Category: Featured

  • To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    To accelerate action on gender equality, we must consider both sides of the coin. #IWD2025

    It’s International Women’s Day. Today on the site, Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris explores the critical role of Black women in academia and industry leadership, particularly in Engineering and STEM, highlighting their groundbreaking contributions and the systemic barriers that persist. Read that piece here.

    Below, HEPI’s own Rose Stephenson challenges us to look at ‘the other side of the coin’ in the fight for gender equality – you can read that piece below.

    Firstly, Happy International Women’s Day 2025.

    The theme this year is ‘Accelerate Action.’ It’s a great theme, and to accelerate action in terms of gender equality, we have got to focus more on ‘the other side of the coin’. Let me explain three examples:

    1. We should do more to ensure that parenting is supportive and inclusive of fathers.

    Joeli Brearly, outgoing CEO of Pregnant then Screwed, recently gave evidence on Shared Parental Leave in parliament. She stated:

    ‘It’s time we asked ourselves a fundamental question about what sort of society we want this to be. Do we want to continue to perpetuate outdated and harmful gender stereotypes that tell us it is women who do the nurturing and the caring and the childrearing and are the homemakers and that men just need to pull their socks up and get back to work? They are strong, stoic breadwinners and don’t need this time [parental leave] to nurture and care for their family. The mental health of men in this country is in crisis. Boys are saying they feel lost and disconnected, and it’s no wonder when our laws are literally telling them: “you don’t need time to nurture and connect with your family.”’

    Inclusive parenting is good for dads, it’s great for kids, and it benefits Mums, too. My mantra is, ‘We will never have equality in the workplace until we have equality in the home’. Until we reach a point where an equal number of dads leave work in time for the school run, take time off for holiday care, or work part-time and flexibly, we will never reach parity in the workplace. And why would we want to? If women collectively reach equal pay, equal status and the resulting equal responsibility at work yet continue to shoulder most domestic and childcare duties, we have significantly undermined progress towards equality.

    The HEPI report I published last year, Show Me the Money, an exploration of the gender pay gap in higher education, demonstrated the importance of increasing paid paternity leave as a lever for narrowing the gender pay gap. If your institution is monitoring the uptake of senior or professorial roles by gender, are they also monitoring the uptake of post-birth parental leave, shared parental leave and statutory parental leave by the same measure? Is there monitoring and reporting on the genderisation of part-time work applications, flexible working requests and the granting of these requests? That is ‘the other side of the coin’ and we should not underestimate the hurdles fathers may have to overcome to ask – or be granted – the flexibility we more commonly expect for mothers.

    2. We should encourage boys and young men to work in teaching and social care roles to the same extent that we encourage women to work in engineering and tech.

    When working as a secondary and sixth-form science teacher, I undertook a project at my school that challenged pupils to critically think about the subject choices they were making at GCSE and A-Level and how this might be affected by gender stereotyping. There was plenty of support and encouragement for female pupils in science and maths subjects (as there should be). However, there was a notable vacuum in the equivalent campaigns to open up opportunities for boys.

    I witnessed first-hand how the gendering of subjects and occupations suppressed the potential of young men. One boy in my tutor group desperately wanted to complete his work experience at a hair salon. This pupil would have benefitted from a ‘hook’ that could have driven his interest in education and the future world of work. Unfortunately, his family disapproved of his choice, and he spent his work experience on a building site. This did nothing to enhance his motivation towards education or work. This was a valuable opportunity for a disengaged young man to pursue something that genuinely sparked his interest, and I have no doubt he would have excelled at. However, this opportunity was lost because it was not deemed ‘masculine’ enough. This was one example, but the boys I taught were quite open about feeling they couldn’t choose the subjects they wanted. There was an element of ‘acceptable’ choices.

    It is tragic that in 2025, UK society is still limiting the possibilities for young men to follow their real interests. As a sector, we should push hard against the narratives perpetuating this. Again, if your institution is monitoring and encouraging the uptake of subjects such as engineering or coding for female students, are they also monitoring the update of nursing courses by male students? Are there considerations of male uptake and completion of courses in your Access and Participation Plans?

    3. We should consider developing ‘Men’s Leadership’ courses.

    I’ve been lucky enough to partake in various forms of ‘Women’s Leadership training’ run by Advance HE and the Women’s Higher Education Network (WHEN), among others. Of course, non-gender-specific leadership training is available. However, women’s leadership courses have existed due to the historic and ongoing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Further, they provide a female-only space for women to develop their leadership skills.

    I vividly remember being told by a presenter on the Advance HE Aurora programme to ‘have heft’ and ‘take up space’. (I replay this memory regularly in all the privileged but occasionally intimidating speaking and media events I undertake in my current role.)

    But as we move closer towards gender parity – and I know there is more work to do – should we be thinking about the other side of the coin? Women’s leadership courses can often focus on developing traits deemed to be held by traditional, therefore male, leaders. Having more confidence, making your voice heard, etc. Now that most of society accepts that women can also make great leaders – and there are many stand-out examples in the higher education sector – where is the equivalent training for men?

