Category: Featured

  • AI is new — the laws that govern it don’t have to be

    AI is new — the laws that govern it don’t have to be

    On Monday, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed House Bill 2094, the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act. The bill would have set up a broad legal framework for AI, adding restrictions to its development and its expressive outputs that, if enacted, would have put the bill on a direct collision course with the First Amendment.

    This veto is the latest in a number of setbacks to a movement across many states to regulate AI development that originated with a working group put together last year. In February, that group broke down — further indicating upheaval in a once ascendant regulatory push.

    While existing laws may or may not be applied prudently, the emerging trend away from hasty lawmaking and toward more deliberation bodes well for the intertwined future of AI and free speech.

    At the same time, another movement has gained steam. A number of states are turning to old laws, including those prohibiting fraud, forgery, discrimination, and defamation, which have long managed the same purported harms stemming from AI in the context of older technology.

    Gov. Youngkin’s HB 2094 veto statement echoed the notion that existing laws may suffice, stating, “There are many laws currently in place that protect consumers and place responsibilities on companies relating to discriminatory practices, privacy, data use, libel, and more.” FIRE has pointed to these abilities of current law in previous statements, part of a number of AI-related interventions we’ve made as the technology has come to dominate state legislative agendas, including in states like Virginia. 

    The simple idea that current laws may be sufficient to deal with AI initially eluded the thinking of many lawmakers but now is quickly becoming common sense in a growing number of states. While existing laws may be applied in ways prudent and not, the emerging trend away from hasty lawmaking and toward more deliberation bodes well for the intertwined future of AI and free speech.

    The regulatory landscape

    AI offers the promise of a new era of knowledge generation and expression, and these developments come at a critical juncture as AI development continues to advance towards that vision. Companies are updating their models at a breakneck pace, epitomized by OpenAI’s popular new image generation tool. 

    Public and political interest, fueled by fascination and fear, may thus continue to intensify over the next two years — a period during which AI, still emerging from its nascent stage, will remain acutely vulnerable to threats of new regulation. Mercatus Center Research Fellow and leading AI policy analyst Dean W. Ball has hypothesized that 2025 and 2026 could represent the last two years to enact the laws that will be in place before AI systems with “qualitatively transformative capabilities” are released.

    With AI’s rapid development and deployment as the backdrop, states have rushed to propose new legal frameworks, hoping to align AI’s coming takeoff with state policy objectives. Last year saw the introduction of around 700 bills related to AI, covering everything from “deepfakes” to the use of AI in elections. This year, that number is already approaching 900-plus.

    Texas’s TRAIGA, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, has been the highest-profile example from this year’s wave of restrictive AI bills. Sponsored by Republican State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, TRAIGA has been one of several “algorithmic discrimination” bills that would impose liability on developers, deployers, and often distributors of AI systems that may introduce a risk of “algorithmic discrimination.” 

    Other examples include the recently vetoed HB 2094 in Virginia, Assembly Bill A768 in New York, and Legislative Bill 642 in Nebraska. While the bills have several problems, most concerning are their inclusion of a “reasonable care” negligence standard that would hold AI developers and users liable if there is a greater than 50% chance they could have “reasonably” prevented discrimination. 

    Such liability provisions incentivize AI developers to handicap their models to avoid any possibility of offering recommendations that some might deem discriminatory or simply offensive — even if doing so curtails the models’ usefulness or capabilities. The “chill” of these kinds of provisions threatens a broad array of important applications. 

    In Connecticut, for instance, Children’s Hospitals have warned how the vagueness and breadth of such regulations could limit health care providers’ ability to use AI to improve cancer screenings. These bills also compel regular risk reports on the models’ expressive outputs, similar to requirements that were held as unconstitutional under the First Amendment in other contexts by a federal court last year.

    So far, only Colorado has enacted such a law. Its implementation, spearheaded by the statutorily authorized Colorado Artificial Intelligence Impact Task Force, won’t assuage any skeptics. Even Gov. Jared Polis, who conceived the task force and signed the bill, has said it deviates from standard anti-discrimination laws “by regulating the results of AI system use, regardless of intent,” and has encouraged the legislature to “reexamine the concept” as the law is finalized.

    With a mandate to resolve this and other points of tension, the task force has come up almost empty-handed. In its report last month, it reached consensus on only “minor … changes,” while remaining deadlocked on substantive areas such as the law’s equivalent language to TRAIGA on reasonable care.

