroll. 
    • Discover growth markets | AI uncovers patterns in geographic and demographic data, highlighting regions or populations with untapped enrollment potential. For example, data analysis might reveal an increasing interest in online programs among working professionals. 
    • Enhance segmentation | AI’s ability to analyze large datasets allows institutions to refine audience segmentation, enabling hyper-targeted campaigns tailored to specific student profiles. 

    Prescriptive Strategies for Recruitment 

    AI doesn’t just interpret data—it help enrollment management professionals generate actionable strategies to optimize recruitment efforts: 

    • Financial aid optimization | By evaluating a student’s financial profile and likelihood to enroll, AI can recommend targeted aid packages that maximize yield. 
    • Campaign personalization | AI suggests tailored outreach strategies, such as sending event invitations to students interested in specific programs or nudging inactive prospects with relevant content. 
    • Continuous improvement | Enrollment marketing campaigns benefit from AI-driven feedback loops that analyze performance data and recommend iterative improvements for future campaigns. 

    Enhancing the Student Journey with AI 

    AI in the Exploration Phase 

    Most prospective students begin their college search online, making search engines a critical touchpoint. AI has significantly altered how search engines present results, directly impacting recruitment efforts: 

    • AI-enhanced search results: Tools like Google Bard or ChatGPT increasingly offer conversational responses, summarizing key information without requiring users to click on external links. For instance, a search for “top nursing programs” might yield an AI-generated list, bypassing institutional websites. 
    • Adapting to AI-driven search: To stay competitive, institutions should create conversational, Q&A-style content optimized for AI algorithms. Structured data and schema markup can enhance visibility, ensuring accurate representation in AI-driven search results. 

    Personalization Across the Enrollment Journey 

    Personalization is no longer a luxury—it’s an expectation. AI enables enrollment marketers to deliver individualized experiences to potential students: 

    • Dynamic content | Emails, ads, and landing pages can dynamically adjust based on a student’s preferences or behaviors. For example, prospective engineering students might see content highlighting research opportunities, while transfer students encounter information about credit evaluations. 
    • Real-time engagement | AI-driven tools monitor student interactions and trigger timely responses. If qualified students visit a program-specific webpage multiple times, marketers can automate follow-up emails with relevant resources or event invitations. 

    Guiding Students Through Key Milestones 

    AI supports students by providing actionable, personalized guidance throughout the recruitment process: 

    • Next-best actions | AI-driven solutions can recommend tailored next steps, such as completing an application, scheduling a virtual campus tour, or exploring scholarship options. These nudges keep students engaged and on track. 
    • Proactive assistance | AI can analyze behavior patterns to identify potential barriers, such as incomplete applications, and prompt intervention. For instance, a student frequently visiting pages about financial aid might trigger outreach offering a one-on-one consultation. 

    Navigating the Limitations of AI 

    The Irreplaceable Value of Human Connection 

    While AI excels at data analysis and automation, human interaction remains indispensable: 

    • Fostering relationships | Admission counselors play a vital role in addressing nuanced questions, providing reassurance, and building trust during critical decision-making moments, all of which support student success. 
    • In-person engagement | Face-to-face interactions, whether through campus tours, phone calls, or personalized advising sessions, create memorable experiences that AI cannot replicate. 

    Challenges in AI-Generated Content 

    AI-generated content, while efficient, has limitations that institutions must navigate carefully: 

    • SEO considerations | Search engines prioritize high-quality, original content with human authorship. Over-reliance on AI-generated text can harm visibility and credibility. 
    • Authenticity matters | Prospective students value content that reflects institutional expertise and culture, reinforcing trust and engagement. 

    Striking a Balance Between Technology and Humanity 

    AI should enhance, not replace, human efforts. While AI handles initial outreach and data-driven recommendations, human staff focus on relationship-building and addressing complex inquiries. This synergy ensures a recruitment strategy that is both efficient and personal. 

    Supporting the Institutional Mission

    AI is reshaping student recruitment, offering powerful tools to analyze data, personalize engagement with the right student each time, and optimize strategies. However, its limitations underscore the importance of human connection and authentic communication. By leveraging an AI-driven recruitment strategy, institutions can enhance recruitment efforts and support student success while staying true to their mission of fostering meaningful connections with prospective students. 