    Where are the male leadership courses that teach men the skills of making space for others, speaking inclusively, building relationships, the importance of being a mentor, and using coaching techniques to build confidence in their colleagues? Surely, some male colleagues who wish to become leaders can learn skills that may be (stereotypically) more prevalent in female colleagues, and developing these skills would benefit everyone.

    And sure, some men will already possess these skills, just like some women have a natural ability to take up space. My question is, if we accept that women are socialised in a particular way to be missing some leadership or workplace skills, then can we accept that for men? Do we value stereotypically ‘female’ leadership skills enough to offer a platform for developing these skills in male colleagues? Further, should leadership courses for men include panels discussing how to balance leadership roles with childcare responsibilities? (And yes, those panels exist in women-in-leadership courses) Perhaps when we get to this point, we really will be considering the other side of the coin.

    If you found this blog interesting, you may wish to look back at some of our previous International Women’s Day blogs:

    HEPI has also published the report:

    HEPI will soon publish an updated report on educational achievement by boys and young men, a significant and long-standing issue that has been largely ignored by policymakers. The report considers the consequences for individuals and societies and proposes several levers that could be used to drive change. This report will be published this month – March 2025. If you haven’t already, sign up for our blog below to get this report hot off the press.

    If you wish to write a blog for International Men’s Day on November 19th, submissions are very welcome.

    Source link

  • Trump admin cancels $400M in grants at Columbia U

    Trump admin cancels $400M in grants at Columbia U

    The Trump administration announced Friday that it’s cutting $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University as a result of what Republican officials say is “continued inaction” and failure to protect Jewish students at the Ivy League institution.

    The accusations were made in a joint news release from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and the General Services Administration, all of which are members of an antisemitism task force the president assembled just one month ago through an executive order. Earlier in the week, the task force said it was reviewing Columbia’s $5 billion in federal grants and hinted that it could halt some of the university’s contracts. That notice was the task force’s first major action, and other universities could face similar reviews, experts said Friday.

    “For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in the release. “Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

    It remains uncertain exactly what grants and contracts will be affected, and the Department of Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for clarity.

    Columbia officials said the university is “reviewing the announcement” and pledged to “work with the federal government to restore Columbia’s federal funding.”

    “We take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously … and are committed to combating antisemitism,” a spokesperson said in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    Columbia has been a frequent target for Republicans who have taken issue with how colleges responded to a spate of demonstrations protesting Israel’s war in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023. That criticism ratcheted up last spring after pro-Palestinian student protesters erected an encampment of tents and later took over a campus building in hopes of persuading the university to divest from companies affiliated with Israel. Those protests, and Columbia’s decision to call in city police in response, not only sparked a national movement but also attracted strong opposition from critics who declared the demonstrations antisemitic and accused the colleges of failing to defend Jewish students.

    Trump officials have pledged to crack down on campus antisemitism, and this action against Columbia could serve as an early test case of how exactly the new administration could follow through on campaign trail promises.

    But canceling a university’s grants and contracts would be unprecedented. Higher education policy experts say that even if it’s just a threat, the concept of pulling funds without proper investigation from the Office for Civil Rights is deeply alarming.

    “You don’t get to punish people just because you don’t like what they’re doing,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education. “The fact that the administration is choosing to simply ignore not just precedent, not just norms, but the actual law covering this should be concerning to a lot of people, not just people at Columbia.”

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is tasked with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, including antisemitic and Islamophobic discrimination. The department’s rules and regulations, which Fansmith said are mandated by Title VI, outline how OCR conducts investigations and what to do if the office finds a violation. OCR is required to attempt to reach a resolution with the institution. In the rare case that a college refuses to comply with the law, the case can be referred to the Department of Justice.

    “So while the law doesn’t specifically dictate the process, it dictates the necessity of the process,” Fansmith said. “Nowhere in federal law is the government given the authority to arbitrarily select different types of federal funding and withhold them from an institution absent any prior finding or decision.”

    Republicans from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on the other hand, praised the decision.

    “Americans do not want their money sent to institutions that serve as breeding grounds for hatred and support for terrorism,” Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the committee, said in a statement. “I applaud the Trump administration for listening to the American people and holding institutions accountable when they fail to combat antisemitic, anti-American values.”

    Walberg and then–committee chair Representative Virginia Foxx were key figures in a scathing interrogation of then–Columbia president Minouche Shafik last spring. They also subpoenaed the university for records in August and published a deep-dive campus antisemitism report in November.

    But these congressional actions, as well as the department’s civil rights investigations, are separate from the actions of the task force.

    “The entire House report would be—what I’m sure many people would consider—a great piece of evidence in an OCR investigation,” Fansmith said. “The Trump administration is just missing the step where OCR does an investigation … which they’re required to in statute.”

    The statement said that Columbia should expect more cancellations.

    ‘Weaponizing’ Funding Cuts

    Similarly to Fansmith, First Amendment advocates see the Trump administration’s move as an overreach designed to intimidate institutions and chill campus free speech rather than address civil rights violations and hate speech.