    The sponsors of TRAIGA reached a similar impasse as it came under intense political scrutiny. Rep. Capriglione responded earlier this month by dropping TRAIGA in favor of a new bill, HB 149. Among HB-149’s provisions, many of which run headlong into protected expression, is a proposed statute that holds “an artificial intelligence system shall not be developed or deployed in a manner that intentionally results in political viewpoint discrimination” or that “intentionally infringes upon a person’s freedom of association or ability to freely express the person’s beliefs or opinions.” 

    But this new language overlooks a landmark Supreme Court ruling just last year that laws in Texas and Florida with similar prohibitions on political discrimination for social media raised significant First Amendment concerns. 

    A more modest alternative

    An approach different from that taken in Colorado and Texas appears to be taking root in Connecticut. Last year, Gov. Ned Lamont signaled he would veto Connecticut Senate Bill 2, a bill similar to the law Colorado passed. In reflecting on his reservations, he noted, “You got to know what you’re regulating and be very strict about it. If it’s, ‘I don’t like algorithms that create biased responses,’ that can go any of a million different ways.” 

    At a press conference at the time of the bill’s consideration, his office suggested existing Connecticut anti-discrimination laws could already apply to AI use in relevant areas like housing, employment, and banking.

    Attempting to solve all theoretical problems of AI, before the contours of its problems become clear, is not only impractical but risks stifling innovation and expression in ways that may be difficult to reverse.

    Scholars Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and co-author Stephen Henriques of Yale’s School of Management expanded on the idea, noting Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act would seem to cover major AI developers and small “deployers” alike. They argue that a preferable route to new legislation would be for the state attorney general to clarify how existing laws can remedy the harms to consumers that sparked Senate Bill 2 in the first place.

    Connecticut isn’t alone. In California, which often sets the standard for tech law in the United States, two bills — AB 2930, focusing on liability for algorithmic discrimination in the same manner as the Colorado and Texas bills, and SB 1047, focusing on liability for “hazardous capabilities” — both failed. Gov. Gavin Newsom, echoing Lamont, stressed in his veto statement for SB 1047, “Adaptability is critical as we race to regulate a technology still in its infancy.”

    Newsom’s attorney general followed up by issuing extensive guidance on how existing California laws — such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act — already provide consumer protections for issues that many worry AI will exacerbate, such as consumer deception and unlawful discrimination. 

    New Jersey, Oregon, and Massachusetts have offered similar guidance, with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell noting, “Existing state laws and regulations apply to this emerging technology to the same extent as they apply to any other product or application.” And in Texas, where HB 149 still sits in the legislature, Attorney General Ken Paxton is currently reaching settlements in cases about the misuse of AI products in violation of existing consumer protection law. 

    Addressing problems

    The application of existing laws, to be sure, must comport with the First Amendment’s broad protections. Accordingly, not all conceivable applications will be constitutional. But the core principle remains: states that are hitting the brakes and reflecting on the tools already available give AI developers and users the benefit of operating within established, predictable legal frameworks. 

    And if enforcement of existing laws runs afoul of the First Amendment, there is an ample body of legal precedent to provide guidance. Some might argue that AI poses different questions from prior technology covered by existing laws, but it departs in neither essence or purpose. Properly understood, AI is a communicative tool used to convey ideas, like the typewriter and the computer before it. 

    If there are perceived gaps in existing laws as AI and its uses evolve, legislatures may try targeted fixes. Last year, for example, Utah passed a statute clarifying that generative AI cannot serve as a defense to violations of state tort law — for example, a party cannot claim immunity from liability simply because an AI system “made the violative statement” or “undertook the violative act.” 

    Rather than introducing entirely new layers of liability, this provision clarifies accountability under existing statutes. 

    Other ideas floated include “regulatory sandboxes,” a voluntary way for private firms to test applications of AI technology in collaboration with the state in exchange for certain regulatory mitigation, the aim being to offer a learning environment for policymakers to study how law and AI interact over time, with emerging issues addressed by a regulatory scalpel rather than a hatchet. 

    This reflects an important point. The trajectory of AI is largely unknowable, as is how rules imposed now will affect this early-stage technology down the line. Well-meaning laws to prevent discrimination this year could preclude broad swathes of significant expressive activity in coming years.

