Category: Featured

  • Due Dates Provide a Structure for Spaced Learning – Faculty Focus

    Due Dates Provide a Structure for Spaced Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The difference between commuting by choice versus necessity

    The difference between commuting by choice versus necessity

    Plenty has been written in the last few years that discusses the way the pandemic and the cost-of-living and housing crisis have driven the rise in commuter students across the sector.

    And as the commuter student series has demonstrated, universities and student unions can take steps to better meet the needs of this community.

    We know they are less engaged, more financially constrained, exhausted, and more likely to have lower degree outcomes compared to campus students.

    And yet despite knowing all of this, it sometimes feels like we are circling the drain when it comes to implementing better policies for commuter students.

    And part of the issue is that we are still framing students’ decision to commute as a choice rather than a necessity when it comes to decision making.

    While some may argue this is semantics and that the two words are interchangeable, the difference in experience between choice commuters and necessity commuters is something to interrogate.

    Spot the difference

    Last year, I read the Blackbullion Student Money & Wellbeing 2024 report and for students who identified themselves as commuters they were asked, “Is this by choice or a necessity?”

    319 students identified by choice and 234 by necessity.

    While the difference in word choice might seem minor, the data presented throughout the report revealed their experiences were in fact quite different.

    For example, non-commuter students need about £577 a month more than what they currently have compared to £671 for commuters by choice and £782 for commuters due to necessity.

    Recognising these financial differences as well as others could help universities provide more targeted support.

    Things like commuter friendly timetables, better event planning and reducing hidden course costs benefit all students, but it could also potentially provide a noticeable financial reprieve for those who commute due to necessity.

    To better support different student groups the sector needs a deeper understanding of the nuances within their student population and the impact on attendance, engagement, and belonging in order to design effective interventions.

    Our commuters

    At Royal Holloway, 40 per cent of our students are commuters.

    And this year the students’ union is running a policy inquiry to examine their academic experience, seeking feedback from current commuter students through online surveys and qualitative activities like a paid in-person focus group and a journaling activity.

    We followed Blackbullion’s lead and asked students whether they commuted by choice or necessity in our term one online survey which received 654 responses.

    58 per cent of respondents identified as necessity commuters, 39 per cent were choice commuters and three per cent preferred not to say.

    The patterns across year groups revealed undergraduates in earlier year groups were more likely to commute by choice while late-year undergraduate and postgraduate students commuted due to necessity.

    When asked to explain in more detail why they commuted, the top reasons given were often financially motivated around expensive accommodation, the cost-of-living crisis, not wanting to take out a maintenance loan, and the fact they could not justify the expense of living out when they had close transport links to the university.

    Sticky campus

    We also wanted to better understand commuter travel patterns.

    Looking at the data we learned that 72 per cent of overall commuters come to campus only on the days they have teaching, 17 per cent come to campus more days than they have scheduled teaching and 11 per cent come less days than they have teaching.

    Within the 17 per cent who come to campus more days, 63 per cent of those students are commuters by necessity compared to 33 per cent of commuters by choice.

    Despite extending their time on campus, 60 per cent of necessity commuters reported that their commute negatively impacts their ability to socialise with other students compared to about 41 per cent of commuters by choice who felt this way.

    In terms of forming friendships, commuters by choice felt more positively with 67 per cent feeling they have had good opportunities to form friendships and foster a sense of belonging within the student community versus 55 per cent of commuters by necessity.

    These differences extend into their academic socialisation, and 55 per cent of choice commuters agreed to an extent they felt part of an academic community compared to 48 per cent of necessity commuters.

    Our survey highlighted that managing their studies was a major barrier which impacted daytime socialisation for commuter students. 85 per cent of choice commuters stated they found their workload manageable versus 72 per cent of necessity commuters.

    A high proportion of respondents indicated they manage their workload, but they compensate by studying during their commutes or teaching breaks, limiting their time to socialise.

    Taking all of this into account it is no surprise that necessity commuters were more likely to report their commute affects their physical or mental well-being at 37 per cent compared to 17 per cent of choice commuters.

    Where do we go from here?

    When it comes to commuting by choice or by necessity, necessity commuters face greater financial, academic and social challenges.