    Kristen Shahverdian, program director for campus free speech at PEN America, said in a statement that while universities must urgently respond to concerns about antisemitism and ensure that students can participate fully and equally in campus life, they also need to be given “space, time and resources” to do so. The task force has not allowed that, and as a result federal research funding hangs in the balance.

    The Trump administration is “weaponizing nearly every instrument it has to suppress ideas it disfavors and pressure institutions into enforcing ideological alignment,” Shahverdian said. “The threat is sure to reverberate across the higher education sector, just as it seems intended to do.”

    Tyler Coward, lead counsel of government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Inside Higher Ed that though the loss of funds is a potential consequence for institutions that violate antidiscrimination law, they may only face liability if they fail to address the unlawful conduct.

    “If the administration is cutting funding to Columbia for violating Title VI, it must be clear and transparent about how it arrived at that decision and follow all relevant procedural requirements before doing so,” Coward said. And First Amendment–protected speech cannot be punished with the retraction of federal funds, he added. (The release offered no specifics on how the task force made its decision.)

    This “immediate cancellation” violates the law. If the Admin thinks Columbia has violated Title VI by being deliberately indifferent to antisemitic harassment, it has to give Columbia a chance for a hearing first, make findings on the record, & wait 30 days.

    www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03…

    [image or embed]

    — Sam Bagenstos (@sbagen.bsky.social) March 7, 2025 at 1:27 PM

    Fansmith said he was “not in a position to say” whether Columbia’s response to the student protests, building raids and encampments of 2024 would qualify for punishment under a proper OCR investigation. But the Trump administration “clearly thinks so,” he added.

    “If they are so certain of what the outcome will be, then there’s no harm from conducting an investigation,” he said. But “there’s plenty of harm from not doing it.”

    Trump ‘Walking the Talk’

    But right-leaning advocates for the protection of Jewish students and faculty members say the move was justified and necessary.

    Kenneth Marcus, a prominent civil rights lawyer who ran OCR during Trump’s first term, described Trump’s latest actions as “incredible.”

    “If anyone wasn’t paying attention before, this will get their attention,” said Marcus, who also founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. “There can now be no doubt that the Trump administration has prioritized campus antisemitism far higher than any prior administration has done. They have Columbia University in their scopes today, but no one should doubt that they will be coming after other universities as well.”

    McMahon affirmed Marcus’s take on the situation in an interview with Fox News shortly after the funding cuts were announced.

    “The president has said he’s absolutely not going to allow federal funds to be going to these universities that continue to allow antisemitism,” she said. “Kids ought to go to college and parents ought to feel good about their kids going to college, knowing they’re in a safe environment.”

    Marcus also applauded the Trump administration for utilizing multiple agencies to tackle the problem at once. The Department of Justice was minimally involved in responding to campus antisemitism during Trump’s first term, he said, but this time “the DOJ is leading the charge” and “the difference is palpable.” This weekend, all university administrators should be meeting with their general counsels and ensuring they are doing everything they can to protect all students, Marcus advised.

    “The last administration spoke of a whole-of-government approach. This administration is walking the talk,” he said.

    Liam Knox contributed to this report.



    Source link

  • DOL files fresh appeal of a Texas decision vacating its new overtime rule

    DOL files fresh appeal of a Texas decision vacating its new overtime rule

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Labor has appealed a Texas federal judge’s 2024 decision blocking its Biden-era final rule which sought to expand overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a Feb. 28 court filing.
    • Last December, Judge Sam Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled against DOL in Flint Avenue, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor, vacating and setting aside the final rule. Cummings’ decision came just over one month after another Texas judge similarly vacated and set aside the rule in a separate lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and parties including the Plano Chamber of Commerce.
    • The appeal takes Flint Avenue to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court in which DOL filed an appeal of the decision in the State of Texas case last year. DOL’s public affairs staff did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the DOL, did not respond to a request for comment submitted via its online form.

    Dive Insight:

    The Feb. 28 notice of appeal may come as a surprise to employers who expected the Trump administration to abandon the final rule; attorneys who previously spoke to HR Dive said that the rule was effectively “dead” despite DOL’s State of Texas appeal because of the Trump administration’s conservative policy stance on overtime.

    In fact, the new administration had already filed motions in the 5th Circuit pertinent to overtime rule litigation. On Jan. 22, two days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, DOJ attorneys sent a letter to the 5th Circuit requesting a 30-day extension on the deadline set by the court to file an opening brief in the State of Texas appeal. The court granted the request and the agency’s filing deadline is currently set to March 7.

    The April 2024 final rule proposed a two-step process that would have eventually raised the minimum annual salary threshold for overtime pay eligibility under the FLSA from $35,568 to $58,656 by Jan. 1, 2025. The rule would then have implemented a mechanism for automatically adjusting the threshold every three years using current wage data beginning in July 2027.

    But a series of Texas court decisions froze the rule. The judge in State of Texas held that the rule exceeded DOL’s authority and was unlawful. Likewise, Cummings said in his decision that he found the State of Texas judge’s reasoning “persuasive,” and he adopted the same reasoning in ruling for the plaintiffs.