    FIRE does not endorse any particular course of action, but this is perhaps the most compelling reason lawmakers should consider the more restrained approach outlined above. Attempting to solve all theoretical problems of AI before the contours of problems become clear is not only impractical, but risks stifling innovation and expression in ways that may be difficult to reverse. History also teaches that many of the initial worries will never materialize. 

    As President Calvin Coolidge observed, “If you see 10 troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you and you have to battle with only one of them.” We can address those that do materialize in a targeted manner as the full scope of the problems become clear.

    The wisest course of action may be patience. Let existing laws do their job and avoid premature restrictions. Like weary parents, lawmakers should take a breath — and maybe a vacation — while giving AI time to grow up a little.

    Source link

  • What do the massive Education Department layoffs look like? See for yourself.

    What do the massive Education Department layoffs look like? See for yourself.

    President Donald Trump’s promise to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education was long heralded. Dating back to his first term, the vow was loudly and oft-repeated by candidate Trump on the campaign trail in 2024.

    But while the plan went nowhere during his first time in the White House, it has come to fruition through a slew of executive actions since his inauguration in January.

    What began with abruptly canceled education grants in February escalated with the confirmation of U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on March 3 and her promise of “our department’s final mission” that same day. The culmination came in massive layoffs on March 11 and a Trump executive order a week later instructing McMahon to close the department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    A handful of the Trump administration’s actions — including last week’s order — have already been challenged in court. But in the meantime, their impacts are tangible in everything from students’ civil rights protections to funding for teacher grants. 

    K-12 Dive obtained an organizational chart from the Education Department detailing the offices impacted by the March 11 layoffs, as well as a list of about 970 union employees out of 1,300 employees who were let go, which offices they had been employed in and their positions. While the list of employees isn’t comprehensive, it gives a general idea of where cuts were concentrated — and what that might mean for education in the long run. 

    Based on those documents, here are eight visuals to help understand Trump’s multiphased gutting of the Education Department and its widespread impact: 

    By the numbers

     

    $600 million

    Cut to “divisive” teacher training grants

     

    $900 million

    Cut to multiyear research contracts

    The March 11 layoffs were preceded by cuts to over $1 billion in grant funding. Research grants housed in the National Center for Education Statistics were on the chopping block, as were teacher training grants that the administration called “divisive.” 

    The teacher grants impacted include the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program. These cuts would later be successfully challenged through at least two lawsuits. This week, Trump filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the lower court ruling and seeking the immediate cancellation of $65 million in teacher training grants it says advances diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. 

    Former National Center for Education Statistics employees also confirmed to K-12 Dive that research grants related to student assessments were cut — a move that will likely result in a “barebones” approach to congressionally mandated tests like the Nation’s Report Card.

    By the numbers

     

    4,133

    number of employees prior to department’s gutting

     

    600

    number of employees that take buyouts prior to layoffs

     

    1,300

    number of staff fired on March 11

     

    2,200

    approximate number of employees following layoffs

    After the initial cuts to grants — and on the night of McMahon’s March 3 confirmation — employees were given an 11:59 p.m. ET deadline to voluntarily accept a $25,000 separation agreement in an effort to downsize the agency’s workforce. According to a later announcement by the department, about 600 employees took that offer leading up to the March 11 layoffs. 

    The layoffs would bring the total number of employees impacted by the reduction in force — part of McMahon’s “final mission” for the Education Department — to 1,900, or nearly half of its 4,133 count.

    FSA, OCR, and IES hit hard in March 11 layoff

    The data represents the 970 union workers laid off on March 11, 2025, and excludes non-union workers.

    On March 11, the administration laid off nearly 1,300 employees across various offices within the Education Department. Among offices losing the most people were Federal Student Aid, which students depend on to determine their eligibility for federal grants and loans for college. The move is the opposite of a recommendation made by the Government Accountability Office last year — following a botched FAFSA rollout — to “plan for and ensure hiring of sufficient staff to increase capacity” in the FSA office.

    The Institute for Education Sciences, home to the National Center for Education Statistics and oversight for the Nation’s Report Card, was cut down by over a hundred staff and left NCES with a skeletal staff of a handful.

    And the English Language Acquisition office was completely decimated, with all of its some dozen unionized employees laid off, according to the Education Department’s organizational chart. That move came less than two weeks after Trump signed an order making English the official language of the United States.