    Once universities and students’ unions reframe their thinking around commuting as a necessity rather than a choice, they can create more targeted support to support this community.

    Things that might alleviate the pressures commuters face include commuter-friendly timetables, hybrid teaching options, travel bursaries or affordable overnight accommodation options to reduce exam stress or attendance at late-night events.

    We also need to reach out and ask what types of commuter-friendly events and initiatives they would like and what would work for them to build better social inclusion on their terms.

    Right now, commuter students feel left behind and invisible when they’re on campus. But we can change this narrative if we rethink our perception of this community and create more targeted policies to support them across their student journey by first understanding the nuance.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Turning Insight Into Action: The 2025 RNL National Alumni Survey

    Turning Insight Into Action: The 2025 RNL National Alumni Survey

    51,000 alumni weigh in on giving priorities, engagement preferences, and more.

    This blog features an excerpt from Howard Heevner, fundraising industry leader and co-author of the
    2025 RNL National Alumni Survey.

    RNL’s 2025 National Alumni Survey was just released and, while the insights gleaned from this report are always valuable, one could argue that this data is worth its weight in gold during times of extreme uncertainty like we are currently facing in our sector. After all, there are a few universal truths that strategic fundraisers understand, regardless of differing priorities, levels of experience, or overall philosophy:

    • “Hope”‘” is not a strategy.
    • Stewardship matters.
    • You will never regret confirming your flight departure time ahead of an important donor visit…
    • When in doubt, go straight to the source: your donors.

    RNL’s National Alumni Survey gives fundraisers a valuable opportunity to refine their engagement strategies by focusing on what truly matters—understanding donor expectations. By analyzing responses from more than 51,000 alumni across generations and institutions of all types, this report sheds light on alumni sentiments toward their alma maters, their giving priorities, generational volunteer trends, and the motivations behind their contributions of time, talent, and financial support.

    Facilitated by RNL’s Sarah Kleeberger, this report also benefits from the expertise of longtime RNL partner and industry leader Howard Heevner. Howard provides both a foreword and conclusion to the report, offering insightful commentary, practical applications, and a forward-looking perspective on the future of donor engagement.

    Excerpt from the 2025 RNL National Alumni Survey Report,
    written by Howard Heevner:

    Howard Heevner
    Howard Heevner

    As part of RNL’s second annual research study, we are again sharing the collective wisdom of 51,000 alumni representing a broad spectrum of higher education. The opportunity to provide a conduit for these voices to be heard is an honor, and along with the team at RNL, we are excited to share the feedback alumni from 21 institutions.

    In higher education, we often spend our time looking inward or looking at other institutions instead of turning to those we wish to connect, engage, and inspire to be in a closer relationship with our institutions. For decades, we have been able to rely on an expectation of loyalty from our alumni because that’s how it’s always been. However, so many factors have changed the nature of that relationship and those expectations. Among them are the rising costs of education, the implied and often explicit promise that degree achievement will provide you with a pass to greater opportunity, and the increasing mistrust of institutions and higher education.

    There is a growing concern for our pipeline of donors. We have seen a dramatic decrease in alumni donor counts across the United States over the past three decades. These trends pre-date the pandemic but seem to be exacerbated post-pandemic. Many schools are struggling to acquire new donors and are searching for new methodologies to do so. However, it seems most often we are taking the fractured giving structures that brought us here and bringing those into these new strategies. Maybe the issue isn’t our tools or strategies, but our ability to authentically connect with our alumni.

    Ready to dive into the data yourself?

    Download your copy of the 2025 National Alumni Survey, featuring eight key findings about alumni giving and connection taken from more than 50,000 alumni, as well as additional insights from Howard.

    2025 National Alumni Survey: What can you learn from 50,000 alumni?2025 National Alumni Survey: What can you learn from 50,000 alumni?

    Source link

  • Podcast: Sussex fine, franchising | Wonkhe

    Podcast: Sussex fine, franchising | Wonkhe

    This week on the podcast we’re discussing the Office for Students fine of £585,000 levied against the University of Sussex for breaches of free speech conditions, as vice chancellor Sasha Roseneil calls the process “Kafka-esque” and plans a legal challenge.

    Plus we examine what Bridget Phillipson has called “one of the biggest financial scandals universities have faced” – franchising. Does the scandal point towards a shift towards a more “planned” system?