    There is some intrigue in how the 5th Circuit might rule on the two appealed judgments given that the court signed off on DOL’s overall use of a salary basis test for determining overtime pay eligibility in last year’s Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor. The Mayfield plaintiffs alleged that the salary basis test had no basis in the FLSA’s text, but the 5th Circuit disagreed. The court did hold, however, that DOL “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s text, adding that particular salary threshold may raise legal issues because of their size.

    Source link

  • Maine’s censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech

    Maine’s censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech

    Citizens elect representatives to advocate zealously on their behalf, empowering officials to vote according to their conscience and express themselves freely on controversial topics. That’s why the Maine House of Representatives’ recent actions are so alarming — withdrawing an elected representative’s right to speak or vote on the House floor for refusing to take down a Facebook post. 

    Three weeks ago, Representative Laurel Libby of Maine’s 64th District posted on Facebook that a high school athlete won first place in girls’ pole vaulting at the Class B state championship after having competed the year before in the boys’ event and finishing in a tie for fifth place.

    Libby’s post is constitutionally protected. She was speaking out about the policy in her state, set by the Maine High School Principals Association, that a high school athlete may participate in competitions for the gender with which they identify. Her post was also part of a nationwide debate. Maine Governor Janet Mills and President Trump have publicly sparred over the president’s executive order proposing to cut off education funding if states do not ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports. 

    But just days after Libby’s post, the Maine House speaker and majority leader demanded she take it down. When she refused, the majority leader introduced a censure resolution — to be heard in the House the next day — because Libby’s post had included photos and the first name of the student, who is a minor. Libby sought to defend herself in the hastily called House vote, but was repeatedly cut off. The censure resolution passed 75-70 on a party-line vote. 

    If all the censure did was express disapproval of Libby’s actions, that would be one thing.

    A state legislative body is entitled to express displeasure with a member’s actions, which by itself does not violate the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently ruled.

    But in Libby’s case, the Maine House went further, much further. When Libby refused to apologize for her protected speech, the House speaker declared she would be barred from speaking on the House floor or voting on any legislation until she capitulated. Thus, the House majority party has precluded Libby from doing her job and effectively disenfranchised her constituents, end-running Maine constitutional provisions that say a representative cannot be expelled absent a two-thirds vote or recall election. 

    These actions are a clear example of retaliation based on constitutionally protected speech and amount to removal of an elected representative essentially because the House majority disagrees with her views or how she chose to express them. Sixty-nine years ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state legislature could not refuse to seat a duly elected member because of his public statements about the Vietnam War: “The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy.” 

    This is still the law. Under the constitution, the Maine House cannot censor Libby as it has done.

    Source link

  • AI Support for Teachers

    AI Support for Teachers

    Collaborative Classroom, a leading nonprofit publisher of K–12 instructional materials, announces the publication of SIPPS, a systematic decoding program. Now in a new fifth edition, this research-based program accelerates mastery of vital foundational reading skills for both new and striving readers.

    Twenty-Five Years of Transforming Literacy Outcomes

    “As educators, we know the ability to read proficiently is one of the strongest predictors of academic and life success,” said Kelly Stuart, President and CEO of Collaborative Classroom. “Third-party studies have proven the power of SIPPS. This program has a 25-year track record of transforming literacy outcomes for students of all ages, whether they are kindergarteners learning to read or high schoolers struggling with persistent gaps in their foundational skills.

    “By accelerating students’ mastery of foundational skills and empowering teachers with the tools and learning to deliver effective, evidence-aligned instruction, SIPPS makes a lasting impact.”

    What Makes SIPPS Effective?

    Aligned with the science of reading, SIPPS provides explicit, systematic instruction in phonological awareness, spelling-sound correspondences, and high-frequency words. 

    Through differentiated small-group instruction tailored to students’ specific needs, SIPPS ensures every student receives the necessary targeted support—making the most of every instructional minute—to achieve grade-level reading success.

    “SIPPS is uniquely effective because it accelerates foundational skills through its mastery-based and small-group targeted instructional design,” said Linda Diamond, author of the Teaching Reading Sourcebook. “Grounded in the research on explicit instruction, SIPPS provides ample practice, active engagement, and frequent response opportunities, all validated as essential for initial learning and retention of learning.”

    Personalized, AI-Powered Teacher Support

    Educators using SIPPS Fifth Edition have access to a brand-new feature: immediate, personalized responses to their implementation questions with CC AI Assistant, a generative AI-powered chatbot.

    Exclusively trained on Collaborative Classroom’s intellectual content and proprietary program data, CC AI Assistant provides accurate, reliable information for educators.

