Category: Featured

  • Florida ends in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida ends in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida state lawmakers have eliminated in-state tuition for undocumented students, reversing a decade-old law that once enjoyed bipartisan support.

    Previously, undocumented students in Florida could apply for waivers to pay in-state tuition rates, if they went to high school in the state for at least three consecutive years and enrolled in college within two years of graduating.

    Under the new policy, included in a sweeping immigration bill signed by Governor Ron DeSantis last week, only “citizens of the United States” or those “lawfully present in the United States” qualify. Students receiving the waivers need to be “reevaluated for eligibility” by July 1.

    “I don’t think you should be admitted to college in Florida if you’re here illegally,” DeSantis said in a press conference Friday, “but to give in-state tuition was just a slap in the face to taxpayers.”

    Florida was one of 25 states that offered in-state tuition to undocumented students at public colleges and universities, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, a data hub run by the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. These reduced tuition prices came as a relief to undocumented students, who can’t access federal financial aid like their peers and often lack work authorization unless they’re part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. (Of the approximately 400,000 undocumented students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, most don’t hold DACA status.)

    Policymakers in other states are considering taking similar steps to curb in-state tuition for these students as they embrace President Donald Trump’s national push against undocumented immigration. Since the presidential election in November, state lawmakers in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas have introduced legislation to remove in-state tuition for undocumented students. As the issue becomes a political lightning rod, politicians in other states are doubling down on financial supports for these students, introducing bills that would expand in-state tuition eligibility, including in Indiana, New Mexico, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

    Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, said advocates “should be prepared and ready” to come out against similar legislation elsewhere in the country.

    A Game of ‘Political Football’

    In-state tuition for undocumented students has become a “political football” in Florida, said Jared Nordlund, Florida state director at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization. But that wasn’t always the case.

    Republican lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez—who resigned last week to become interim president of Florida International University—originally advocated for extending in-state tuition to undocumented students, and former Republican governor Rick Scott, now Florida’s senior U.S. senator, signed the bill into law. Nuñez has since pulled back her support for the policy, posting on X in January that the law had “run its course” and needed to be repealed.

    The political winds have shifted on what was once a fairly bipartisan issue, Nordlund said. “Ten years ago, the Republican Party wasn’t the party of Trump.”

    Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization that promotes more restrictive immigration policies, applauded Republican state lawmakers for “not rewarding people who are in the country illegally.”

    “The more you reward people for breaking the laws, even if it’s through their kids, the more likely people are to disobey the laws,” Mehlman said. And “you are filling seats that might otherwise have gone to kids who are equally deserving and whose parents have not violated any laws.”

    Now undocumented students are left to pay out-of-state tuition prices, a significant cost difference. During the 2023–24 academic year, average tuition and fees at Florida colleges and universities for out-of-state students was more than triple the cost state residents paid, according to the Florida Policy Institute, an organization that promotes economic mobility in Florida. The state’s in-state tuition waivers benefited an estimated 6,500 undocumented students that year.

    The Ripple Effects

    An undocumented student at University of Central Florida, who requested anonymity, told Inside Higher Ed that she couldn’t have pursued a bachelor’s degree as a full-time student without in-state tuition. She would’ve gone for an associate degree instead, taking one or two classes at a time, to keep costs down.

    Without in-state tuition, “who knows if I’d be graduating right now,” she said.

    The student, who was brought to Florida from Mexico at age 4, is graduating this spring, before the policy change takes effect. But she worries about her peers who won’t have the same resources she did. She previously helped and encouraged other undocumented students to apply for the in-state tuition waiver because of how much it helped her.

    “I gave them that hope,” she said, “and now it’s being snatched away from them.”

    The student argued she and other undocumented students would use their degrees to contribute to the local labor market, a point they’ve made to state lawmakers in the past; her long-term goal is to open a marketing agency and work with small business owners in the state.

    “We studied here our whole life, and our goal is to get our degree and be able to contribute to the economy,” she said.

    Diego Sánchez, director of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance, said he scrambled to pay for college in Florida before in-state tuition became available to undocumented students like him.

    In 2008, he enrolled at St. Thomas University, a private institution, and joined as many activities as he could that came with university scholarships—student government, choir and cross country, even though he wasn’t a singer or a runner. He couldn’t have afforded college otherwise, which is why he and other activists advocated for in-state tuition for Florida’s undocumented population. He’s “very disappointed” to see that win reversed.

    “It’s about scoring political points,” Sánchez said. “And unfortunately, these students who grew up in Florida, went to our public schools, are going to suffer the consequences … The state has already invested in them, and they’re working their way up to contribute to the community, [to] pay taxes.”

    Undocumented students and their supporters argue Florida is going to lose out on these students as future skilled workers at a time when the state is challenged by workforce shortages and an aging population.

    Feldblum said these students tend to be “tremendously determined” and will likely attend college in other states, taking their talents with them. She also expects some will stop out of higher ed altogether because they can’t afford it or because they don’t know about other resources available to them, like privately funded scholarships.

    “When there are obstacles put in front of students, when students are told, ‘You’re not welcome here’ in different ways, that’s really discouraging,” she said. “That’s disincentivizing,” when Florida has a “need for talent, the need for workforce development.”

    What’s Next

    The fight for in-state tuition in Florida isn’t over, some advocates say.

    “Hopefully we can eventually undo the repeal [of in-state tuition] when the time is right,” Nordlund said. For now, he’s focused on educating state lawmakers and the public about the economic benefits of the repealed policy.

    Sánchez plans to lobby state lawmakers to at least let undocumented students already in college finish their degrees at in-state tuition prices, a proposed amendment to the law that previously failed. He hopes colleges and universities push state lawmakers on the issue as well.

    He continues to worry, however, that these kinds of attacks on students’ in-state tuition “could spread to other parts of the country.”

    Mehlman would like to see other states, and even Congress, look to Florida’s example and work to end in-state tuition for noncitizens nationwide.

    “Florida and Texas have sort of been leaders in this area,” he said, “and they certainly can show the way for other states that might be considering this as well.”

    Source link

  • This LSU law professor’s job has become a legal drama

    This LSU law professor’s job has become a legal drama

    In a Jan. 14 lecture, Ken Levy, Holt B. Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at Louisiana State University, dropped f-bombs against then–president-elect Donald Trump and Louisiana governor Jeff Landry and told students who like Trump that they need his “political commentary.”

    Some students found the apparent attempt at political humor funny, according to an audio recording of the class obtained by Inside Higher Ed from a student who supports Levy.

    But at least one student in the administration of criminal justice class who subsequently complained, according to LSU, wasn’t amused—and neither were the university and the governor. An LSU spokesperson said the institution “took immediate action to remove Professor Levy from the classroom after complaints about the professor’s remarks.”

    Levy got a lawyer and took immediate action himself, pulling LSU into court instead of waiting for the university to take further steps internally regarding his job.

    In the month since that lecture, state district court judges have twice ruled that Levy should return to the classroom, only for a state appeals court to twice overrule that. The back-and-forth nature of the case has attracted attention in Louisiana and in law circles, including via headlines such as “The LSU Law School Professor Free Speech Hot Potato Saga Continues.”

    Landry also continues to discuss the case. A Republican governor who’s repeatedly inserted himself in LSU affairs, Landry used social media in the fall to call on the university to punish one of Levy’s law school colleagues for alleged in-class comments about Trump-supporting students. Landry has now repeatedly posted about Levy, recently saying an alleged exam he gave was incendiary and suggesting that “maybe it’s time to abolish tenure.”

    In and Out

    In the lecture in question, Levy referenced Landry’s previous criticism of his LSU colleague Nick Bryner, adding that he “would love to become a national celebrity [student laughter drowns out a moment of the recording] based on what I said in this class, like, ‘Fuck the governor!’”