    With Vivienne Stern, Chief Executive at Universities UK, Jonathan Simons, Partner and Head of the Education Practice at Public First, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Sussex fined almost £600k over free speech

    So are universities allowed to chill misogyny or not?

    The franchise problem may not have a quick answer

    Welcome to the walk-in degree

    What is the franchising boom doing to drop-out?

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: New College, Oxford

    Higher education postcard: New College, Oxford

    Greetings from Oxford!

    As I write this blog, the spring statement is two days away, and I have no idea (although I can make a guess!) how Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves’ statement has gone down with people. Reeves studied for her first degree at New College Oxford, and so that’s where we’re going today.

    This being Oxford, New College is obviously a very old college. It was founded in 1379 by William of Wykeham, the Bishop of Winchester. Formally – that is, when it’s in trouble with its mum – it’s called The College of St Mary of Winchester in Oxford. But even in 1379 this caused confusion. There was already another college dedicated to St Mary – the one snappily titled The Provost and Scholars of the House of the Blessed Mary the Virgin in Oxford, commonly called Oriel College, of the Foundation of Edward the Second of famous memory, sometime King of England.

    And so it became known as New College. Which name it retains to this day, despite (at the time of writing) there being thirty colleges of the university which are, by any reckoning, newer.

    Anyway, enough cavilling. The college was founded, and it had a name which at the time seemed reasonable. It’s founder, William of Wykeham, was a man of substance: as well as being Bishop of Winchester, he was Lord Chancellor to both King Edward III and Richard II. And he became thereby a rich man: by speculating on tax revenues, by income from the many church livings he had, and by the expropriation of the property of French religious houses looted during the Hundred Years’ War.

    He used these riches in part to fund education, and in the late 1370s was busy not only establishing an Oxford college, but also establishing Winchester School. (He’s the reason why Winchester old boys are called Wykehamists. I say old boys advisedly – Winchester School started admitting girls in 2022, so soon former pupils will be a more accurate description.)

    New College’s charter and statutes made it unusual. Admission was restricted to pupils from Winchester College – it formed a closed system. It also included provision for undergraduate students, one of the first at Oxford to do so. (And no, I’m not sure how you got to be a graduate student if you hadn’t been admitted somewhere to be an undergraduate first. My guess is that the medieval understandings of these terms is different to mine today.)

    The senior fellows (masters and above) taught the junior fellows (undergraduates). In this arrangement you can see the start of Oxford’s tutorial system; you can also see the practice of research students teaching undergraduate classes, which is common across the UK today, especially in research-focused universities.

    New College was also the first of the Oxford colleges to be built around a quadrangle, meaning that everything the fellows needed – places to sleep, eat, read and pray – were inside the college walls.

    The statutes and the physical constraints of the buildings kept New College small. The college’s history identifies two notable periods in the next few centuries. The first was the period of religious strife during the Tudor dynasty’s reign. New College was a hotbed of Catholic fervour, and its fellows staunch supporters of Queen Mary. And when Mary died, to be succeeded by the very protestant Elizabeth, many of its scholars fled to mainland Europe.

    In the civil war, Oxford was a significant place – the base of the King’s parliament for much of the war, it was also put under siege. The royalist defence of the city was, in part, organised by the then warden (head) of the college, Robert Pinke, who was acting vice chancellor at the time. When Oxford was threatened by parliamentarian forces, he went to parley with their commanders. One of whom, William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele, was a New College man himself. But that didn’t stop him sending Pinke to London where he was arrested and held for a while. Alumni relations must have been tricky for a while after that.

    After the civil war, demand for higher education slowly grew, as the political settlement took hold, as the power of the monarch was slowly constrained by parliament, and as a middle class began to emerge. But New College was constrained by its statutes: it could only have 70 fellows, and they had to be Winchester College students. This meant that it went from being one of the larger colleges to being one of its smallest.

    Statute and ordinance changes in 1857 and 1883 did much to modernise the college. The requirement to be a Winchester school pupil was removed; the limit to the college’s size also. In 1868 fellows were permitted to marry, and the college introduced (with Balliol) the idea of intercollegiate lectures. The college grew, admitting more students, so that by 1900 nearly 300 undergraduates were registered.