    Other Key Features of SIPPS, Fifth Edition

    • Tailored Placement and Progress Assessments: A quick, 3–8 minute placement assessment ensures each student starts exactly at their point of instructional need. Ongoing assessments help monitor progress, adjust pacing, and support grouping decisions.
    • Differentiated Small-Group Instruction: SIPPS maximizes instructional time by focusing on small groups of students with similar needs, ensuring targeted, effective teaching.
    • Supportive of Multilingual Learners: Best practices in multilingual learner (ML) instruction and English language development strategies are integrated into the design of SIPPS.
    • Engaging and Effective for Older Readers: SIPPS Plus and SIPPS Challenge Level are specifically designed for students in grades 4–12, offering age-appropriate texts and instruction to close lingering foundational skill gaps.
    • Multimodal Supports: Integrated visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile strategies help all learners, including multilingual students.
    • Flexible, Adaptable, and Easy to Teach: Highly supportive for teachers, tutors, and other adults working in classrooms and expanded learning settings, SIPPS is easy to implement well. A wraparound system of professional learning support ensures success for every implementer.

    Accelerating Reading Success for Students of All Ages

    In small-group settings, students actively engage in routines that reinforce phonics and decoding strategies, practice with aligned texts, and receive immediate feedback—all of which contribute to measurable gains.

    “With SIPPS, students get the tools needed to read, write, and understand text that’s tailored to their specific abilities,” said Desiree Torres, ENL teacher and 6th Grade Team Lead at Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School in New York. “The boost to their self-esteem when we conference about their exam results is priceless. Each and every student improves with the SIPPS program.” 

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • Saint Augustine’s University loses appeal to keep accreditation

    Saint Augustine’s University loses appeal to keep accreditation

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • Saint Augustine’s University announced Thursday that its appeal to keep its accreditation has been denied, striking a major blow to the struggling historically Black institution. 
    • Officials at the North Carolina university said they are entering a 90-day arbitration process in another bid to remain accredited. That will also ensure students graduating through May 2025 will earn their diplomas from an accredited institution, according to the university. 
    • Brian Boulware, Saint Augustine’s board chair, struck an optimistic tone in Thursday’s announcement about the arbitration process, saying that the university’s “strengthened financial position and governance will ensure a positive outcome.”

    Dive Insight: 

    Saint Augustine’s has been on the precipice of losing its accreditation for over a year. In 2023, the university’s accreditor — the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges — voted to terminate the university’s accreditation. However, college officials successfully contested that last year through arbitration. 

    Yet in December, SACSCOC once again voted to terminate Saint Augustine’s from its membership, citing issues with the university’s finances and governance. Saint Augustine’s Thursday announcement says that it lost its appeal of that decision, but arbitration once again gives the university another shot at retaining its accreditation. 

    Since the December vote, the university has sought to shore up its budget through widespread cuts and new sources of funding. 

    Still, Saint Augustine’s is grappling with steep declines in enrollment, with just 200 students in the 2024-25 academic year, WRAL reported. That’s down from over 1,100 students just two years ago. 

    In Thursday’s announcement, Saint Augustine’s officials announced they had secured up to $70 million, which they described as a bridge loan, “at competitive market rates and terms” in a deal that they expect to close later this month. University officials did not disclose where the $70 million in funding is coming from, citing nondisclosure agreements. 

    The announcement comes after Saint Augustine’s failed to get approval from the state attorney general’s office to enter a land lease deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, an athletics development firm. 

    In January, the attorney general’s office said the deal could put the university’s nonprofit status at risk, arguing that the upfront lease payment of up to $70 million was far too low for Saint Augustine’s 103-acre property. The office said the campus had been appraised at over $198 million. 

    Following the decision from the attorney general’s office, the two parties began restructuring the deal to lease less than half of Saint Augustine’s campus to 50 Plus 1 Sports, INDY Week reported. Under the new terms — which circumvent the need for the state office’s sign-off — the sports development firm would also share some of its revenue from its use of the land with the university. 

    Saint Augustine’s did not mention 50 Plus 1 Sports in Thursday’s announcement.

    “This funding is a game-changer,” Hadley Evans, vice chair on Saint Augustine’s board, said in Thursday’s announcement. “We now have the financial leverage to protect SAU’s legacy, enhance academic offerings, and create sustainable revenue streams through strategic campus development.”

    Saint Augustine’s has also drastically cut its workforce amid its financial woes. In November, the university said it was cutting over 130 staff and faculty positions to shave $17 million from its budget.

    Source link

  • Trump’s border czar is wrong about AOC

    Trump’s border czar is wrong about AOC

    One of the most Orwellian stories in American history — where telling people about their rights and urging them to speak out became a thoughtcrime — was that of the socialist Eugene Debs. 

    Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for criticizing U.S. involvement in World War I and for telling Americans about their constitutional right to protest the draft. The Supreme Court infamously ruled his speech posed a “clear and present danger.” Today, that ruling is widely regarded as a grave violation of free speech and a stain on the history of American justice.

    Last week, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote a letter asking Attorney General Pam Bondi if she is now under investigation for telling people their constitutional rights when interacting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

    She asked because President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan said he recently asked the Department of Justice whether Ocasio-Cortez is “impeding our law enforcement efforts” by putting out a webinar and a flyer in which she reminded anyone interacting with ICE that they need not open the door, speak, or sign anything, among other basic rights. 