    Levy also referenced Trump. “You probably heard I’m a big lefty, I’m a big Democrat, I was devastated by— I couldn’t believe that fucker won, and those of you who like him, I don’t give a shit, you’re already getting ready to say in your evaluations, ‘I don’t need his political commentary,’” Levy told students. “No, you need my political commentary, you above all others.”

    A few days after that lecture, LSU notified Levy he was suspended from teaching pending an investigation into student complaints, according to a letter from the university provided by Levy’s attorney, Jill Craft.

    On Jan. 28, Craft filed a request for a temporary restraining order against LSU to get Levy back in the classroom. The filing alleged that a student complained to the governor, not LSU, and calls were then made to LSU. A state district court judge granted the restraining order Jan. 30 without a hearing.

    In the first reversal, a panel of appellate judges wrote Feb. 4 that the lower court shouldn’t have approved the return-to-teaching part of the temporary restraining order without a full evidentiary hearing. But after the lower court held a two-day hearing last week, a different group of appellate judges overruled Levy’s return to teaching again—without explaining why.

    Local journalists who covered last week’s hearing reported that district court judge Tarvald Anthony Smith kicked an LSU deputy general counsel out of the courtroom because the lawyer told the law school dean, who was a scheduled and sequestered witness, about a student witness’s earlier testimony. The testimony was reportedly that the student had recorded a conversation with the dean.

    Smith ruled Feb. 11 that LSU policy required the university to keep Levy in class during the investigation of his comments, WBRZ reported. But a Feb. 4 statement from university spokesman Todd Woodward to Inside Higher Ed suggested the investigation was already over: “Our investigation found that Professor Levy created a classroom environment that was demeaning to students who do not hold his political view, threatening in terms of their grades and profane.” The university didn’t make anyone available for an interview about the case.

    Amid this legal back-and-forth, Landry continues to denounce Levy on social media. Last week, Landry posted on X an alleged exam from Levy that included potential sexual and other crimes committed by various fictitious individuals and asked students at the end to “discuss all potential crimes and defenses.” The narrative included a teen who put his penis into pumpkins on Halloween and was seen by trick-or-treating children, and a powerful Republican and suspected pedophile who invited the children inside to dance for him.

    “Disgusting and inexcusable behavior from Ken Levy,” Landry wrote on X regarding what he claimed was Levy’s test. “Deranged behavior like this has no place in our classrooms! If tenure protects a professor from this type of conduct, then maybe it’s time to abolish tenure.” Asked about this document, Craft said she believes the assignment was part of the sex crimes portion of Levy’s criminal law exam years ago, but she did not confirm it.

    After the latest appellate ruling in LSU’s favor, Landry wrote on X that “Levy should stay far, far away from any classroom in Louisiana!”

    Craft said Levy has received death threats on X due to Landry’s comments there. “This seems to be a situation entirely of the governor’s making,” she said. “He has been active on social media, trying to accuse my client of all kinds of bad things. He’s a lawyer himself. He attacked the courts and the judge.”

    Landry’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    Craft also said Levy’s roughly 80 students remain with another 80 in another professor’s classroom.

    “I’m not sure how he can handle office hours for 160 law students,” Craft said of that second professor. The university says it’s doubled the number of student tutors for the course.

    No Longer the U.S.?

    Craft said Levy was set to return to the classroom Feb. 13, but Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal issued its two-sentence order around 9:30 a.m. that appeared to stay the part of the lower court’s order that returned Levy to teaching.

    LSU again kept Levy out of the classroom Tuesday, Craft said. But she said the rest of the lower court order remains in place, at least for now, and that prevents LSU from taking further employment action against Levy due to his expression.

    “This is a critical issue, and I feel like we have got to, as a nation, understand that there has to be academic freedom, there has to be free speech in this country, and there have to be protections against governmental intrusions without due process,” she said. “We take all that away and we are no longer the United States of America.”

    Source link

  • Using school land to fight climate change

    Using school land to fight climate change

    HOUSTON — When Jefferson Early Learning Center first opened on the corner of a busy intersection in the city’s west side in 2022, school officials started receiving calls from irritated residents.

    It wasn’t the increase in traffic or the noise from loud preschoolers that was the source of the callers’ ire.

    It was the wild, unkempt landscaping.

    Residents wanted to know, “‘Why aren’t you cutting the lawn?’ ‘Why aren’t you keeping the grounds?’” recalled Hilda Rodriguez, the assistant superintendent of support services for the Alief Independent School District, home to Jefferson and nearly 50 other schools west of Houston.

    Although Jefferson’s neighbors didn’t know it, the tall grass surrounding the early learning center was part of a larger strategy to mitigate climate-related issues in a county where a major flood occurs nearly every two years and the number of days at or above 95 degrees has increased significantly over the past 25 years.

    In addition to choosing durable, impact-resistant materials to help the school building withstand natural disasters, Jefferson’s designers focused on the surrounding land. They chose to restore much of the ground’s nearly 20 acres to native prairie lands and wetlands, creating a habitat for more than 200 plant and animal species.

    A sign at the front of Jefferson Early Learning Center teaches children about the surrounding land, which was designed to withstand floods and heat. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report

    That sort of habitat is especially beneficial in an area vulnerable to climate change events such as the torrential rains that regularly hit the city, said Melissa Turnbaugh, senior principal at PBK Architects, which designed Jefferson. “By putting in native prairies and grasses, we can now actually absorb three to four times as much water as if we had manicured grass,” she said.

    Experts who study early learning and climate science say there is growing demand for solutions like these to address challenges related to climate change, such as floods, fires and hotter temperatures. Angie Garling, a senior vice president at the Low Income Investment Fund, which runs initiatives to help build and improve early learning facilities, said that when her organization solicited applications from child care programs needing facilities improvements, the vast majority had to do with climate.

    “They were asking for things like HVAC systems, misting systems, air filtration systems, shade structures, turf … because they couldn’t maintain their lawn anymore because the cost of water was too high,” said Garling. Due to the extreme level of climate-related need, LIIF recently partnered with other organizations to launch a program to help fund renovations for child care providers in Harris County, where Houston is located.

    Alief officials have already noticed benefits from the unconventional use of the school land. During the school year, students can walk on trails that weave through the prairie, learning about insects, plants and flowers. The native plants can withstand Houston’s infamous summers, when the average temperature sits above 90 degrees. That saves work, time and money for Alief’s maintenance team, which rarely needs to mow or water the land at Jefferson.

    Over the next few years, Turnbaugh, the architect, hopes the presence of the prairies and grassland — rather than concrete or other surfaces that are known to reflect heat — will pay long-term dividends in “an overall heat-challenged area.”

    “I think we’re going to see that we’re actually cooling the neighborhood,” she said. “I think there’s not only good carbon capture, but we’re actually being good neighbors.”

    Over time, Jefferson’s neighbors have seemed to realize that, said Alief’s Rodriguez. The calls, for the most part, have stopped. “Once they understood, it became very clear to them that this was purposeful.”

    Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at (212) 678-3562 or [email protected].

    This story about climate change solutions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Student mental health difficulties are on the rise, and so are inequalities

    Student mental health difficulties are on the rise, and so are inequalities

    As current discussions around higher education understandably focus on the challenges (especially around funding) that the sector faces, the experience of the nearly three million students attending our universities and colleges can often be overlooked.

    Current students generally benefit from and enjoy their time in higher education, but the national conversation too often ignores the challenges students face and the inequalities that many students experience.

    One area that deserves greater attention is student mental health.

    Correlation

    In a report published today, we find that the proportion of students reporting mental health difficulties has reached 18 per cent, tripling in just seven years. This implies that around 300,000 of the UK’s undergraduate student population is affected by mental health difficulties, a number that has been rising over recent years.