    The 1900s also brought a couple of notable wardens. The first was William Archibald Spooner, for whom spoonerisms were named. Spooner, it is held, was prone to making amusing slips in his speech, such as asking “tell me, was it you or your brother who was killed in the war?” A particular meaning is swapping the first sounds of nearby words (“you have hissed my mystery lectures”). Dictionaries of quotations are full of spoonerisms. And, once you recognise that New College becomes cue, knowledge, it is possible to have some sympathy with the Reverend Spooner. The pen-portrait on the college website is certainly very fond of him, with good reason, I would say.

    The second notable warden was H A L Fisher. Fisher was President of the Board of Education in David Lloyd George’s wartime cabinet, from 1916 to 1922. He introduced legislation to require compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14, and also introduced enhanced pension arrangements for teachers. The Teachers’ Pension Scheme, rates for which currently cause headaches for more than a few university vice chancellors, is part of Fisher’s legacy. He retied from politics to take up the post of warden of New College, succeeding Spooner. Fisher died in 1940.

    There’s a fascinating, and slightly ghoulish, postscript to Fisher’s life. In 1943, as part of a wartime deception, British intelligence dressed up a corpse as a British marine, carrying apparently secret documents. Documents written to deceive. The body was left to wash ashore near Spain, the documents were shared by the then fascist Spanish government with nazi Germany. And the documents, which related to the site of allied landings in southern Europe, seem to have been believed. To make the deception more credible, the fictitious marine had to be dressed appropriately, and in wartime London good quality clothing was hard to find. And so Fisher’s woollen underwear was used.

    New College has an impressive list of alumni. As well as Rachel Reeves, the list includes politicians Tony Benn, Gyles Brandreth, and Hugh Gaitskell; academics Harold Laski and J B S Haldane; Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks; public intellectuals Neil MacGregor and Lucy Worsley. And, as the K-Tel hits compilation adverts used to say, many, many more.

    And here, as usual, is a jigsaw of the postcard for you.

    Source link

  • Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    “Describe what tasks you performed in the past week.” 

    That’s what student journalist Alex Shieh asked 3,805 administrators at Brown University in a March 18 email. The backlash was swift. 

    Just two days later, Brown told Shieh it was reviewing his DOGE-inspired email — based on allegations that he had “emotionally harmed” several employees and “misrepresented” himself by saying he was a reporter for the conservative student newspaper The Brown Spectator, which he was. 

    Elon Musk, de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), wields a chainsaw at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference.

    In Brown’s letter, officials also claimed he violated operational procedures and demanded he “return any confidential information,” warning that his access to university data systems could be restricted.

    Days later, Associate Dean and Associate Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards Kirsten Wolfe threatened to charge Shieh with “failure to comply” unless he provided evidence that he had deleted unspecified confidential information that Brown alleged he may have accessed. Wolfe also demanded Shieh keep even the existence of this investigation private. Nor has Brown revealed what confidential information they believe he published, and Shieh denies having taken any confidential information.

    He pointed out that even if he did have any confidential information — an allegation the university has not begun to substantiate — providing evidence that he deleted it would also provide Brown incriminating evidence that he had the information in the first place — violating Brown’s promise that students have a right against self-incrimination

    Brown’s response here flies in the face of its due process and free expression guarantees, and threatens to chill student reporting on campus. Due process is essential not just to guarantee defendants a fair shake, but to uphold the legitimacy of campus disciplinary proceedings. It also acts as a bulwark protecting students’ individual liberties. As FIRE has said before, universities that guarantee their students free expression cannot base investigations on the very speech they promise to protect — and for good reason. 

    Telling someone they are the target of an investigation can have a chilling effect on speech, especially in cases like this one, where universities also can’t use chilling investigations as fishing expeditions. Brown’s effort to get Shieh himself to substantiate its assertions against him by providing evidence he thinks could relate to the allegations against him flips the disciplinary process on its head. ​​

    Fundamental fairness requires that the university bear the burden of proving the allegations, not the student to prove his innocence.

    Moreover, Brown’s threats also burden newsgathering practices protected by the university’s guarantee of press freedom. Certainly, administrators are within their rights to investigate actual breaches of confidentiality policies. But investigating journalism, offbeat though it may be, is a far cry from that.