     

     

     

    AOC flyer 2

    Informing people about their constitutional rights is plainly lawful and any effort to punish Ocasio-Cortez for doing so would unquestionably violate the First Amendment. 

    This isn’t a hard case or a close call. As my colleague Aaron Terr has pointed out, “This intimidation tactic is likely to discourage others from simply educating people about their fundamental rights.”

    But what is the line between protected speech and obstruction? The answer is that the Constitution protects a significant amount of expression, including abstract advocacy of unlawful acts, providing information about the presence of law enforcement officers, and promoting civil disobedience.

    Free speech protects discussing illegal behavior

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that “the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.” It has long distinguished between “the mere abstract teaching … of the moral propriety or even moral necessity” of violating the law and the actual incitement of lawless action. Only the latter is unprotected by the First Amendment. This is a high bar that requires speech to be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” 

    This is true even for speech advocating unquestionably unlawful behavior. For instance, in United States v. Williams, the Court held that “abstract advocacy” related to child pornography, such as the phrase “I encourage you to obtain child pornography,” was protected speech. And in Hess v. Indiana, the Court found that an anti-war protester urging his comrades to “take the fucking street again” was not sufficiently imminent to fall into the incitement exception. 

    But the most directly relevant example is the 2023 case United States v. Hansen, when the Court decided a law that criminalized encouraging illegal immigration was not unconstitutionally overbroad. FIRE and the Rutherford Institute wrote an amicus brief warning that the law, if interpreted broadly, could penalize speech urging civil disobedience.

    In upholding the law, the Court interpreted its scope extremely narrowly to apply only to “the intentional solicitation or facilitation of … unlawful acts” — not to “abstract advocacy or general encouragement” — and it left the door open for further First Amendment challenges if the law was applied to constitutionally protected advocacy.

    In other words, the Supreme Court recognized that advocacy like Ocasio-Cortez’s is clearly protected. Indeed, even more pointed advice on how to avoid arrest by ICE would also be protected. Only speech that intentionally directs an individual to engage in a specific illegal act crosses the line.

    Warning people about the presence of law enforcement is also protected

    The First Amendment also generally protects telling people that ICE is in a certain area, even if that allows people to evade ICE or other law enforcement. For example, in Friend v. Gasparino, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First Amendment protected a man standing on a sidewalk with a “Cops Ahead” sign. As the Supreme Court has said, someone “might constitutionally be punished under a tailored statute that prohibited individuals from physically obstructing an officer’s investigation,” but “he or she may not be punished under a broad statute aimed at speech.”

    This isn’t to say speech can never constitute obstruction of law enforcement. In limited circumstances, such as when speech is integral to the underlying crime like a robber demanding “your money or your life,” or someone in a criminal conspiracy warning his co-conspirators how to evade arrest, speech can lose First Amendment protection. Also, if someone is physically obstructing officers or refuses to leave when lawfully instructed to do so, that person’s actions won’t become protected even if those actions include otherwise protected speech. 

    But in general, warning people about law enforcement is constitutionally protected.

    Advocating civil disobedience is a historically important form of free speech

    Homan’s remarks and actions are particularly disturbing because they could chill speech encouraging civil disobedience, which has played a vital and noble role in American history — from the Boston Tea Party and the abolition of slavery to women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement and beyond. 

    It could even be said that there is nothing so quintessentially American as advocating for civil disobedience — and nothing more un-American than efforts to censor it.

     

    Source link

  • Trump’s federal funding crackdown includes troubling attacks on free speech

    Trump’s federal funding crackdown includes troubling attacks on free speech

    With his second term underway, President Trump has moved aggressively to reshape federal spending. Organizations that promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “gender ideology,” for example, are at risk of losing government grants and contracts. Although the government has discretion in spending taxpayer dollars, some of the administration’s attempts to yank funding from groups based on their speech run headlong into the First Amendment.

    New funding restrictions target everything from DEI to ‘Gulf of Mexico’

    On Jan. 21, Trump issued an executive order that purports to require funding recipients to abandon “illegal DEI” programs but does not define “DEI” or explain which programs the administration deems unlawful. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly cited the order in moving to cancel contracts with eight U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contractors over DEI language on the contractors’ own websites and LinkedIn profiles, even though it was unrelated to their contractual obligations. Late last month, a federal court blocked key parts of the executive order on First Amendment grounds.

    One thing is clear: The government cannot constitutionally use funding as a cudgel to control speech outside the funded activity. 

    DEI isn’t the administration’s only target. Another executive order bans the use of federal funds to “promote gender ideology.” Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reportedly told The Nature Conservancy it would lose funding unless it adopted the term “Gulf of America” (echoing the White House’s ultimatum to the Associated Press to use the term or lose access to certain press events). And last week, Trump threatened to pull federal funding from any college that “allows illegal protests.”

    Although these examples are different in important ways, they all raise First Amendment questions.

    What does the Supreme Court have to say?

    Several of Trump’s moves clash with decades of Supreme Court precedent. One thing is clear: The government cannot constitutionally use funding as a cudgel to control speech outside the funded activity. The funding is supposed to support a specific program or purchase, not give the state control over everything an institution does. The government can, however, decide whether to pay a group or person to speak on its behalf.