    Another Education Department arm significantly impacted was the Office for Civil Rights, which enforces laws that protect students’ civil rights. The reduction there comes after the Biden administration pleaded to Congress for an increase in funding and staff to address a case backlog, escalated by Title VI complaints based on shared ancestry or ethnicity in light of the Israel-Hamas war. The Trump administration has acknowledged the backlog but halved the office’s headcount rather than increasing staff.

    7 OCR regional offices closed, affecting half the nation

    The civil rights arm also lost seven of its dozen regional office. 

    OCR is responsible for keeping schools in compliance with civil rights laws and handles investigations that in the past often took months or even years to complete. Those investigations, among other things, ensure equal access to education for sexual assault survivors, students with disabilities and students from all races and ethnicities.

    Attorneys and equal opportunity employees were most common positions cut

    The data represents the 970 union workers laid off on March 11, 2025, and excludes non-union workers.

    Out of hundreds of OCR employees fired, a significant number were civil rights attorneys and equal opportunity employees, leaving the office with a skeletal crew to oversee more than 12,000 currently open investigations. At least 200 employees in total were let go. 

    These attorneys carried out the majority of OCR’s work, including determining case outcomes and sometimes helping to develop policy guidance. 

    Source link

  • Defending free speech: FIRE and Substack partner to protect writers in America

    Defending free speech: FIRE and Substack partner to protect writers in America

    In his farewell address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan remarked that “America is freedom,” and it’s this freedom that makes the country “a magnet” for those from around the world.

    In recent weeks, America has sent a very different message to foreigners residing in America lawfully: You can stay here — but only if you give up your freedom of speech.

    Earlier this week, federal immigration officials arrested a Tufts University student off the street, allegedly for an op-ed she wrote in a student newspaper calling for the university to divest from Israel. If true, this represents a chilling escalation in the government’s effort to target critics of American foreign policy.

    Since our founding, America has long welcomed writers and thinkers from across the globe who come to this country and contribute to the richness of our political and cultural life. Christopher Hitchens was one of President Bill Clinton’s sharpest critics, Alexander Cockburn punched in all directions, and Ayn Rand minced no words in her condemnation of socialism.

    To preserve America’s tradition as a home for fearless writing, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Substack are partnering to support writers residing lawfully in this country targeted by the government for the content of their writing — those who, as Hitchens once put it, “committed no crime except that of thought in writing.” If you fit this category, whether or not you publish on Substack, we urge you to get in touch immediately at thefire.org/alarm or pages.substack.com/defender.

    President Reagan recognized that freedom is “fragile, it needs protection” — and that’s exactly what FIRE and Substack intend to provide.

    Source link

  • University of New Orleans should rejoin LSU system, state board says

    University of New Orleans should rejoin LSU system, state board says

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The struggling University of New Orleans should return to the Louisiana State University system, the state’s higher education board has recommended. 
    • UNO, founded in 1956 as part of the LSU system, transferred to the University of Louisiana system in 2011 amid enrollment declines stemming from Hurricane Katrina damage.
    • Transferring the institution back to the LSU system would require state legislation, which Louisiana’s board of regents voted unanimously to recommend at a meeting on Wednesday. 

    Dive Insight:

    UNO’s enrollment has never fully recovered from the disaster of Katrina nearly two decades ago. The university even grew its student body slightly after the hurricane but has since lost those gains. For the 2023-24 academic year, full-time equivalent enrollment stood at 5,114 students — just over a third of what it was in 2004-05. 

    Accompanying those declines has been financial instability. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2024, UNO’s tuition and fee revenue fell about 20% to $65 million.

    State fiscal support has also collapsed. Louisiana has gone through “one of the largest higher education disinvestments in the nation,” according to a March feasibility study from the regents on returning UNO to the university system. For UNO, state funding has fallen by just under 45% from two decades ago. 

    In addition to cost increases felt throughout higher education, UNO also faces contractual debt obligations such as for bookstore and dining services and a deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $2 billion. 

    The report also laid blame with the university, stating that “UNO’s lack of aggressive action to address these issues immediately as they arose has resulted in a deep budget deficit that must be strategically repaired.”

    Amid all its many revenue and expense challenges — and despite job cuts and other budget efforts — UNO’s budget gap has reached $30 million, according to the study. 