    University President Christina Paxson declared in a recent letter that Brown will defend free expression against encroachments from the federal government. Shieh’s case suggests that her promise does not extend to Brown’s own encroachments on free expression.


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

    Source link

  • House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on FLSA Modernization

    House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on FLSA Modernization

    by CUPA-HR | March 27, 2025

    On March 25, the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing titled “The Future of Wage Laws: Assessing the FLSA’s Effectiveness, Challenges, and Opportunities.” The hearing focused on several bills aimed at modernizing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including legislation to amend overtime pay requirements on compensatory time and regular rate of pay and to provide clarity on independent contractor status under the FLSA.

    The witnesses at the hearing included Tammy McCutchen, senior affiliate at Resolution Economics; Paige Boughan, senior vice president and director of human resources at Farmers and Merchants Banks (on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management); Andrew Stettner, director of economy and jobs at the Century Foundation; and Jonathan Wolfson, chief legal officer and policy director at Cicero Institute.

    Compensatory Time

    Committee members and witnesses discussed the Working Families Flexibility Act, which would allow private sector employers, including private institutions, to offer employees the choice of compensatory time or cash wages for overtime hours worked. Currently, the FLSA only allows for employees working for the public sector, including public institutions, to choose compensatory time or cash compensation for overtime hours worked.

    Chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Tim Walburg (R-MI) expressed his support for a bill like the Working Families Flexibility Act, as it would allow employees to choose which form of compensation best suits their needs. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) argued that offering compensatory time is an attempt to force workers to work more hours for free.

    CUPA-HR submitted a letter for the record prior to the hearing in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act. The letter highlights our past support for the legislation as introduced in previous Congresses. It also draws from CUPA-HR President and CEO Andy Brantley’s testimony for a 2013 Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing in support of compensatory time. In his testimony, he provided examples of instances where employees benefited from the option of such overtime compensation, which he witnessed while working as an HR leader at a large public university.

    Regular Rate

    The hearing also discussed the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, which would exclude the value of employer-funded child or dependent care benefits from the regular rate calculation. The FLSA requires that overtime hours are paid at one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay, which is an average hourly rate that includes certain types of compensation.

    During the hearing, Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN) argued that the regular rate calculation that is currently used to determine overtime pay discourages employers from offering certain benefits. McCutcheon stated that legislation like the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act would encourage employers to offer more benefits as they would no longer face burdensome overtime pay calculations.

    Independent Contractor Status

    During the hearing, committee members and witnesses also discussed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act (H.R. 1319), which would establish a new standard for defining an employee and an independent contractor under the FLSA. Specifically, the legislation would implement language that states workers are employees if the employer controls what work will be done and how it will be done, and workers are independent contractors if the entity under which the worker works does not exercise significant control over how the work is performed, among other things.

    Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who introduced the bill in early February, stated that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act was needed to ensure protections for independent contractors in the FLSA. Wolfson pointed to a 2019 California law, AB 5, which implemented an “ABC” test for worker classification and stated that businesses stopped working with freelancers as a result of the law. McCutcheon explained that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act provides clarity when determining worker classification status by focusing on who controls the work being done, unlike California’s ABC test which she claimed was too complicated.

    Ranking Member of the Education and Workforce Committee Bobby Scott (D-VA) opposed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act, claiming that workers do not want to be independent contractors and that employers force workers to accept independent contractor status, thus saving employers money.

    The House Education and Workforce Committee will continue to consider these bills as they are reintroduced and marked up during the 119th Congress. CUPA-HR will monitor for future developments on the bills discussed during this hearing and keep members apprised of significant updates.



    Source link

  • Yeshiva U Accepts LGBTQ+ Student Group but Not “Pride” Clubs

    Yeshiva U Accepts LGBTQ+ Student Group but Not “Pride” Clubs

    Less than a week after Yeshiva University agreed to recognize an LGBTQ+ student club as part of a legal settlement, university president Ari Berman apologized for the way the university conveyed the announcement and stressed that “pride” clubs still run counter to the values of the Modern Orthodox Jewish university, Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. He emphasized that the newly approved club would function “in accordance with halacha,” or Jewish law.