    And the rise in reported mental health difficulties is greater for some student groups than others. Notably, twice as many women as men report mental health difficulties, while rates for LGBTQ+ students are particularly high, rising to nearly one in three for lesbian (30 per cent) and bisexual (29 per cent) students. Higher still are the rates for trans students (around 40 per cent report mental health difficulties) and nonbinary students (over half report mental health difficulties). While sample sizes make it harder to compare trends over time for these groups, the rates of mental health difficulties are shocking, and require action from higher education providers.

    There is an association between socio-economic status and mental health difficulties. Mental health difficulties are directly correlated with higher participation rates: for every POLAR region of higher education participation, the lower the rate of higher education participation, the higher the proportion of people reporting mental health difficulties. Similarly, state educated pupils are more likely to report difficulties than privately educated pupils, indicating a need for greater support for children’s mental health services too.

    Better reporting

    There are some possible explanations for the sharp rise in student mental health difficulties. First, it is important to note that these figures reflect respondents’ self-reported mental health. Compared to a decade ago, there is less social stigma around disclosing and discussing mental health difficulties, and this may mean that previous reporting underestimated the numbers facing difficulties. There has also been a wider rise in mental health difficulties among all younger people, sometimes linked to the cost of living, concerns about the climate crisis or negative experiences on social media and smartphones. Our findings do not allow us to conclude which (if any) of these explanations is driving the rise in mental health difficulties, but given the rate of increase over the last seven years, it is unlikely to be caused by one explanation alone.

    There is one positive finding in the study, namely that over the course of their studies, LGBTQ+ students experience a relative increase in wellbeing. It is important to note that these students still have higher rates of mental health difficulties compared to their peers, but it’s also worth reflecting on the beneficial role that attending higher education can bring. Particularly for younger LGBTQ+ students, higher education may allow them to navigate and affirm their identity in a new way, and find like-minded friends and peers for the first time. Indeed, there may be learning for other organisations and institutions, particularly employers, in thinking about how they enable wellbeing among their recent and future graduate employees.

    Public health

    What, then, can be done to better address student mental health? One important change would be to adopt a “public health” approach to student mental health, and mental health generally. Higher education providers could also ensure that they effectively signpost students to both wellbeing support services and to clinical health services where required. Significantly, given that some students are more likely to experience mental health difficulties than others, providers also need to ensure these services reach everyone, and may need to tailor their services to do so.

    A key recommendation regards students leaving their courses. In the survey, mental health difficulties was by far the most common reason cited for why students were considering dropping out of their course, mentioned almost five times more than the second most common reason (financial difficulties). Providers therefore need to ensure that their retention efforts address mental health while also measuring how wellbeing and mental health support impacts on the likelihood that students complete their courses.

    Providers need to ensure that they are effectively evaluating their wellbeing and mental health services. It is positive that mental health is now seen as an important area for university services, and that social stigma has declined. Tight financial circumstances are increasing pressure on universities, and we all recognise the challenges of meeting every student need. At the same time, foregrounding the interests of students and ensuring their success in higher education requires a more extensive, effect focus on student mental health, not least given the extent of mental health difficulties, and how inequalities both produce and amplify these difficulties, before, during and after students leave higher education.

    Source link

  • What’s next in equality of opportunity evaluation?

    What’s next in equality of opportunity evaluation?

    In the Evaluation Collective – a cross-sector group of like-minded evaluation advocates – we have reason to celebrate two related interventions.

    One is the confirmation of a TASO and HEAT helmed evaluation library – the other John Blake’s recent Office for Students (OfS) blog What’s next in equality of opportunity regulation.

    We cheer his continued focus on evaluation and collaboration (both topics close to our collective heart). In particular, we raised imaginary (in some cases…) glasses to John Blake’s observation that:

    Ours is a sector founded on knowledge creation, curation, and communication, and all the skills of enquiry, synthesis and evidence-informed practice that drive the disciplines English HE providers research and teach, should also be turned to the vital priorities of expanding the numbers of students able to enter HE, and ensuring they have the best chance to succeed once they are admitted.

    That’s a hard YES from us.

    Indeed, there’s little in our Evaluation Manifesto (April 2022) that isn’t thinking along the same lines. Our final manifesto point addresses almost exactly this:

    The Evaluation Collective believe that higher education institutions should be learning organisations which promote thinking cultures and enact iterative and meaningful change. An expansive understanding of evaluation such as ours creates a space where this learning culture can flourish. There is a need to move the sector beyond simply seeking and receiving reported impact.

    We recognise that OfS has to maintain a balance between evaluation for accountability (they are our sector regulator after all) and evaluation for enhancement and learning.

    Evaluation in the latter mode often requires different thinking, methodologies and approaches. Given the concerning reversal of progress in HE access indicated by recent data this focus on learning and enhancement of our practice seems even more crucial.

    This brings us to two further collective thoughts.

    An intervention intervention

    John Blake’s blog references comments made by the Evaluation Collective’s Chair Liz Austen at the Unlocking the Future of Fair Access event. Liz’s point, which draws on a soon to be published book chapter, is that, from some perspectives, the term intervention automatically implies an evaluation approach that is positivistic and scientific – usually associated with Type 3 causal methodologies such as randomised control trials.

    This kind of language can be uncomfortable for those of us evaluating in different modes (and even spark the occasional paradigm war). Liz argued that much of the activity we undertake to address student success outcomes, such as developing inclusive learning, teaching, curriculum and assessment approaches is often more relational, dynamic, iterative and collaborative, as we engage with students, other stakeholders and draws on previous work and thinking from other disciplinary area.

    This is quite different to what we might think of as a clinical intervention, which often involves tight scientific control of external contextual factors, closed systems and clearly defined dosage.

    We suggest, therefore, that we might need a new language and conceptual approach to how we talk and think about evaluation and what it can achieve for HE providers and the students we support.

    The other area Liz picked up concerned the burden of evaluation not only on HE providers, but also the students who are necessarily deeply integrated in our evaluation work with varying degrees of agency – from subjects from whom data is extracted at one end through to co-creators and partners in the evaluation process at the other.

    We rely on students to dedicate sufficient time and effort in our evaluation activities. To reduce this burden and ensure we’re making effective use of student input, we need better coordination of regulatory asks for evaluation, not least to help manage the evaluative burden on students/student voices – a key point also made by students Molly Pemberton and Jordan Byrne at the event.

    As it is, HE providers are currently required to develop and invest in evaluation across multiple regulatory asks (TEF, APP, B3, Quality Code etc). While this space is not becoming too crowded (the more the merrier), it will take some strategic oversight to manage what is delivered and evaluated, why and by whom and look for efficiencies. We would welcome more sector work to join up this thinking.

    Positing repositories

    We also toasted John Blake’s continued emphasis on the crucial role of evaluation in continuous improvement.

    We must understand whether metrics moving is a response to our activity; without a clear explanation as to why things are getting better, we cannot scale or replicate that impact; if a well-theorised intervention does not deliver, good evaluation can support others to re-direct their efforts.

    In support of this, the new evidence repository to house the sector’s evaluation outcomes has been confirmed, with the aim of supporting our evolving practice and improve outcomes for students. This is another toast-worthy proposal. We believe that this resource is much needed.

    Indeed, Sheffield Hallam University started its own (publicly accessible) one a few years ago. Alan Donnelly has written an illuminating blog for the Evaluation Collective reflecting on the implementation, benefits and challenges of the approach.

    The decision to commission TASO and HEAT to develop this new Higher Education Evidence Library (HEEL), does however, beg a lot of questions about how material is selected for inclusion, who makes the selection and the criteria they use. Here are a few things we hope those organisations are considering.

    The first issue is that it is not clear whether this repository is merely primarily designed to address a regulatory requirement for HE providers to publish their evaluation findings or a resource developed to respond to the sector’s knowledge needs. This comes down to clarity of purpose and a clear-eyed view of where the sector needs to develop.