    All of those problems indicate failed thinking behind the university’s transfer into the UL system, according to the regents’ report. Moving UNO into UL’s fold came with an “expectation that new governance would assist in reversing declining enrollment and graduation rates to yield a stronger and more vibrant UNO,” it noted. 

    But things did not turn out as planned. “Instead, the institution’s fiscal condition has deteriorated to its current dire state, challenging UNO’s ability to meet its academic, research and community service missions,” the report said

    Yet the university “plays a significant role in advancing the intellectual and economic development of the City of New Orleans,” the study argued, pointing to well-regarded programs in jazz studies, naval architecture and marine engineering, hospitality and cybersecurity. 

    While the regents voted to recommend the university’s transfer to the LSU system, some board members expressed concern that doing so would just make UNO’s financial troubles a systemwide problem. 

    “I just worry that, when you look at the shortfall, you’re taking the shortfall from one area and transferring it to the other,” Regent Dallas Hixson said at Wednesday’s meeting. 

    The point of transferring the university to the LSU system would be to “unlock the full potential of UNO, fostering regional prosperity while ensuring a smooth and efficient transfer of governance and leadership,” the feasibility study stated. It offered few details, however, for how that would occur. 

    To ensure a smooth transfer, the regents recommended setting up a transition team that would engage the system and UNO leadership. It also called for an in-depth third-party forensic financial audit, as well as program and facilities assessments, to help enumerate and address UNO’s challenges.

    Source link

  • Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement is detaining a Harvard Medical School research associate who’s a Russian native. One of Kseniia Petrova’s lawyers says the government is trying to deport her to Russia, where she faces possible arrest due to her “prior political activism and outspoken opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

    Gregory Romanovsky, the lawyer, said in a statement that Petrova was trying to re-enter the U.S. on Feb. 16 at Boston’s Logan International Airport when a Customs and Border Protection officer discovered she “had not completed the required customs paperwork for a non-hazardous scientific sample she was bringing from an affiliated laboratory in France.”

    “CBP was authorized to seize the item and issue a fine,” Romanovsky wrote. “Instead, they chose to cancel Ms. Petrova’s visa and detain her.”

    Petrova remains in ICE custody in Louisiana. The Boston Globe reported earlier on her detention.

    Romanovsky wrote that “CBP improperly invoked their extensive immigration authority to impose a punishment grossly disproportionate to the situation. This overreach reflects broader concerns about the treatment of international scholars by U.S. immigration authorities.”

    A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Petrova was “detained after lying to federal officers about carrying biological substances into the country. A subsequent K9 inspection uncovered undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits. Messages found on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it.”

    Harvard spokespeople didn’t provide an interview Friday about the situation or answer multiple emailed questions. In a brief email, the medical school’s media relations arm said, “We are monitoring this situation.”

    Romanovsky has sued to restore Petrova’s visa.

    “Ms. Petrova’s 1.5-month-long detention has caused significant disruption to both her professional and personal life,” Romanovsky said in his statement. “As a dedicated and highly respected researcher, her work is critical to scientific progress. We strongly urge ICE to release Ms. Petrova while her legal proceedings are ongoing.”

    Source link

  • University of Michigan scraps multimillion dollar DEI investment

    University of Michigan scraps multimillion dollar DEI investment

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

       Dive Brief:

    • The University of Michigan has scrapped its multimillion dollar university-wide strategic plan to promote diversity, equity and inclusion amid increasing pressure from the Trump administration on the sector. 
    • With the move, the public flagship shuttered two equity-focused offices — its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Office for Health Equity and Inclusion — and ended all DEI programming and spending, according to the Thursday announcement. 
    • The student services provided by the DEI office will be housed under different unnamed departments. And employees who led DEI efforts will “refocus their full effort on their core responsibilities,” university leadership said. They did not say if the restructuring would result in layoffs.

    Dive Insight:

    In Thursday’s announcement, President Santa Ono and other university leaders cited President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders attacking DEI efforts and the U.S. Department of Education’s resulting Dear Colleague letter.

    Many universities across the country have already caved under the Trump administration’s pressure. But the University of Michigan’s compliance represents a significant victory for the White House.

    In fall 2023, the public flagship launched its DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan, a five-year blueprint even longer in the making.