    “I deeply apologize to the members of our community—our students and parents, alumni and friends, faculty and Rabbis—for the way the news was rolled out,” Berman, a rabbi, wrote in an email to students Tuesday. “Instead of clarity, it sowed confusion. Even more egregiously, misleading ‘news’ articles said that Yeshiva had reversed its position, which is absolutely untrue.”

    The university has been mired in a legal battle with its LGBTQ+ student group, the YU Pride Alliance, since 2021, when the group sued for official university recognition. Yeshiva said it wasn’t legally required to recognize the club because of Orthodoxy’s stance against same-sex relations. The two parties announced a settlement last week in which students will run an LGBTQ+ club called Hareni that will “operate in accordance with the approved guidelines of Yeshiva University’s senior rabbis,” according to a joint statement issued last Thursday.

    LGBTQ+ students celebrated the settlement as a new milestone. But Berman framed the settlement as doubling down on an old proposal from 2022, when the university sought to create its own LGBTQ+ student club called Kol Yisrael Areivim. Plaintiffs rejected the plan at the time, on the grounds that the club wouldn’t be student-run. But Berman said Hareni was similarly created “to support students who are striving to live authentic, uncompromising” lives within the bounds of Jewish law, “as previously described.”

    “The Yeshiva has always conveyed that what a Pride club represents is antithetical to the undergraduate program in which the traditional view of marriage and genders being determined at birth are transmitted,” Berman wrote in his message to students. “The Yeshiva never could and never would sanction such an undergraduate club and it is due to this that we entered litigation.”

    As he sees it, “last week, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against YU accepted to run Hareni, instead of what they were originally suing us for, moved to end the case, and the case has been dismissed.”

    Source link

  • FIRE-supported Utah legislation secures students’ rights to freely associate on campus

    FIRE-supported Utah legislation secures students’ rights to freely associate on campus

    Yesterday, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed into law HB 390, a bill that will strengthen students’ freedom of association at the state’s public colleges and universities. Sponsored by Rep. Karianne Lisonbee and Sen. Keven Stratton, the bill ensures that religious, political, and ideological student organizations can set their own membership and leadership requirements without interference from campus administrators.

    The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to freely associate with others who share their beliefs — and to not associate with those who don’t. FIRE has consistently opposed policies that force student groups to eliminate belief-based membership criteria to gain official recognition by their college. 

    After all, the members of a group naturally shape its direction, and allowing individuals who fundamentally oppose its mission to vote or hold leadership positions can undermine the group’s very purpose. It makes little sense, for example, to force a Muslim student group to let atheists become voting members or for an environmentalist student group that raises awareness about the threats of climate change to allow climate change skeptics to hold office.

    As we noted in our letter to Utah’s Senate Education Committee, the right to associate freely extends to students at public universities and to the student organizations they form. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this principle, affirming in Healy v. James that public colleges cannot deny official recognition to student organizations solely based on their beliefs or associations. Similarly, in Widmar v. Vincent, the Court ruled that a public university violated the First Amendment by denying a religious student group access to campus facilities because of its religious beliefs.

    Despite these clear precedents, the Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that universities can implement “all-comers” policies, meaning student organizations must accept any student who wants to join as a member or leader, even if that student openly opposes the group’s core principles. Following the ruling, FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff reaffirmed our commitment to freedom of association, saying, “FIRE will continue to defend the rights of expressive campus organizations to unite around shared beliefs and uphold the principle that College Democrats can be Democrats, College Atheists can be atheists, and College Christians can be Christians.”

    Although Martinez found that all-comers policies are constitutionally permissible when applied uniformly, institutions with such policies have frequently enforced them selectively. For example, some religious organizations have been forced to accept members and leaders who do not share their faith, while secular groups have been allowed to set their own membership and leadership requirements without administrative intervention. This selective enforcement constitutes viewpoint discrimination, undermining the very protections that the First Amendment guarantees.

    HB 390 ensures that Utah’s public universities cannot single out student groups for holding firm to their beliefs. The bill states: 

    An institution may not deny any benefit or privilege that is available to any student organization, or discriminate against, a religious, political, or ideological student organization:

    1. because such student organization is religious, political, or ideological;

    2. on the basis of protected expressive activity engaged in by the student organization or the student organization’s members; or

    3. based on a requirement that a leader of the student organization:

      1. affirm or adhere to the sincerely held beliefs of the student organization;

      2. comply with a standard of conduct the student organization establishes; or

      3. further the mission, purpose, or standards of conduct of the student organization, as these are defined by the student organization.