    It also comes down to the kinds of resources that will be considered for inclusion. We are also concerned by the prospect of a rigid and limited selection process and believe that useful and productive knowledge is contained in a wide range of publications. We would welcome, for example, a curation approach that recognised the value of non-academic publications.

    The contribution of grey literature and less formal publications, for example, is often overlooked. Valuable learning is also contained in evaluation and research conducted in other countries, and indeed, in different academic domains within the social and health sciences.

    The potential for translating interventions across different institutional and sector contexts also depends on sharing contextual and implementation information about the target activities and programmes.

    As colleagues from the Russell Group Widening Participation Evaluation Forum recently argued on these very pages, the value of sharing evaluation outcomes increases the more we move away from reporting technical and statistical outcomes to include broader reflections and meta-evaluation considerations, the more we collectively learn as a sector the more opportunities we will see for critical friendships and collaborations.

    While institutions are committing substantial time and resources to APP implementation, we must resist overly narrowing the remit of our activities and our approach in general. Learning from failed or even poor programmes and activities (and evaluation projects!) can be invaluable in driving progress.

    Ray Pawson speaks powerfully of the way in which “nuggets” of valuable learning and knowledge can be found even when panning less promising or unsuccessful evaluation evidence. Perhaps, a pragmatic approach to knowledge generation could trump methodological criteria in the interests of sector progress?

    Utopian repositories

    Hot on the HEELs of the TASO/HEAT evaluation library collaboration announcement we have put together a wish list for what we would like to see in such a resource. We believe that a well-considered, open and dynamic evaluation and evidence repository could have a significant impact on our collective progress towards closing stubborn equality of opportunity risk gaps.

    Submission to this kind of repository could also be helpful for the professionalisation of HE-based evaluation and good for organisational and sector recognition and career progression.

    A good model for this kind of approach is the National Teaching Repository (self-upload, no gatekeeper – their tag line “Disseminating accessible ideas that work”). This approach includes a way of tracking the impact and reach of submissions by allocating them a DOI.

    This is an issue that Alan and the Sheffield Hallam Team have also cracked, with submissions appearing in scholarly indexes.

    We are also mindful of the increasingly grim economic contexts in which most HE staff are currently working. If it does its job well, a repository could help mitigate some of the current constraints and pressures on institutions. Where we continue to work in silos there is a continued risk of wasting resources, by reinventing the same intervention and evaluation wheels in isolation across a multitude of different HE providers.

    With more openness and transparency, and sharing work in progress, as well as in completion, we increase the possibility of building on each other’s work, and, hopefully, finding opportunities for collaboration and sharing the workload, in other words efficiency gains.

    Moreover, this moves us closer to solving the replication and generalisability challenges, evaluators working together across different institutions can test programmes and activities across a wider set of contexts, resulting in more flexible and generalisable outcomes.

    Sliding doors?

    There are two further challenges, which are only nominally addressed in John Blake’s blog, but which we feel could have significant influence on the sector impact of the repository of our dreams.

    First, effective knowledge management is essential – how will time-pressed practitioners find and apply relevant evidence to their contexts? The repository needs to go beyond storing evaluations to include support to help users to find what they need, when they need it, and include recommendations for implications for practice.

    Second, drawing on the development of Implementation Science in fields like medicine and public health could help maximize the repository’s impact on practice. We suggest early consultation with both sector stakeholders and experts from other fields who have successfully tackled these knowledge-to-practice challenges.

    At this point in thinking, before concrete development and implementation have taken place, we have the potential for a multitude of possible future repositories and approaches to sector evaluation. We welcome TASO and HEAT’s offer to consult with the sector over the spring as they develop their HEEL and hope to engage in a broad and wide-ranging discussion of how we can collectively design an evaluation and evidence repository that is not just about collecting together artefacts, but which could play an active role in driving impactful practice. And then we can start talking about how the repository can be evaluated.

    John Blake will be talking all things evaluation with members of the Evaluation Collective on the 11th March. Sign up to the EC membership for more details: https://evaluationcollective.wordpress.com/

    Source link

  • The government’s in a pickle over fees and funding

    The government’s in a pickle over fees and funding

    We’re increasingly relying on Wales to get intel on where the Westminster government’s thinking is on higher education finance.

    As DK notes elsewhere on the site, Vikki Howells, Minister for Further and Higher Education in the Welsh Government, has announced an additional £18.5m in capital funding for estate maintenance and digital projects to reduce costs, improve sustainability, and enhance the student experience.

    But the other thing that happened was disclosed in the papers outlining the 2024–25 supplementary budget process. That contains a change in the student loan resource budget from £277m in October to £428m now. That feels like a big thing, and it’s worth unpacking why.

    Imagine for a minute that you own a pub, and you let students run up a tab. Then imagine that you expect them to gradually pay you back over decades – “pay us back when you can afford it mate”, or an “income contingent” loan.

    If you were trying to work out how well off you are now by thinking of how much that group of students will pay you back, you’d have to guess how much money they’ll have and when, and how much of that they’ll give you at a given point.

    But you’d need to guess how much that future money will be worth.

    The thing about student loans – and how they’re treated in the national accounts (including the “devolved” national accounts of the nations) – is that that’s broadly how it’s done.

    Before 2020, the government accounted for student loans in a way that understated their real cost. Every loan was recorded in the national accounts as if it would be fully repaid, plus interest.

    But a significant portion of loans would always be written off, but this wasn’t properly accounted for. This made the government’s books look better – despite knowing that many students would never repay in full. That “fiscal illusion” allowed George Osborne to spare higher education from austerity while your local council was cutting bin collections.

    Then ONS forced the government to acknowledge that much of the money lent to students wouldn’t be repaid. The removal of the “fiscal illusion” means that now, every loan is split into two parts – the part expected to be repaid, which is counted as an asset, and the part likely to be written off, which is counted as spending immediately.

    That sounds sensible – it makes the true cost of student loans more transparent in government accounts. But then, things got complicated – because that calculation has to be constantly revised.

    A scenario

    Imagine a student owes you £10,000 in 30 years. How much is that worth to you today? If you expect high investment returns elsewhere, future money is worth less today because you could invest it and earn more. Conversely, if expected returns are low, future money retains more value in today’s terms.

    So if you expect high investment returns elsewhere, you might say: “That £10,000 in 30 years is worth only £3,000 to me today.” If you expect low investment returns, you might say: “That’s still worth £7,000 to me today.”

    And so for the government, the “discount rate” is how they decide how much future student loan repayments are worth in today’s money.

    The higher the discount rate, the less future repayments are worth today and the more expensive student loans appear in the accounts. The lower the discount rate, the more valuable future repayments seem, and the cheaper student loans look on paper.

    Every so often, His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) revises the discount rate – and a wander down the rabbit hole reveals that it’s gone up again – which means the government is now valuing future student loan repayments less in today’s terms. Hence the change in Wales.

    Why? Because the government’s own borrowing costs have risen.

    Lend us a fiver mate

    The government raises money by selling bonds (gilts), and the interest rates on those bonds (gilt yields) have gone up. Money is loaned to the government but those loaning it expect higher returns.

    Because the government is borrowing more money, lending to it is riskier. Inflation is higher, so investors want more interest to protect the value of their money. And there’s more economic uncertainty, so investors demand higher returns to compensate for potential risks.

    Then, as other investment options become more attractive, the government needs to offer better rates to compete for investors’ money. All of that combined makes investors ask for higher interest rates when lending to the government.

    So the government now pays more to borrow money. Then when it lends it out, like those lending to the government, it expects higher returns to match its increased costs. That makes the government value future student loan repayments less in today’s money. It’s like saying, “If I’m paying more to borrow, I need to earn more when I lend.”