    Jess Lanning began her career in higher education at a private university where she served as director of enrollment marketing on a record enrollment team. Over her decade-long career, she has focused on strategizing and implementing digital marketing campaigns as a senior vice president of strategy and senior partnership manager for higher education-specific agencies. In these roles, she served undergraduate, adult, and graduate audiences across the verticals of paid social, search engine marketing, search engine optimization, conversion rate optimization, digital PR, and user experience. Jess now serves as a Director of Digital Strategy at Liaison and we are very lucky to have her!

    Source link

  • Trump vows to revoke student visas of pro-Palestine protesters

    Trump vows to revoke student visas of pro-Palestine protesters

    A fact sheet on the order pledged to take “forceful and unprecedented steps” to “combat the explosion of antisemitism on our campuses and in our streets” since Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.  

    “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you,” the fact sheet said.  

    Its direct order to “quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathisers on college campuses” has sparked fear among international students who participated in the pro-Palestine protests that swept US college campuses last year.  

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order a “dishonest, overbroad and unenforceable attack on both free speech and the humanity of Palestinians”.  

    “Free speech is a cornerstone of our Constitution that no president can wipe away with an executive order,” it said, adding that the protests had been “overwhelmingly peaceful”. 

    To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you

    Trump Administration

    The order pledges immediate action, “using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful antisemitic harassment and violence”. 

    Its third section sets out specific measures to “combat campus antisemitism”, requiring agency leaders to recommend to the White House within 60 days all civil and criminal powers that can be used to combat antisemitism.  

    It requires attorney generals to submit a full analysis of court cases involving K-12 schools, colleges and universities and alleged civil rights violations associated with pro-Palestinian protests. If warranted, such reports could lead to the removal of “alien students and staff”.  

    While US institutions are required to report to immigration services any information deemed relevant to student visa determinations, federal efforts to impose an obligation to investigate and report on students are unprecedented and would raise serious legal questions, according to O’Melveny law practice.  

    The measures have alarmed many students and faculty on colleges campuses, but experts have said that the directive would likely draw legal challenges for violating free speech rights protected by the Constitution.  

    The American Jewish Committee (AJC) issued a statement welcoming the Trump Administration’s commitment to “combatting antisemitism vigorously”. 

    Student visa holders “who have been found to provide material support or resources to designated terror organisations – as defined by the Supreme Court and distinguished from the exercise of free speech – are clearly in violation of the law and are therefore unworthy of the privilege of being in this country,” said AJC.

    However, many pro-Palestinian protesters denied supporting Hamas, saying that they were demonstrating against Israel’s assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 47,000, according to health authorities.

    In a letter representing students from the University of California’s 10 campuses, students argued that the order inaccurately conflated “pro-Palestine advocacy with antisemitism” and set a “scary precedent of censorship for the student community”. 

    The threat of visas being revoked and students being removed was heightened after legislation was passed earlier this month allowing immigration officers to carry out raids in “sensitive locations” including churches, schools and college campuses that were formerly protected.

    Source link

  • Analysis: Early flurry of executive orders a mixed bag for free speech

    Analysis: Early flurry of executive orders a mixed bag for free speech

    Since taking office for his second term on Jan. 20, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders, including several implicating the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Below, we highlight some of these orders and evaluate the potential ramifications for free speech.

    Executive order on protecting freedom of speech is a good start — but more must be done

    One of the first executive orders the president signed was titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” This order aims to “secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech” and “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Specifically, the order notes the government has “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”

    FIRE welcomes this order’s call to end federal government censorship, including that which is hidden from public view. Leaks, court documents, and other disclosures have revealed instances of federal officials pressuring social media companies to limit controversial but constitutionally protected speech on vigorously disputed topics like the origins of Covid-19, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and election integrity.

    We have written repeatedly about the dangers of such government coercion, commonly referred to as “jawboning,” highlighting how this sneaky form of government censorship threatens freedom of expression.

    A pledge by the executive branch to respect the free speech of all Americans is a good first step. But any executive order can be modified or reversed on the say-so of one person — the president. It will take actual legislation — such as FIRE’s model transparency bill — to create mechanisms that statutorily require disclosure and bring to light governmental efforts to strong-arm private social media companies into censoring protected speech. 

    In the meantime, FIRE will monitor the administration’s actions, just as we did during the Biden administration, and hold federal agencies to the standards set forth in the executive order.