    With the enactment of this bill into law, Utah joins a growing number of states strengthening First Amendment protections for belief-based organizations on campus. 

    FIRE applauds Rep. Lisonbee and Sen. Stratton, the Utah Legislature, and Gov. Cox for standing up for students’ rights and ensuring true freedom of association in higher education.

    Source link

  • Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    We explore how censorship is impacting institutions —
    from universities to law firms to the Maine House of
    Representatives.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:40 Federal government cuts Columbia’s funding

    16:57 Updates on the Mahmoud Khalil case

    27:01 Ed Martin’s Georgetown letter

    34:59 Trump targeting law firms

    55:01 Maine House censure of Rep. Laurel Libby

    01:03:37 Outro

    Guests:

    Will
    Creeley
    , FIRE’s legal director

    Conor
    Fitzpatrick
    , FIRE’s supervising senior attorney

    Lindsie
    Rank
    , FIRE’s director of campus rights advocacy

    Enjoy listening to the 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:

    – “DOJ,
    HHS, ED, and GSA announce initial cancelation of grants and
    contracts to Columbia University worth $400 million
    ” U.S.
    Department of Justice (2025)


    HHS, ED, and GSA follow up letter to Columbia
    . U.S.
    Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of
    Education, U.S. Government Services Administration (2025)

    – “Columbia
    yields to Trump in battle over federal funding
    ” The Wall
    Street Journal (2025)

    – “Advancing
    our work to combat discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism at
    Columbia
    ” Columbia University (2025)

    – “Columbia
    caves to feds — and sets a dangerous precedent
    ” FIRE
    (2025)

    – “ED,
    HHS, and GSA Respond to Columbia University’s Actions to Comply
    with Joint Task Force Pre-Conditions
    ” U.S. Department of
    Education (2025)

    – “FIRE
    demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud
    Khalil
    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Brief
    of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary
    Injunction – Khalil v. Joyce
    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “We will be
    revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in
    America so they can be deported.
    ” Secretary of State Marco
    Rubio via X (2025)

    – “‘ICE proudly
    apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign
    Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is
    the first arrest of many to come.
    ‘ President Donald J.
    Trump” The White House via X (2025)

    – “WATCH: White
    House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’
    ” PBS
    NewsHour (2025)

    – “Secretary
    Rubio’s remarks to the press
    ” U.S. Department of State
    (2025)

    – “Mahmoud
    Khalil. Notice to appear.
    ” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)

    – “Alien
    and Sedition Acts
    ” National Archives (1798)


    Ed Martin’s letter to Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor
    .
    (2025)


    Dean Treanor’s response to Ed Martin.
    (2025)

    – “Trump,
    Perkins Coie and John Adams
    ” The Wall Street Journal
    (2025)

    – “Suspension
    of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government
    Contracts
    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    Risks from Perkins Coie LLP
    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    risks from Paul Weiss
    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Lawyers
    who anger the Feds face new penalties by decree
    ” The CATO
    Institute (2025)

    – “Today,
    President Donald J. Trump agreed to withdraw his March 14, 2025
    Executive Order regarding the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
    Garrison LLP law firm (‘Paul, Weiss’), which has entered into the
    following agreement with the President…
    ” President Trump
    via TruthSocial (2025)

    – “Head
    of Paul, Weiss says firm would not have survived without deal with
    Trump
    ” The New York Times (2025)

    – “House
    resolution relating to the censure of Representative Laurel D.
    Libby of Auburn by the Maine House of Representatives

    Maine House of Representatives (2025)

    – “Maine’s
    censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an
    attack on free speech
    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Maine
    State Rep. Laurel Libby disagreed with biological males competing
    in women’s sports, and now, the Maine State House is censuring
    her.
    ” Sen. Kennedy via X (2025)

    – “The
    open society and its enemies
    ” Karl Popper (1945)

    – “Cyber
    rights: Defending free speech in the digital age
    ” Mike
    Godwin (1995)

    Source link