    “The university’s DEI efforts are a perpetual work in progress, and we are committed to this ongoing journey and one where we never reach our destination,” the plan’s webpage said. It describes the plan as a “campuswide effort engaging all levels of the university”

    In total, the university spent some $250 million dollars on diversity efforts, according to Regent Jordan Acker.

    But Acker and other critics have argued that the investment did not result in the desired outcome. 

    “The population of minority students at UM has grown little — and much of the resources we’ve devoted to these efforts has gone into administrative overhead, not outreach to students,” he said in a Thursday statement on social media.

    Before the launch of the university’s first DEI strategic plan, it faced a years-long struggle boosting Black enrollment, to the dissatisfaction of students and administration alike.

    In 2023, 14.1% of Michigan residents were Black, according to federal data. That fall, just 4.6% of the university’s students were Black.

    Acker described the elimination of the university’s DEI efforts as a means of focusing resources on programs of “real impact,” such as the university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free and reduced tuition to qualifying Michigan residents.

    In its announcement this week, the university spotlighted Go Blue and its Wolverine Pathways program — which works with K-12 students in under-resourced communities — when touting its student successes.

    Among undergraduates, first-generation students have increased 46% and Pell Grant recipients by about 32% since 2016, university leaders said Thursday, attributing the growth to those two programs.

    The University of Michigan also said Thursday it will expand another student success program designed for undergraduates who are former foster care youths or are “navigating their educational journey without the support of their parents or guardians.”

    Because those initiatives do not explicitly mention diversity or race, they are set to survive the university’s purge of programs.

    Not all will be so lucky.

    Among its many DEI programs, the University of Michigan oversees the National Center for Institutional Diversity, the Diversity Scholars Network, and a public safety task force dedicated to addressing structural racism in policing.

    The university’s general counsel will be conducting an “expedited review” of all institutional policies, programs and practices to ensure compliance with the Trump administrations’ orders, according to Thursday’s announcement.

    Additionally, all departments are expected to ensure their webpages are in compliance and “reflect the status of current programmatic directions” at the university.

    “These decisions have not been made lightly,” Ono said Thursday. “We recognize the changes are significant and will be challenging for many of us, especially those whose lives and careers have been enriched by and dedicated to programs that are now pivoting.”

    Additionally, the university’s Alumni Association this month ended LEAD Scholars, a 16-year-old merit scholarship for admitted students who exemplify “leadership, excellence, achievement, and diversity.” The group cited the same federal pressures as university leaders.

    In an email Thursday, the head of the university’s faculty senate called the move to dismantle DEI infrastructure an “assault on the democratic values of public education and attacks on marginalized students, staff, and faculty.”

    Senate Chair Rebekah Modrak lambasted the Trump Administration as using “the power of the government to engineer a sweeping culture change towards white supremacy.”

    “Unfortunately, University of Michigan leaders seem determined to comply and to collaborate in our own destruction,” she said. “There are legal recourses that the university and university associations can and must take.”

    The faculty senate held a closed emergency meeting Friday for university employees and students to discuss next steps.

    This isn’t the first move against DEI the university has taken.

    In December, the University of Michigan eliminated the use of diversity statements from the hiring, promotion or tenure processes. A faculty working group recommended the change, but it also advised the university to ask instructors to incorporate information about their DEI efforts into their teaching, research and service statements.

    Michigan’s administration did not enact the second recommendation at the time, and such actions are now banned following Thursday’s announcement.

    Sarah Hubbard, a regent on the University of Michigan’s board and a consistent opponent of DEI efforts, praised the cancellations.

    “Ending DEI programs will also allow us to better expand diversity of thought and free speech on our campus. The end of litmus test hiring and curtailment of speech stops now,” Hubbard said in a Thursday social media post.   

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Asks State Department for List of Student Visa Revocations

    Higher Education Inquirer Asks State Department for List of Student Visa Revocations

    The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has requested a list of more than 300 students who have had their visas revoked.  The State Department has acknowledged receipt.  We hope other media outlets will follow suit.  At this point, we only know of a handful of these cases.  We will keep the public informed as this story develops. 

     

    Source link

  • Democratic senators call for probe of Trump Education Department cuts

    Democratic senators call for probe of Trump Education Department cuts

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

    Democrat efforts to challenge President Donald Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education mounted Thursday, as 11 senators asked the agency’s acting inspector general, René Rocque, to investigate the push. 