    Executive orders targeting DEI programs appear to avoid First Amendment pitfalls — but FIRE will be watching their implementation

    President Trump also signed two executive orders with the aim of dismantling diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs. The first, signed on Jan. 20 and titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” calls for “termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”

    DEI/DEIA programs and initiatives take many forms. FIRE has no position on the values DEI programs may seek to advance. But our experience defending student and faculty rights on campus demonstrates that DEI administrators and offices have regularly been involved in threats to academic freedom and speech policing, functioning as a way to enforce preferred orthodoxy or ideology. And some DEI initiatives — such as mandatory DEI statements in faculty hiring or student admissions — flatly threaten free expression and academic freedom and should be prohibited. We have previously introduced model legislation designed to eliminate such use of political litmus tests in faculty hiring and student admission decisions.

    FIRE has also seen legislation in which overbroad attempts to curtail DEI mandates threaten the very same speech rights of faculty and students they aim to protect. Overbroad restrictions can improperly limit classroom discussions — as we saw in West Virginia’s recent executive order prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that promotes or encourages certain DEI-related views, while at the same time permitting criticism of those views. This allows institutions to continue ideological litmus tests as long as such tests oppose DEI — which just recreates the same problem.

    Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.

    The president’s executive order appears to avoid these issues by targeting only the government’s own speech and initiatives, which it can constitutionally control. For instance, the Office of Management and Budget must provide a list of “Federal grantees who received Federal funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or ‘environmental justice’ programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021.” This is different from prohibiting any federal grantees from promoting DEI, which would threaten speech. Instead, the order specifically targets federal grants made specifically for the purpose of advancing DEI, and the federal government is free to shut off that funding if it no longer wishes to advance those ideals or views.

    A second DEI-related order, signed on January 21, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” aims to eliminate “affirmative action” and “illegal discrimination and illegal preferences” in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violated the Fourteenth Amendment. (FIRE takes no position on affirmative action.)

    FIRE releases statement on the use of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ criteria in faculty hiring and evaluation

    News

    FIRE’s statement provides guidance to universities to ensure they respect faculty members’ expressive freedom when seeking to advance DEI.


    Read More

    The order helpfully includes two provisions that make clear it does not reach into the college classroom or infringe upon academic freedom:

    (b) This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

    (c) This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.

    While these orders avoid constitutional pitfalls on their face, implementation should proceed carefully. Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.

    Executive order on “gender ideology” invites possible abuse

    This executive order focuses on “[defending] women’s rights and [protecting] freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.” The order requires federal government agencies to:

    remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity. Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.

    This aspect of the order is limited to the federal government’s own speech. However, there is a risk, similar to that presented by imprecise anti-DEI legislation, that the breadth of such an order could lead to direct or indirect censorship of private actors. The government has the power to control its speech when it is the speaker, such as in a training given to its employees. But its power is much more limited when the speaker is a private citizen.

    Of particular concern is this clause: “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

    While the government can choose to change its own messaging on gender issues, it cannot deny funds to grantees for exercising their own First Amendment rights. Further, the imprecise language could encourage government actors to withhold otherwise available grants from those with opinions that do not align with the views expressed in this executive order — chilling constitutionally protected speech. Grantees who would otherwise espouse views agreeing with “gender ideology” may refrain for fear of losing their government grant, even if they do not use the grant itself to promote “gender ideology.”

    Executive order intended to “protect” Americans from noncitizens who “espouse hateful ideology” is at odds with our culture of free speech

    This executive order makes it federal policy to “protect [American] citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” In addition to requiring agencies to ensure their policies for screening aliens align with the executive order, it requires the secretary of state to:

    Recommend any actions necessary to protect the American people from the actions of foreign nationals who have undermined or seek to undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of the American people, including, but not limited to, our Citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, who preach or call for sectarian violence, the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands, or who provide aid, advocacy, or support for foreign terrorists.

    The federal government has the authority to refuse entry to or deport people who genuinely present a national security threat. But the broad language of this order implies it may also be used to target people already in the U.S. for engaging in speech that is otherwise constitutionally protected. FIRE has previously expressed concern about denials of entry in cases where students and speakers were seemingly barred based on their speech. The ambiguous language of the order, including references to a “replacement of the culture,” suggests an intent to review and potentially punish foreign nationals for speech that would typically be protected.