    As a result, the government sees student loans as less valuable now, even though students will still repay the same amount in the future – and so when that discount rate changes, it suddenly makes loans look more expensive in government accounts.

    So what?

    In theory, if the interest rate on student loans goes up, expected total repayments grow faster. It should make the loan book appear more valuable today – because the government would record a lower upfront cost for issuing the loans.

    Then if it wanted to reduce the reported cost of student loans, you’d think they would increase interest rates, which lowers the “cost” of issuing loans in the accounts. Graduates would pay more, but in the government accounts, loans would look cheaper to taxpayers.

    But in 2023, Rishi Sunak’s reforms actually lowered interest rates for new students – from RPI+3% to RPI. This means future repayments won’t grow as quickly, so the value of the loan book shrank. Why did he do that with no obvious political benefit?

    The weird thing is that lowering interest rates on student loans can actually make them look less expensive for the government in the short term, even though the actual long-run costs have increased.

    That’s because the government only records the part of loans that won’t be repaid as a cost upfront, while treating the rest as an asset. Because lower interest rates mean students are expected to repay less overall, the unpaid portion of loans (write-off) shrinks – so the immediate cost to the government looks smaller.

    But because the government borrows money to fund these loans, and its own borrowing costs are rising, a big financial hit comes later when it earns less from student loan interest while still paying more to finance the system.

    And when the Treasury gets round to noticing that second part, it adjusts the discount rate – and then the hit appears in the accounts. Cheers, Rishi.

    As IFS says, all of the above means that the official statistics are likely constantly understating the true cost of the student loans system to the taxpayer:

    The ONS [government accounts] measure focuses only on the share of loans that is not repaid in full and thus misses the spread between government borrowing costs and student loan interest rates, which is now expected to be negative.

    And that all then ends up having implications for future reform.

    What next?

    The Russell Group’s spending review submission doesn’t touch on any of this. Nor does Guild HE’s. Universities UK’s submission is silent on it too.

    But Rachel Reeves has set a spending envelope. Her new Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) measure is a broader measure of government debt that includes both traditional borrowing (like gilts) and other financial commitments, including student loans.

    It differs from the old Public Sector Net Debt (PSND) because PSND only counts traditional government borrowing, whereas PSNFL includes all financial assets and liabilities – including the value of student loans.

    So increasing the value of student loans – tuition or maintenance – would classify these loans as financial assets under PSNFL. But the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) says that practices like that might hide underlying fiscal risks, because loans are recorded as assets regardless of the probability of repayment. If a big(ger) portion of these loans is not repaid that would hit the public finances.

    Providing bigger (tuition or maintenance) grants instead of loans would result in immediate government expenditure, increasing the deficit in the short term. That could conflict with the government’s fiscal mandate to achieve a balanced or surplus current budget by 2029–30. Grants don’t add to future liabilities, but they do directly impact day-to-day spending, making it harder to adhere to Reeves’ fiscal rules.

    Government investment in university infrastructure – like funding for new buildings and research facilities – is capital expenditure, typically financed through borrowing. Under current fiscal rules, the government has to ensure that Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) fall as a share of the economy by 2029–30. Investments like that might be crucial for long-term growth, but increased borrowing adds to public debt. So to stay within fiscal limits, the government has to manage the spending to prevent an unsustainable rise in its future financial liabilities.

    Politically, it may also want to consider relieving the pressure on young/new graduates – by raising the repayment threshold, or introducing stepped repayments. But then to pay for any or all of the above, it would need to introduce steeper interest rate bands so that higher earners pay more, have a higher repayment rate for higher earners, or look again at early repayment penalties to maintain long-term repayment contributions. And they would all bring political costs.

    The iceberg and the tip

    And that’s the irony. When the last government gave a (graduate) tax cut to higher earners by cutting interest to RPI, the idea was that they would pay no more, no less than the “real” cost of their HE – and that was paid for by lower earners paying more back, rather than having profit from higher earners subsidising lower earners.

    But once the cost of borrowing the money to loan to students starts to exceed inflation, the government loses money on every loan. That’s why from a government point of view, aligning student loan interest rates with the government’s long-term borrowing costs would make more sense.

    Having interest rates that are significantly lower than the government’s borrowing costs results in an expensive subsidy spent on the rich – it benefits higher earners who would repay their loans even with higher interest rates. Low-earning graduates, who are less likely to repay their loans in full, get no benefit.

    So the rich either pay upfront through the great boomer wealth transfer, or go into the loan scheme and pay less than the loan costs. While everyone, and everything, else suffers.

    Just like the student housing problem, financing things through borrowing is fine when the costs of borrowing are low, and crucially lower than inflation. But once that becomes your default way of financing something, it’s like an iceberg – at the tip you have the tuition fee, below that there’s the value of maintenance, below that is the terms you offer for paying you the money back that you lend out, but what ends up driving everything deeper down is the cost of borrowing it to lend out in the first place.

    Put another way, and to return to the pub, what I didn’t say at the start was that you as the landlord of the Dickinson Arms used to be able to borrow money at low rates to buy stock, pay staff, and maintain the premises. You offered loans or credit to regulars who weren’t able to pay immediately, figuring that the low cost of borrowing made it a sustainable business model. You offered affordable pints and generous credit terms, confident that the costs of borrowing were lower than the rate of inflation.

    But the cost of borrowing is up. Each barrel of beer bought on credit now costs you more to finance than it did before. You continue offering low-interest loans to your punters, but the true cost of financing is being hidden beneath the surface, gradually growing into a larger financial burden. And at some stage, the pub becomes insolvent. That’s the real problem the government faces now over HE reform – one that spending review submissions from sector bodies really did need to address.

    Source link

  • Seton Hall sues its former president

    Seton Hall sues its former president

    A year after being sued by ex-president Joseph Nyre for alleged breach of contract and retaliation, among other claims, Seton Hall University has hit back with its own legal action against the former leader.

    In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Superior Court of New Jersey, the university accused Nyre of “illicitly accessing, downloading, maintaining, and later disseminating confidential and proprietary documents, as well as documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, and information after his departure as President of the University.” Those documents led to critical reports about the university’s current president, Monsignor Joseph Reilly.

    Alongside Nyre, the lawsuit also names John Does 1–10, referring to them as “persons who are in possession of documents unlawfully maintained, retrieved, accessed, and/or downloaded.”

    In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, a Seton Hall spokesperson wrote that Wednesday’s filing “makes clear that confidential documents were utilized with sections selectively released, causing damage to the University and its leadership and painting a false narrative about Monsignor Reilly.” Reilly has been accused of failing to report allegations of sexual misconduct and thus violating the university’s Title IX policies.

    An attorney for Nyre blasted the lawsuit as a “cover-up” by Seton Hall.

    A Legal Clash

    Nyre led Seton Hall from 2019 to 2023, when he stepped down unexpectedly.

    The former president later sued Seton Hall, alleging he was pushed out by the Board of Regents amid conflict with then-chair Kevin Marino, whom Nyre accused of micromanagement, improperly involving himself in an embezzlement investigation at the law school and sexually harassing the president’s wife, Kelli Nyre, among other claims. Marino, who is no longer a board member, was not named as a defendant in Nyre’s lawsuit, and an investigation found no evidence of sexual harassment.

    While Seton Hall is defending itself against Nyre’s lawsuit, it also threw a legal counterpunch in suing the ex-president. The university alleges that its information technology team confirmed that Nyre had improperly accessed materials after his departure, and in doing so, he violated confidentiality provisions in his employment and separation agreement.

    Specifically, Nyre is accused of improperly downloading confidential documents that were later provided to Politico. Those files—some of which were also obtained by Inside Higher Ed—seemed to indicate Reilly, the current president, overlooked instances of sexual harassment while rector and dean of the university’s graduate seminary from 2012 to 2022.