    For instance, the Supreme Court held the government violated the First Amendment by forcing groups to denounce prostitution or lose funding for fighting HIV/AIDS. It also invalidated a ban on federal funding for public broadcasters who engaged in any editorializing, even with their own money.

    Conversely, in Rust v. Sullivan, the Court upheld federal restrictions on abortion counseling in government-funded family planning programs — because Congress was subsidizing and controlling its own message about family planning.

    One caveat: The government’s power to regulate speech within a funded activity is not absolute. The Court struck down a restriction on legal aid attorneys using federal grants to challenge welfare laws. Why? Unlike in Rust, the government wasn’t transmitting its own message — it was subsidizing legal aid attorneys’ advocacy on behalf of their indigent clients. Similarly, the University of Virginia — a public institution — violated the First Amendment when it denied a student magazine access to funding because of its religious viewpoint. The fund was for helping students express their own messages, not the university’s. 

    These same principles apply in other contexts where the government offers a financial benefit. Most Americans would rightly balk at the idea of a public school refusing to hire any Republicans, or a state government offering a tax exemption for Democrats only. Those policies would be plainly unconstitutional.

    Trump’s funding restrictions: legal or overreach?

    So how do Trump’s actual and proposed funding restrictions fit into this legal framework?

    In partially blocking enforcement of Trump’s DEI executive order, a federal court emphasized that it unlawfully limited speech “outside the scope of the federal funding.” That means DOGE’s alleged targeting of HUD contractors for their DEI activities likely violates the First Amendment if those activities have nothing to do with their government work. 

    As for the “Gulf of America” mandate, the administration may be able to require The Nature Conservancy to use the term in official reports produced for NOAA. But if the mandate goes beyond that, it could also run into First Amendment problems.

    And what about the executive order prohibiting use of federal funds to “promote gender ideology”? The only way this passes muster is if it controls the government’s own messaging or concerns non-speech activities, and not, for instance, if the government pulls a university’s funding because it believes a professor is somehow promoting such views. Congress funds universities to support the creation and spread of knowledge, not for faculty to act as government mouthpieces. 

    Pulling federal funding from colleges based solely on the views of student protests would also violate the First Amendment — and the administration cannot do so unilaterally. It’s one thing for the government to regulate its own speech, but quite another to punish colleges for how students express themselves on their own time. Trump’s statement referred to “illegal” protests, but his past remarks suggest his idea of “illegal” encompasses not just protest activity involving unlawful conduct but protected speech as well, such as whatever he deems “antisemitic propaganda.” This dovetails with how, during his first term, Trump directed civil rights agencies to use a definition of anti-Semitism that includes protected expression. 

    Efforts to deny federal funding to groups and institutions whose views the current administration dislikes seriously threaten Americans’ First Amendment rights. The government must tread carefully to avoid crossing the line into unconstitutional speech policing, otherwise the courts — and history — are unlikely to be on their side.

    Source link

  • Misinformation is flooding school communities. Here are 3 strategies to combat it.

    Misinformation is flooding school communities. Here are 3 strategies to combat it.

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

    NEW ORLEANS — From misinterpreted data to claims that schools are equipped with litter boxes to accommodate students who identify as cats, there’s no shortage of false information for district administrators to contend with. And navigating when and how to respond can be a minefield unto itself.

    Misinformation damages relationships all around, Barbara Hunter, executive director of the National School Public Relations Association, told a packed session Wednesday at the National Conference on Education hosted by AASA, The School Superintendents Association. That erosion of trust can impact communication between parents and teachers, students and teachers, or parents and administrators, she said.

    “And, of course, it increases workloads because a lot of our time now is spent running down false information and trying to correct it, trying to manage it, and trying to get our messages out to counter that false information,” Hunter said.

    In an NSPRA survey conducted in January 2024, 96% of respondents said the spread of false information is an issue for school districts today. Furthermore, 78% said their school system had experienced a challenge caused by false information being circulated in their community within the previous year.

    To top it all off, 41% of respondents said the false information was spread deliberately, and 89% knew which groups or individuals were behind the intentional spread of misinformation.

    With 66% of school district leaders reporting that they or others on their teams spend one to four hours responding to false information each week, what can superintendents and school communications professionals do to mitigate the impact? Here are three strategies superintendents and their communication teams can use as they address this challenge.

    Create talking points and stay on message

    School district leaders must get in front of the community and be seen as a trusted source of information, said Cathy Kedjidjian, director of communications for North Cook Intermediate Service Center in Des Plaines, Illinois, and a past president of NSPRA.

    There are several steps the AASA panelists advised for accomplishing this:

    • Conduct trust and confidence surveys. These can help you determine what percentage of parents consider the district a trusted source of information — and the extent to which groups or individuals spreading false information in the community are seen as credible. 

      When writing the survey, “make sure you just don’t say, ‘Where do you get your news about the district?’ Because that could be a variety of sources,” said Hunter. “The key question is, ‘Where do you trust to get information about the district?’”