    To be clear, speech that calls for violence is generally protected by the First Amendment. As we have previously written, calls for genocide or chanting “From the river to the sea,” though listeners may be offended or deeply upset, are generally constitutionally protected. Denying visas or deporting anyone who engages in such speech will create a chilling effect, deterring foreign nationals from participating in lawful protests and demonstrations.

    But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea.

    While the driving force behind this executive order is the current Israel-Hamas conflict, there is no reason other than political whim that efforts to punish foreign nationals for their speech would stay confined to one side of that issue, or to the Israeli-Palestinian issue at all. If those targeted for “espousing hateful ideology” are today likely to be those supporting Hamas, a new government could aim such efforts at supporters of Israel’s military efforts in the coming years. Those from other nations experiencing ethnic or religious conflict, from Ukraine to Myanmar to Burkina Faso, could also face adverse immigration decisions for expressing their views.

    Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech

    News

    Creating a “genocide” exception to free speech only opens the door to more speech restrictions and selective enforcement.


    Read More

    Because this executive order is directed at foreign nationals, the legal First Amendment issues (as distinct from the cultural free speech questions) are complicated. The Supreme Court noted in Bridges v. Wixon that the freedom of speech is accorded to resident aliens, but other precedent upholds immigration consequences based on viewpoint, and immigration officials have targeted foreign nationals for deportation for otherwise-protected speech.

    In the 1904 case United States Ex. Rel. John Turner v. Williams, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of “anarchists.” In the 1954 case Galvan v. Press, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of non-citizens for belonging to the Communist Party. (Interestingly, statutory prohibitions on the naturalization of anarchists and members of the Communist Party still exist.)

    But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea. Establishing a system that allows for the routine deportation of foreign nationals based solely on their otherwise protected speech would erode our national commitment to freedom of expression as a uniquely American cultural value.

    FIRE’s Senior Scholar, Global Expression Sarah McLaughlin published a piece at MSNBC exploring President Trump’s Executive Order on anti-Semistism.

    Source link

  • The Importance of Discussion in American History

    The Importance of Discussion in American History

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    Psychologists call it choice paralysis. For me, it’s more like choice defeat. When confronted with too many options, I shut down. I still remember the first time this happened. I went to the mall for some new clothes (it was the ’90s and there was no internet). Almost immediately, my entire emotional world seemed to collapse. I was overwhelmed and had to leave. So, I drove home in my awesome Subaru Justy (I had a white one!)

    The choices are endless

    Fast forward 30 years, and the same thing happens to me when I’m selecting textbooks and primary sources for my United States history survey. There are so many amazing history textbooks. Each one has so much information with many broad points, specific examples, charts, maps, and student learning outcomes.

    Then, there’s the availability of primary sources, with millions upon millions of available documents. I’m thankful for resources like, Chronicling America and books.google.com, but still struggle. I feel awash in a sea of too many options.

    Major Problems in American History takes a different approach

    Major Problems in American History, Volume I

    I approached our new edition of “Major Problems in American History, Volume I and Volume II” to help educators like me. Instead of offering more content, I tried to offer better direction. I hoped that reading this text would be less like going to the mall for new apparel and more like receiving a curated clothing box. This new fifth edition of “Major Problems in American History” offers clear direction for students in various ways.

    Chapter structure

    Each chapter begins with succinct introductions (two–four pages) that invite students to explore the major themes and issues of a historical era. A timeline with about 10 key moments follows. Together, the short introduction and timeline don’t overwhelm the reader, but rather invite them to engage with the text. This quickly sets the stage for the primary sources later to come.

    Selection of primary sources

    The primary sources revolve around one or two central problems from each era. For example, the chapter on so-called “Jacksonian Democracy” asks: why did some Americans revere Andrew Jackson while others despised him? This fundamental issue, or “major problem,” determines which sources I included and how I ask students to approach them. By looking at sources related to the Indian Removal Act and its consequences, debates about state nullification of federal laws, and every high school teacher’s beloved Bank War, instructors can analyze with a purpose.

    Major Problems in American History, Volume II cover image
    Major Problems in American History, Volume II

    The purpose of secondary sources

    The primary sources and the major problem they address then take center stage in secondary sources where historians offer differing perspectives on the fundamental issue students are analyzing. Students follow how professional historians have dealt with the main problem, what sources they examine, and how they make meaning of the sources. In this way, the historical scholarship becomes a teaching tool. Secondary sources help teach students differing approaches to analysis.