    However, one of the leaked documents in question—a letter from a Board of Regents member to Reilly in February 2020 that said he had violated university Title IX policies through his inaction—was an unsent draft, university officials previously told Inside Higher Ed.

    Seton Hall officials said in the lawsuit that though the Politico reporter never disclosed who provided him with the documents, “it was clear that [Nyre], directly or indirectly, was responsible” for the leak of confidential information to the news outlet between December and February. Seton Hall accused Nyre of trying to “create a false impression about” Reilly, arguing he acted in “bad faith and malicious intent” by not disclosing that the February 2020 letter was never sent.

    The allegations against Reilly have prompted calls for transparency from state lawmakers and Democratic governor Phil Murphy, who called on the university to release an investigative report that allegedly cleared Reilly. Seton Hall has thus far declined to do so, citing the need to protect the confidentiality of participants who voluntarily cooperated with the investigation.

    The allegations against Reilly come as the university is only a few years removed from the sprawling sexual abuse scandal involving former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who sat on both of Seton Hall’s governing boards. Investigators determined in a 2019 university report that McCarrick “created a culture of fear and intimidation” and “used his position of power as then–Archbishop of Newark”—which sponsors Seton Hall—“to sexually harass seminarians” for decades. (McCarrick was defrocked but avoided criminal charges due to a dementia diagnosis.)

    As part of the lawsuit, Seton Hall is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop Nyre from allegedly sharing more documents. University officials argued in court filings that Seton Hall stands to “suffer irreparable harm” from further leaks, which “cannot be adequately compensated” monetarily.

    “The nature of the harm is such that it affects the university’s ability to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information, which is crucial for its operations and reputation,” filings read. “Moreover, to the extent that documents to which defendant has access are protected under [the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] or Title IX, the disclosure of such documents would directly implicate the right of students and their parents to control the disclose [sic] of such confidential educational records as well as the confidentiality rights of university employees.”

    Pushback

    In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, Nyre attorney Matthew Luber called the lawsuit “a desperate, retaliatory ploy designed to silence a whistleblower and distract from the university’s own corruption and misconduct.”

    Luber did not specifically address the allegations that Nyre had inappropriately leaked confidential documents but accused Seton Hall of ignoring red flags in hiring Reilly and overlooking Title IX infractions.

    “Let’s be clear: Dr. Nyre was not at Seton Hall when Monsignor Reilly engaged in misconduct, nor when the board knowingly violated its own policies and Title IX to install him as President,” Luber wrote. “But he was the one who warned university officials about Reilly’s disqualifying history during his presidential search—warnings that were deliberately ignored by board leadership. Instead of addressing their own failures, Seton Hall is now attempting to smear and intimidate Dr. Nyre.”

    As of publication, a judge has not set to a hearing to consider the request for a restraining order.

    Source link

  • Ilya Shapiro is back . . . with a new book — First Amendment News 458

    Ilya Shapiro is back . . . with a new book — First Amendment News 458

    I never intended to become a poster boy for cancel culture. Nor do I intend to let those four months of Georgetown farce define my life or career. But I’m using this chance to expose the institutional rot in academia and trace it to the illiberal winds blowing across America.

    Those words are from Ilya Shapiro’s latest book, about which more will be said in a moment. But a few “set up” words first.

    Today, Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Previously he was executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, and before that a vice president of the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies. And as before, Shapiro continues to file briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Ilya Shapiro speaking at the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com)

    But his today comes against the backdrop of a quarrelsome yesterday involving a ‘cancel culture’ dispute at Georgetown Law School where he was slated to work with Professor Randy Barnett and others at the School’s Center for the Constitution. But things started to go south after Shapiro wrote that “we’ll get lesser black woman” instead of Biden’s pick of Judge Sri Srinivasan. He later apologized. Following a four-month law school investigation, Shapiro was reinstated, only thereafter to resign on June 6, 2022:

    After full consideration of the report of the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Affirmative Action (“IDEAA Report”), and upon consultation with counsel, family, and trusted advisers, it has become apparent that my remaining at Georgetown has become untenable. Although I celebrated my “technical victory” in the Wall Street Journal, further analysis shows that you’ve made it impossible for me to fulfill the duties of my appointed post.

    [ . . . ]

    I cannot again subject my family to the public attacks on my character and livelihood that you and IDEAA have now made foreseeable, indeed inevitable. As a result of the hostile work environment that you and they have created, I have no choice but to resign.

    Ilya Shapiro resigns from Georgetown following reinstatement after 122-day investigation of tweets

    News

    After a more than four-month investigation that led to his reinstatement last week, Ilya Shapiro resigned today from Georgetown University Law Center.


    Read More

    In the midst of the controversy, FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff and Adam Goldstein wrote:

    Shapiro’s targeting marks the 10th attempt to get a professor sanctioned for ideological reasons at Georgetown University since 2015. Five attempts have been successful, with sanctions involving investigation, resignation, suspension and termination. . . . Higher education’s credibility rests on the public belief that it is a place where all sides of every argument are subject to robust debate, disputation and discussion. If it becomes clear that these discussions are impossible on campuses, the reputation of higher education — and the shared world of facts it was intended to create — will suffer.

    And now on to Shapiro’s new book. It is titled “Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites” and it’s already getting ample notice from publications ranging from The Volokh Conspiracy to the Hugh Hewitt show, including a recent podcast exchange with Nico Perrino on “So to Speak”:


    The publisher’s summary:

    In the past, Columbia Law School produced leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now it produces window-smashing activists.

    When protestors at Columbia broke into a building and created illegal encampments, the student-led Columbia Law Review demanded that finals be canceled because of “distress.”

    Law schools used to teach students how to think critically, advance logical arguments, and respect opponents. Now those students cannot tolerate disagreement and reject the validity of the law itself. Rioting Ivy Leaguers are the same people who will soon:

    • Be America’s judges, DAs, and prosecutors
    • File and fight constitutional lawsuits
    • Advise Fortune 500 companies
    • Hire other left-wing diversity candidates to staff law firms and government offices
    • Run for higher office with an agenda of only enforcing laws that suit left-wing whims

    In Lawless, Ilya Shapiro explains how we got here and what we can do about it. The problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty — it’s institutional weakness. Shapiro met the mob firsthand when he posted a controversial tweet that led to calls for his firing from Georgetown Law. A four-month investigation eventually cleared him on a technicality but declared that if he offended anyone in the future, he’d create a “hostile educational environment” and be subject to the inquisition again. Unable to do the job he was hired for, he resigned.

    This cannot continue. In Lawless, Shapiro reveals how the illiberal takeover of legal education is transforming our country. Unless we stop it now, the consequences will be with us for decades.

    A few selected quotes:

    • Is there anything we can do to stop or reverse . . . ill liberal tendencies? Should we — those of us who care about universities’ traditional truth-seeking mission and law schools’ commitment to the American constitutional order — just throw up our hands, gird our loins, and regroup to fight elsewhere? Surely we need to develop novel responses to heterodox challenges, ones that involve culture, legislation, and institution building.
    • The real issue here is taking exclusionary action — real discrimination, not a mere assertion that someone’s position on Israel (or anything) is ‘harmful’ or denies someone’s right to exist.
    • More than a 100 institutions have endorsed a version of the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago (known as the Chicago Statement), which is the gold standard. The problem is that, as I experienced personally, so many of these speech-and-expression policies aren’t worth the paper (or pixels) they’re written on, falling by the wayside when seeming to conflict with the demands of DEI.
    • Cancellation victims, and others who make national news are the tip of the iceberg. As we see from survey results, self-censorship pervades academia, detracting from any intellectual mission, to say the least. Knowledge is never developed, and many old-school professors leave academia entirely — such as the famed First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh’s move from the UCLA school of law to the Hoover Institution and the early retirement of five right-of-center law professors from the University of San Diego (which used to be a bastion of originalism). Universities are at best failing to resist these illiberal forces and at worst encouraging them.