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren and senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were among those requesting an evaluation of whether the administration is undermining the Education Department’s ability to provide students with equal access to education and to help state and local governments’ education systems

    “Decimating the Department of Education’s abilities to administer financial aid, investigate civil rights violations, conduct research on educational outcomes, and oversee the use of federal education grants threatens to have disastrous consequences for American students, teachers and families,” they wrote in a March 27 letter to Rocque. 

    “The Trump Administration’s further attempts to close the Department entirely and transfer its responsibilities over to other agencies will likely interrupt and degrade education programs and services, causing additional pain for the 62 million students across the country that the Department serves.” 

    The administration’s gutting of the Education Department not only impacted nearly half of the department’s workforce, but also left civil rights investigation and enforcement offices at half their previous capacity, cut the Federal Student Aid office by over 450 employees, and slashed 90% of the Institute of Education Sciences staff. 

    These decisions would likely impede key functions of the department, including ensuring all students’ civil rights are protected, administering federal loans and overseeing lenders and FAFSA, and tracking students’ educational outcomes and the condition of education in the nation, the Democratic senators told Rocque.

    Rocque, who joined the Education Department’s Office of Inspector General as deputy inspector general in December 2023, became acting director in January.

    As with many other issues dividing lawmakers today, Democrats and Republicans have been starkly divided over the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate the department altogether. This makes attaining a Senate supermajority of 60 votes — which is required to officially shut the department — unlikely. 

    House Democrats introduced a resolution on March 21 calling for transparency and information from the administration, including unredacted copies of all federal documents referring to the department’s closure and information on workforce reduction decisions.

    About a week after the massive reduction in force on March 11, Democrat lawmakers from both the House and Senate wrote the department demanding information on the layoffs, saying that halving its workforce could impact the agency’s ability to perform vital functions required by law.

    Meanwhile, Republicans in some states have taken the opportunity to ask the administration for more leeway in their education spending. 

    On March 25, for example, Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters sent a letter to the Education Department requesting a waiver to receive a block grant for all funds allocated to his state under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Such a consolidated block grant would “significantly enhance local flexibility” so “schools will be able to address their unique needs and priorities,” Walters wrote.

    The block grant would be used to “expand educational choices,” including attendance at private schools, and would loosen federal oversight of education spending requirements.

    Source link

  • Agent Advisory Groups set to strengthen UK-East Asia recruitment links

    Agent Advisory Groups set to strengthen UK-East Asia recruitment links

    Addressing the audience at the British Council’s East Asia Education Week 2025, held in Hong Kong, Xiang Weng, visa outreach officer for South China/ West China/ Hong Kong and Macau Visa, British Consulate – General Guangzhou, described a “new concept” which would see agent advisory groups set up to enhance collaboration.

    “One of our colleagues from Vietnam set up what we call our Agent Advisory Groups and tested the concept there. Now, we plan to expand it across the rest of East Asia,” said Weng.

    “By having these advisory groups, UKVI can build a much stronger connection with agents, gain valuable local intelligence, and share insights with our Home Office colleagues. This will help us introduce and improve our visa services across the region.”

    Though UKVI didn’t confirm plans to introduce agent advisory groups in the broader East Asian region to The PIE News, it noted that it continually works with overseas stakeholders, including the British Council, to support prospective students by addressing their questions about the UK visa system.

    Over the years, Vietnam has played a pioneering role in the UK’s efforts to increase transparency among agents in East Asia. 

    By having these advisory groups, the UKVI can build a much stronger connection with agents, gain valuable local intelligence, and share insights with our Home Office colleagues.

    Xiang Weng, British Consulate-General Guangzhou

    Just last year, over 130 education advisers in Vietnam earned the prestigious “I am a UK-certified counsellor” badge, as part of the Agent Quality Framework, showcasing their expertise and deep understanding of the UK as a study destination.

    According to Weng, the concept’s success in Vietnam can be emulated in the broader East Asian region. 

    Though visa approval remains high in East Asia, students still fall victims to common mistakes, she explained.

    “Some students forget to provide a TB (tuberculosis) certificate or evidence of finances which can impact their applications,” stated Weng. 

    “In countries like Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, China, and Hong Kong, when applying for a student visa, you only need to submit your passport and TB certificate. That’s it. You don’t even need to apply for IELTS or provide evidence of finances.”

    Though visas challenges have not proved to be a major barrier for UK universities accessing the East Asian student market, intra-regional mobility and price concerns are leading to fluctuations in demand for UK education, as reported by The PIE News. 