    In the chapter on early English colonizing of North America, historians and source authors, Rachel Herrman and Rachel Winchcombe examine the “starving time” of Jamestown. Herrman looks at reports from this time to understand how the English continued to market colonization as reports of scarcity – and even cannibalism – became widespread. Winchcombe uses archeological evidence and even bone analysis to uncover what the people of Jamestown actually ate to understand how this experience of colonization influenced approaches to dietary behaviors. As students read the primary and secondary sources, they can reflect upon the major problem framed in each chapter, and hopefully embrace the complexities of the past and begin the challenging process of drawing their own conclusions about it.

    This edition of “Major Problems in American History” is for the instructors and students who want to maximize their time interpreting, discussing, and sinking their teeth into fundamental issues from the past. The goal is to avoid overwhelming amounts of content and data, and instead let students wrestle with issues from the past, many of which continue to impact people today.

     

    Written by Edward J. Blum, Professor of history at San Diego State University and co-author of “Major Problems in American History, Volume I and Volume II,” 5e

     

    Interested in learning more about “Major Problems in American History” by Edward J. Blum, Elizabeth Cobbs and Vanessa Walker? Check out Volume I and Volume II for your history course, coming later this spring, 2025, and browse other history titles on our discipline page. 

    Source link

  • UConn’s DEI medical oath is not what the doctor ordered

    UConn’s DEI medical oath is not what the doctor ordered

    For millenia, medical students have taken the Hippocratic Oath, solemnly pledging to prioritize the well-being of patients and “abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.” But unfortunately, schools such as the University of Connecticut have recently created their own versions of the oath that prioritize politics at the expense of the First Amendment. 

    In August, UConn required the incoming class of 2028 to pledge allegiance not simply to patient care, but to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. The revised oath, which was finalized in 2022, includes a promise to “actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.” 

    WATCH VIDEO OF THE OATH HERE

    This practice is a grave affront to students’ free speech rights. In January, FIRE called the medical school to confirm that the oath is mandatory; an admissions staff member told us it was. We are asking them to confirm this in writing.  

    As a public university, UConn is strictly bound by the First Amendment and cannot compel students to voice beliefs they do not hold. Public institutions have every right to use educational measures to try to address biases they believe stymie the healthcare system. But forcing students to pledge themselves to DEI policies — or any other ideological construct — with which they may disagree is First Amendment malpractice. This is no different than forcing students to pledge their allegiance to a political figure or the American flag. 

    When we raised concerns in 2022 about the University of Minnesota Medical School’s oath, which includes affirming that the school is on indigenous land and a vow to fight “white supremacy,” the university confirmed that students were not obligated to recite it.

    In the 1943 landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court declared that students could not be made to salute the American flag, saying, “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” 

    Justice Jackson, writing for the majority, emphasized that the First Amendment protects the individual’s “sphere of intellect and spirit” from governmental or institutional control. Just as UConn cannot force its medical students to express support for socialized medicine or vaccination mandates, it cannot compel them to pledge fealty to its preferred set of political principles. 

    University of Minnesota Medical School swears off compelled speech in white coat ceremony 

    News

    After FIRE criticized the medical school for appearing to force students to profess political views, the university affirmed the oath was not required.


    Read More

    More broadly, these nebulous commitments could become de facto professionalism standards, and students could face punishment for failing to uphold them. (After all, they took an oath.) What, exactly, must a medical student do to “support policies that promote social justice”? If a student disagrees with UConn’s definition of “social justice” or chooses not to promote it in the prescribed way, could she be dismissed for violating her oath? 

    FIRE has repeatedly seen administrators of professional programs — including medicinedentistrylaw, and mortuary science — deploy ambiguous and arbitrarily defined “professionalism” standards to punish students for otherwise protected speech.

    UConn isn’t alone in making such changes to the Hippocratic Oath. Other prestigious medical schools, including those at HarvardColumbiaWashington UniversityPitt Med, and the Icahn School of Medicine, have adopted similar oaths in recent years. However, not all schools compel students to recite such oaths. When we raised concerns in 2022 about the University of Minnesota Medical School’s oath, which includes affirming that the school is on indigenous land and a vow to fight “white supremacy,” the university confirmed that students were not obligated to recite it. That’s the very least UConn could do to make clear that it puts medical education — and the law — ahead of politics. 

    Source link