    Shapiro’s four main recommendations in “Lawless”: 

    1. Abolish DEI bureaucracies
    2. End mandatory diversity training
    3. Stop political coercion
    4. End identity-based preferences.

    Related


    WATCH VIDEO: Gaza protesters disrupt UC Berkeley dean’s party, triggering responses over free speech.

    Forthcoming book on ideology, science, and free speech

    Cover of Lawrence M. Krauss' book "The War on Science: Thirty-Nine Renowned Scientists and Scholars Speak Out About Current Threats to Free Speech, Open Inquiry, and the Scientific Process"

    An unparalleled group of prominent scholars from wide-ranging disciplines detail ongoing efforts to impose ideological restrictions on science and scholarship throughout western society.

    From assaults on merit-based hiring to the policing of language and replacing well-established, disciplinary scholarship by ideological mantras, current science and scholarship is under threat throughout western institutions. 

    As this group of prominent scholars ranging across many different disciplines and political leanings detail, the very future of free inquiry and scientific progress is at risk. Many who have spoken up against this threat have lost their positions, and a climate of fear has arisen that strikes at the heart of modern education and research. Banding together to finally speak out, this brave and unprecedented group of scholars issues a clarion call for change.

    “Higher education isn’t what it used to be. Cancel Culture and DEI have caused many to keep their mouths shut. Not so the authors of this book. This collection of essays tells of threats to open inquiry, free speech, and the scientific process itself. A much-needed book.” — Sabine Hossenfelder, Physicist and Author of Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions

    Campus speech conflicts continue

    Campus free speech podcasts

    What is academic freedom? With Keith Whittington

    In recent weeks, the Academic Freedom Podcast has released two new episodes focusing on campus free speech issues.

    First up was a conversation with Timothy Zick, the John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William & Mary Law School. He is the author most recently of Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protests. The episode focuses on the law surrounding public protests on and off college campuses.

    Next was a conversation with Jennifer Ruth and Michael Berube about their recent book, It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom. They are both long-serving leaders in the American Association of University Professors, and the book develops a provocative proposal for patrolling the acceptable boundaries of extramural speech by university faculty.

    More to come.

    White House Associated Press controversy

    The White House barred a credentialed Associated Press reporter and photographer from boarding the presidential airplane Friday for a weekend trip with Donald Trump, saying the news agency’s stance on how to refer to the Gulf of Mexico was to blame for the exclusion. It represented a significant escalation by the White House in a four-day dispute with the AP over access to the presidency.

    The administration has blocked the AP from covering a handful of events at the White House this week, including a news conference with India’s leader and several times in the Oval Office. It’s all because the news outlet has not followed Trump’s lead in renaming the body of water, which lies partially outside U.S. territory, to the “Gulf of America.”

    Volokh weighs in on AP exclusion controversy

    [1.] The Administration has no First Amendment obligation to provide any press conferences or interviews. The question, though, is whether, once it starts doing that, it may exclude the press based on its viewpoint, or on its supposedly unfair coverage, or on its use of terms that are seen as expressing a viewpoint.

    [2.] It seems pretty clear that government officials can choose — including in viewpoint-based ways — whom they will sit down with for interviews. The President may choose to give interviews to journalists whose views he likes, and to refuse to speak with those whose views he dislikes. Indeed, a government official may even order employees not to talk to certain reporters, without thereby violating the reporters’ rights. Baltimore Sun v. Ehrlich (4th Cir. 2006).

    [ . . . ]

    [3.] It also seems pretty clear that government officials, even in large press conferences, can choose to ignore questions that express views they dislike, or to ignore questioners who have expressed those views. . . 

    [4.] This having been said, there are precedents (Sherrill, TGP, and John K. Maciver Inst. for Public Policy v. Evers (7th Cir. 2021)) that recognize a right not to be excluded based on viewpoint from large press conferences that are generally open to a wide range of reporters. Those precedents treat those press conferences more or less like “limited public fora” or “nonpublic fora” — government property where the government may impose viewpoint-neutral restrictions but not viewpoint-based ones.

    [ . . . ]

    [5.] But what about in-between events, which are open only to a small set of reporters? Air Force One apparently has 13 press seats, and I take it the Oval Office is likewise limited.

    [ . . . ]

    [6.] So I think that for Air Force One and Oval Office appearances, the best I can say is that the First Amendment analysis is unsettled.

    FIRE weighs in on AP exclusion controversy

    As one federal court proclaimed, “Neither the courts nor any other branch of the government can be allowed to affect the content or tenor of the news by choreographing which news organizations have access to relevant information.”

    And because denying press access involves the potential deprivation of First Amendment rights, any decision about who’s in or out must also satisfy due process. That means the government must establish clear, impartial criteria and procedures, and reporters must receive notice of why they were denied access and have a fair opportunity to challenge that decision.

    The AP — a major news agency that produces and distributes reports to thousands of newspapers, radio stations, and TV broadcasters around the world — has had long-standing access to the White House. It is now losing that access because its exercise of editorial discretion doesn’t align with the administration’s preferred messaging.

    That’s viewpoint discrimination, and it’s unconstitutional.

    This isn’t the first time the White House has sent a journalist packing for reporting critically, asking tough questions, or failing to toe the government line. During Trump’s first term, the White House suspended CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass after he interrogated the president about his views on immigration. After the network sued, a federal court ordered the administration to restore Acosta’s pass.

    Related

    Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sues NBC

    Sean “Diddy” Combs is suing NBC Universal over a documentary that he says falsely accuses him of being a serial murderer who had sex with underage girls as he awaits trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

    The lawsuit filed Wednesday in New York state court says the documentary, “Diddy: Making of a Bad Boy,” included statements that NBC Universal either knew were false or published with reckless disregard for the truth in order to defame the founder of Bad Boy Records.

    “Indeed, the entire premise of the Documentary assumes that Mr. Combs has committed numerous heinous crimes, including serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking of minors, and attempts to crudely psychologize him,” the complaint reads. “It maliciously and baselessly jumps to the conclusion that Mr. Combs is a ‘monster’ and ‘an embodiment of Lucifer’ with ‘a lot of similarities’ to Jeffrey Epstein.”

    Executive Watch


    WATCH VIDEO: Trump says freedom of speech under threat in Europe | AFP

    Secretary Rubio on free speech and the Holocaust


    WATCH VIDEO: Marco Rubio slams CBS journalist for suggesting free speech caused the Holocaust.

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 457: “Timothy Zick’s ‘Executive Watch’: Introduction

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • JD Vance, 60 Minutes, the Associated Press, the FCC, and more

    JD Vance, 60 Minutes, the Associated Press, the FCC, and more

    From JD Vance’s free speech critique of Europe to the
    Trump administration barring the Associated Press from the Oval
    Office, free speech news is buzzing. General Counsel Ronnie London
    and Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere unpack the latest
    developments.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:49 JD Vance’s speech in Europe

    13:27 Margaret Brennan’s comment on the Holocaust

    15:13 Weimar fallacy

    17:36 Trump admin v. Associated Press

    21:33 DEI executive order

    27:39 Trump’s lawsuits targeting the media

    28:54 FIRE defending Iowa pollster Ann Selzer

    32:29 Concerns about the FCC under Brendan Carr

    44:09 2004 Super Bowl and the FCC

    46:25 FCC’s history of using the “Section 230
    threat”

    49:14 Newsguard and the FCC

    54:48 Elon Musk and doxxing

    59:44 Foreigners and the First Amendment

    01:05:19 Outro

    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].