    • Assemble advisory groups. It’s essential to have regular face-to-face time with core stakeholder groups, said Melissa McConnell, manager of professional development and member engagement for NSPRA. 

      McConnell suggested meeting quarterly with a variety of advisory groups, including one for middle and high school students, another with parents and business leaders, and a third one made up of staff. Participants on the staff group might include those who are unhappy, so their concerns can be heard and information can be shared directly with them.

    • Arrange 1:1 meetings with those spreading rumors. “When it comes down to it, do those 1:1 meetings. Pick up the phone and call that person who heads up maybe that mommy blogger group or manages the Facebook group you can’t get away from,” said McConnell. “Invite them in for a conversation. A lot of times, they’re keyboard warriors and don’t really want to have that face-to-face.”

      She suggests, for example, taking them on a tour with the school principal if they’re spreading false information about a middle school’s lunches. “That can really help dispel a lot of rumors.”

      Don’t, however, join those groups or respond directly in them, advised Kedjidjian. “That is not good for your health.” 

    Engage in clear and effective communication

    The more you can keep language simple and avoid acronyms, the better off you’ll be, said McConnell. “You’ll be speaking in a language that more people can understand.”

    She also advises running any acronyms or catchphrases through Urban Dictionary so you’re not accidentally using something with a suggestive or vulgar slang meaning. “A lot of times, those abbreviations are words that you would not want to use, because you’ll get blasted at every which way and made fun of,” said McConnell.

    Misinformation really is becoming a crisis. It’s becoming a crisis of trust. It can impact the safety of students.

    Cathy Kedjidjian

    Director of communications at North Cook Intermediate Service Center in Des Plaines, Illinois

    Creating a “Rumor Has It” webpage as a one-stop source for accurate information on an issue is also effective, she said. Lakota Local Schools in Ohio did this to counter a broad range of misinformation, as did Minnesota’s Independent School District 728 to address rumors around a referendum.

    And it’s essential to make sure key communicators among parents and other community members have those “Rumor Has It” links so they’ll share them in Facebook groups and other outlets, said Kedjidjian.

    Kedjidjian also recommended communicating at an 8th grade reading level or below to simplify messaging.

    Looping in key community partners when necessary — such as the local police department as a co-author on a letter addressing safety rumors — can also help curb false information, she said.

    Develop a crisis plan

    “Misinformation really is becoming a crisis. It’s becoming a crisis of trust. It can impact the safety of students,” said Kedjidjian.

    To map out response strategies, district and building leaders should conduct “tabletop scenarios” where they walk through how communications unfold. For example, they might review what to do in a swatting event, where police or emergency personnel are sent to a location via a false report, or if a parent claims the school library contains pornographic material.

    Source link

  • Democratic AGs sue over cancellation of teacher grants

    Democratic AGs sue over cancellation of teacher grants

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Democratic attorneys generals in eight states said the U.S. Department of Education “arbitrarily” and “improperly” terminated about $600 million in teacher training grants, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts
    • The complaint said the abrupt cancellation of the grants will “immediately disrupt teacher workforce pipelines, increase reliance on underqualified educators, and destabilize local school systems.” The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions to restore funding and access to these programs.
    • The suit is the second filed against the grants termination — the first one came three days earlier from three teacher preparation groups — and adds to mounting legal pushback to the Trump administration’s efforts to scrub programs associated with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

    Dive Insight:

    The Education Department recently confirmed that the grant programs impacted by the cuts announced last month were for the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant. The agency said the cuts were made because the programs trained teachers on “divisive ideologies.”

    Examples the agency provided in its Feb. 17 announcement included professional development workshops on dismantling racial bias and activities that required educators to take personal and institutional responsibility for systemic inequities.

    Supporters of DEI rollbacks in education view the activities as illegal discrimination and wasteful spending of federal funds.

    But those opposing the grant eliminations say the programs help address a severe lack of teachers and support students in underserved areas.

    “Kids in rural and underserved communities deserve access to a quality education, and programs like SEED and TQP help bring qualified teachers to classrooms that desperately need it,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a March 6 statement. “Slashing funding for these critical programs robs students of the opportunity to succeed and thrive.”

    In New York, James said the cancellation of TQP programs at SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo Public Schools, Buffalo Academy of Science Charter, and REACH Academy Charter School alone would impact more than 120 teachers and about 13,000 students. Also affected by the elimination of SEED programs are 100 teachers and some 6,000 pre-K-12 students at SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo Public Schools, Amherst Central School District, and Kenmore Tonawanda Union-Free School District. 

    Joining James in the lawsuit were attorneys general from seven other states: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and Wisconsin.

    Just days earlier, on March 3, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Center for Teacher Residencies and Maryland Association of Colleges for Teacher Education also sued to overturn the program cuts. That challenge, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, said the Education Department “failed to follow statute and Federal regulations in terminating the grants.” 

    Additionally, more than 100 national and state education organizations sent a letter to congressional leaders last week urging them to reverse the cancellations of SEED, TQP and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program grants.

    Source link