    According to Daniel Zheng, managing director, HOPE International Education, safety concerns and career prospects have also become key factors influencing student choices in East Asia, particularly in China.

    To tackle these challenges, UK universities are increasingly turning to in-house employability services and other affordability options for international students. 

    “In terms of affordability, many UK universities, including ours, have in-house employability service teams. Their role is to enhance students’ employability and expand their career opportunities after graduation,” stated Scarlett Peng-Zang, East Asia regional head, University of Nottingham. 

    “So I believe that there’s something everyone is working on regarding addressing the economic uncertainty. I found lots of UK universities offer alternative payment options to improve affordability. So is the same for Nottingham University.”

    As rankings of East Asian universities rise and the countries set mammoth targets for international students, agencies are also looking inward for recruitment opportunities, expanding beyond the UK. 

    “In the past six months, my colleagues and I have traveled to Singapore and Malaysia three times, visiting UK university campuses like Southampton and Nottingham, as well as boarding schools like Epsom College,” stated Zheng.

    “This indicates that there is significant interest – not just from us, but also from our partners and institutions – in the Malaysian market, particularly from China.”

    These changing trends come at a time when UK institutions are under pressure to measure the return on investment of their agents, according to Fraser Deas, director, client success, Grok Global. 

    “We are noticing that UK institutions are under pressure to measure the ROI of their agents. How can we work with them, along with in-country staff, to ensure that agencies provide evidence that these partnerships are going well? There’s important work to be done in that sense,” stated Deas. 

    “I think there is a genuinely good understanding in the sector of the difference between in-country staff and agents. The role of a third party should be to facilitate that relationship without interfering, but it remains very important.”

    Agents and universities having a direct relationship has also become important for UK-East Asia relations, with organisations like BUILA demonstrating how agents can be compliant with the UK National Code of Ethical Practice as the Agent Quality Framework comes in focus. 

    As per Dave Few, Associate Director, Jackstudy Abroad, while education agents are already performing well, there is a concern about maintaining quality as more agencies enter the market, particularly through aggregators.

    “In my unbiased perspective, I think agents are already doing a fantastic job. The key factor is the quality of information – ensuring that as the barrier for entry for new agencies lowers through aggregators, the quality remains consistent,” stated Few. 

    “Whether that means requiring a year of training from the very beginning or another measure, the priority should always be keeping the student at the heart of the conversation, not revenue.”

    Source link

  • State Dashboards Help Students See Higher Education’s Long-Term Value

    State Dashboards Help Students See Higher Education’s Long-Term Value

    Title: Bridging Education and Opportunity: Exploring the ROI of Higher Education and Workforce Development

    Author: Paula Nazario

    Source: HCM Strategists

    New insights from HCM Strategists highlight how continued state investments in higher education are creating pathways to economic mobility, with the majority of degree programs delivering increased earnings and a solid return on investment (ROI). However, despite the continued success and quality of many degree programs, both students and the public have increased concerns about whether postsecondary credentials are worth the time and money.

    If consumers do not understand the ROI of their credentials, this can contribute to decreased enrollment, funding, and research, which would in turn produce broader economic and social consequences. While the data are clear that a majority of postsecondary programs do pay off, there are many degrees that fail to provide a measurable ROI. HCM Strategists’ recent analysis of College Scorecard data shows that the average student at over 1,000 institutions earns less 10 years after they first enrolled than the typical high school graduate. While nearly two-thirds of these institutions are certificate-focused, for-profit institutions, there are still many private nonprofit and public colleges that do not provide strong economic outcomes.

    To help students and the public understand the differences between institutions and degree programs that provide positive and negative value, the author of the brief urges states and policymakers to provide clear data on post-graduation outcomes. Some states have already advanced initiatives to help consumers see in real time the differences in earnings for those that enroll in higher education.

    The author highlights several states initiatives that help students see the value of their credentials including California Community Colleges’ Salary Surfer tool, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s student outcomes dashboards and reports, and the Virginia Office of Education Economics’ College and Career Outcomes Explorer. Ohio and Colorado are also highlighted for their investments in employer partnerships to expand graduates’ opportunities for well-paying and workforce relevant jobs.

    To read more on these new insights from HCM Strategists, click here.

    —Austin Freeman

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link