    Show notes:

    – “Vice President JD
    Vance delivers remarks at the Munich Security Conference

    The White House (2025)

    – “Utterly bizarre
    assertion from Margaret Brennan…
    ” Michael Tracey via X
    (2025)

    – “Rubio
    defends Vance’s Munich speech as CBS host suggests ‘free speech’
    caused the Holocaust
    ” FOX News (2025)

    – “Posting
    hateful speech online could lead to police raiding your home in
    this European country
    ” 60 Minutes (2025)

    – “AP
    reporter and photographer barred from Air Force One over ‘Gulf of
    Mexico’ terminology dispute
    ” AP News (2025)

    – “FIRE
    statement on White House denying AP Oval Office access

    FIRE (2025)

    – “Ending
    radical and wasteful government DEI programs and
    preferencing
    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Meta
    to pay $25 million to settle 2021 Trump lawsuit
    ” The Wall
    Street Journal (2025)

    – “Trump
    settles suit against Elon Musk’s X over his post-Jan. 6
    ban
    ” AP News (2025)

    – “Questions
    ABC News should answer following the $16 million Trump
    settlement
    ” Columbia Journalism Review (2025)

    – “Trump
    v. Selzer: Donald Trump sues pollster J. Ann Selzer for ‘consumer
    fraud’ over Iowa poll
    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “A
    plea for institutional modesty
    ” Bob Corn-Revere (2025)

    – “Telecommunications
    Act
    ” FCC (1996)

    Section
    230
    (1993)

    – “CBS
    News submits records of Kamala Harris’ ’60 Minutes’ spot to FCC
    amid distortion probe
    ” USA Today (2025)

    – “Complaints
    against various television licensees concerning their February 1,
    2004 broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show
    ” FCC
    (2004)

    – “Brendan
    Carr’s letter to Big Tech CEOs
    ” Brendan Carr via the FCC
    (2024)

    – “NRA v. Vullo
    (2023)

    – “She should be
    fired immediately
    ” Elon Musk via X (2025)

    – “Restoring
    freedom of speech and ending federal censorship
    ” The White
    House (2025)

    – “Protecting
    the United States from foreign terrorists and other national
    security and public safety threats
    ” The White House
    (2025)

    Source link

  • Trump’s Authoritarian Assault on Education (Henry Giroux, Truthout)

    Trump’s Authoritarian Assault on Education (Henry Giroux, Truthout)

    Did
    you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by
    readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with
    a donation.

    Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.

    In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking
    to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax
    dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.”
    On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling
    executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the
    administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.”
    This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or
    teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an
    authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress
    historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise
    of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a
    democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the
    imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions
    that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of
    ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic
    narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while
    deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.

    Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families
    executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal
    funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy
    enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school
    tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents
    and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund
    and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing
    public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this
    policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening
    educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode
    public investment in a just and equitable society.

    In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order,
    which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport
    pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted
    for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism,
    Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would
    not be tolerated. Reuters
    made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I
    will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on
    college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never
    before. 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.”

    By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to
    reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that
    knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far
    right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out
    democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian
    propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to
    render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking
    to dominate them.

    What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a
    full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable
    it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical
    function of education but the very notion that it should be defined
    through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating
    informed and critically engaged citizens.

    These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of
    McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how
    schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into
    private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is
    striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of
    sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students
    and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in
    American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom
    or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates
    informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a
    deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to
    dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public
    and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The
    urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education
    itself is at stake.

    In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life,
    where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and
    all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague
    of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,
    describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences,
    particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the
    current historical moment, when books are banned in
    libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such
    as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past
    atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a
    society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an
    active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness
    and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by
    the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian
    Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who
    is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something
    less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about
    whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:

    Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history
    itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets
    remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their
    memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral
    parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and
    claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or
    forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a
    bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.

    Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump,
    as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies,
    corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of
    questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the
    United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a
    darkness that, as Ezra Klein
    observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive
    incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”

    This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education
    — pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster
    historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the
    common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy designed
    to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties
    between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes,
    stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and
    future.

    This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history,
    education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance —
    rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases
    accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and
    branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian
    politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity,
    eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is
    epitomized by Trump’s declaration
    on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students
    accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the
    country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the
    violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes
    dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of
    truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.

    At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial
    and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge
    the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the
    struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations,
    many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed
    over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests
    of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing
    inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder
    reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past,
    society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The
    politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the
    attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far
    right voices in the U.S. and across the world.

    With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what
    authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations
    of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a
    form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law
    was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report,
    which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,”
    was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any
    reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which
    highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable,
    anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence
    of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:

    As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and
    Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of
    history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida)
    has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state
    legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these
    laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It
    affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law
    executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws
    go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In
    Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of
    power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The
    Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida
    school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from
    requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse
    goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.

    A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance,
    which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times.
    Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a
    passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical
    issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary
    media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the
    embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction
    rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading
    bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream
    media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity
    culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more
    important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and
    systemic injustice.

    This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist,
    where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and
    oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows
    them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past
    wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices —
    whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in
    power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical
    accountability.

    To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.

    The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not
    only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts
    collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly
    impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social
    inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand
    meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right
    assaults on democracy.

    The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it
    is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the
    foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society
    implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and
    perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure
    silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space
    to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical
    injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who
    courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s
    U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power
    accountable.

    The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of
    oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which
    are essential for a healthy democracy.

    Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to
    dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This
    organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance
    that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this
    process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly
    impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a
    result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined,
    as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow,
    sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the
    development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding
    our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by
    forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political
    progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the
    memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human
    decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual
    rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the
    erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk
    suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and
    accountability.

    A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged
    agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a
    future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very
    notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of
    freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in
    this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is
    the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated,
    to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital,
    active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in
    critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that
    the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from
    each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob
    democracy of its transformative potential.

    Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we
    engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up
    the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into
    public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own
    sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future.
    To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not
    just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.

    Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that
    the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual
    process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to
    erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the
    fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not
    enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure
    that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of
    media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.

    Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine
    social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence
    and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a
    more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic
    social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of
    ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice
    and accountability.

    The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped
    by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been
    more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical
    apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and
    intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While
    they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are
    controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and
    billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate
    disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The
    authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly
    prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the
    appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so,
    reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental
    institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of
    questioning.

    The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to
    reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social
    responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both
    unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection
    on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is
    dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of
    monsters.”

    In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any
    meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and
    unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and
    dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This
    struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in
    its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from
    politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday
    lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the
    barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and
    shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to
    make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn
    from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our
    present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring
    struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be
    confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force
    embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can
    we confront the urgent crises of our time.

    We’re resisting Trump’s authoritarian pressure.

    As
    the Trump administration moves a mile-a-minute to implement right-wing
    policies and sow confusion, reliable news is an absolute must.

    Truthout
    is working diligently to combat the fear and chaos that pervades the
    political moment. We’re requesting your support at this moment because
    we need it – your monthly gift allows us to publish uncensored,
    nonprofit news that speaks with clarity and truth in a moment when
    confusion and misinformation are rampant. As well, we’re looking with
    hope at the material action community activists are taking. We’re
    uplifting mutual aid projects, the life-sustaining work of immigrant and
    labor organizers, and other shows of solidarity that resist the
    authoritarian pressure of the Trump administration.

    As we work to dispel the atmosphere of political despair, we ask that you contribute to our journalism. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s
    funding comes from small individual donations from our community of
    readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring
    monthly donors.

    8
    days remain in our fundraiser, and you can help by giving today.
    Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.

    This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license. 

    Source link