Blog

What is scholasticide?

Faculty at the University of Texas at Austin protested scholasticide last May.

Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images

Last week members of the American Historical Association voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution condemning scholasticide in Gaza amid the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.

The resolution noted that attacks by the Israel Defense Forces have “effectively obliterated Gaza’s education system,” destroying the majority of schools and all 12 university campuses in the territory.

Now the AHA’s elected council will consider whether or not to accept the resolution.

The resolution—which passed on a 428-to-88 vote—follows a wave of protests on U.S. college campuses last spring, during which pro-Palestinian demonstrators leveled charges of scholasticide, among other things, at Israel. A group of 1,600 academics also signed on to an open letter in April that accused Israel of scholasticide and “indiscriminate killing of educators and students.” The Israeli government denies the charge, arguing that Gaza’s educational institutions have been taken over by Hamas.

But what is scholasticide? Here’s a look at the origin of the term and why Israel stands accused of it.

Scholasticide Defined

Karma Nabulsi, a Palestinian scholar and an emeritus fellow in politics and international relations at the University of Oxford, is credited with coining the term in 2009. Nabulsi has described scholasticide as the systematic destruction of educational institutions.

“We knew before, and see more clearly now than ever, that Israel is seeking to annihilate an educated Palestine,” Nabulsi told The Guardian during the 2009 war between Israel and Hamas.

(Nabulsi did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.)

While her immediate remarks at the time were in reference to that particular conflict, she argued that Israel had a long pattern of attacking educational institutions dating back to 1948.

The transnational organization Scholars Against War has since built on Nabulsi’s definition, listing 18 acts as scholasticide. Those actions include killing students, teachers and other school-related personnel; destroying educational institutions; blocking the construction of new schools; and broadly “preventing scholarly exchange in all of its forms.”

A Revival of the Phrase

The term “scholasticide” first appeared in Inside Higher Ed in 2009, shortly after Nabulsi coined it, connected to debates over boycotting Israeli institutions during its conflict with Hamas at that time. That boycott effort largely failed and the term “scholasticide” shrank from the academic lexicon before re-emerging in 2024 amid the current war between Israel and Hamas, which is now in its 16th month and has led to the deaths of tens of thousands Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. More than 1,200 civilians, both Israelis and foreign nationals, were killed by Hamas in the October 2023 terror attack that prompted the war; another 254 were taken hostage, many of whom were later killed or still have not returned home.

Google Scholar indicates the word “scholasticide” appeared in only a few articles before 2024. Now the search engine fetches more than 150 results for the term, many originating last year.

According to Google Trends, searches for the term “scholasticide” jumped last spring, coinciding with pro-Palestinian student protests that popped up on campuses across the U.S. Protesters at some institutions, including the University of Oregon and the University of Texas, also held scholasticide vigils to remember and mourn the lives of scholars lost in war.

Some scholars have also used the term “educide” to describe what is happening in Gaza. That phrase emerged from the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which heavily damaged educational infrastructure in the country. However, according to Google Scholar and Google Trends, the term “scholasticide” appears to be used more broadly than “educide” since last year.

Accusations of Scholasticide

Beyond the attacks on students and faculty, United Nations experts have also expressed concern about the destruction of educational institutions in Gaza and raised the question of scholasticide last year.

“With more than 80% of schools in Gaza damaged or destroyed, it may be reasonable to ask if there is an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, an action known as ‘scholasticide,’” a group of more than 20 U.N. experts said in an April news release from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The group alleged “a systematic pattern of violence aimed at dismantling the very foundation of Palestinian society.”

The Israeli military subsequently issued a statement in May emphasizing that the IDF has no “doctrine that aims at causing maximal damage to civilian infrastructure.” Officials accused Hamas of exploiting “civilian structures for terror purposes” by using such spaces to launch rocket attacks, store weapons and carry out various other purposes, according to The New York Times.

A Failed Resolution

In addition to the AHA resolution condemning scholasticide, the term also appeared in a proposed Modern Language Association resolution to endorse the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. The resolution cited the April statement from the U.N. and alleged that “Israel’s campaign of scholasticide has destroyed every university in Gaza and killed at least 5,479 students and 356 educators.”

However, the MLA’s elected Executive Council refused to let members vote on the resolution, prompting protests at last weekend’s Modern Language Association Annual Convention.

Source link

January 14, 2025
A crisis of trust in the classroom (opinion)

It was the day after returning from Thanksgiving break. I’d been stewing that whole time over yet another case of cheating, and I resolved to do something about it. “Folks,” I said, “I just can’t trust you anymore.”

After a strong start, many of the 160 mostly first-year students in my general education course had become, well, challenging. They’d drift in and out of the classroom. Many just stopped showing up. Those who did were often distracted and unfocused. I had to ask students to stop watching movies and to not play video games. Students demanded time to talk about how they were graded unfairly on one assignment or another but then would not show up for meetings. My beleaguered TAs sifted through endless AI-generated nonsense submitted for assignments that, in some cases, asked only for a sentence or two of wholly unsubstantiated opinion. One student photoshopped himself into a picture of a local museum rather than visiting it, as required by an assignment. I couldn’t even administer a simple low-stakes, in-class pen-and-paper quiz without a third of the students miraculously coming up with the same verbatim answers. Were they cheating? Somehow using AI? Had I simplified the quiz so much that these were the only possible answers? Had I simply become a victim of my own misplaced trust?

I meant that word, “trust,” to land just so. For several weeks we had been surveying the history of arts and culture in Philadelphia. A key theme emerged concerning whether or not Philadelphians could trust culture leaders to put people before profit. We talked about the postwar expansion of local universities (including our own), the deployment of murals during the 1980s as an antigraffiti strategy and, most recently, the debate over whether or not the Philadelphia 76ers should be allowed to build an arena adjacent to the city’s historic Chinatown. In each case we bumped into hard questions about who really benefits from civic projects that supposedly benefit everyone.

So, when I told my students that I couldn’t trust them anymore, I wanted them to know that I wasn’t just upset about cheating. What really worried me was the possibility that our ability to trust one another in the classroom had been derailed by the same sort of crass profiteering that explains why, for instance, so many of our neighbors’ homes get bulldozed and replaced with cheap student apartments. That in a class where I’d tried to teach them to be better citizens of our democracy, to discern public good from private profit, to see value in the arts and culture beyond their capacity to generate revenue, so many students kept trying to succeed by deploying the usual strategies of the profiteer—namely cheating and obfuscation.

But could any of them hear this? Did it even matter? How many of my students, I wondered, would even show up if not for a chance to earn points? Maybe to them class is just another transaction. Like buying fries at the food truck and hoping to get a few extra just for waiting patiently?

I decided to find out.

With just a few sessions remaining, I offered everyone a choice: Pick Path A and I’d instantly give you full credit for all of the remaining assignments. All you had to do was join me for a class session’s worth of honest conversation about how to build a better college course. Pick Path B and I’d give you the same points, but you wouldn’t even have to show up! You could just give up, no questions asked, and not even have to come back to class. Just take the fries—er, the points—and go.

The nervous chatter that followed showed me that, if nothing else, my offer got their attention. Some folks left immediately. Others gathered to ask if I was serious: “I really don’t have to come back, and I’ll still get the points?!” I assured them that there was no catch. When I left the room, I wondered if anyone would choose Path A. Later that day, I checked the results: Nearly 50 students had chosen to return. I was delighted!

But how to proceed? For this to work I needed them to tell me what they really thought, rather than what they supposed I wanted to hear. My solution was an unconference. When the students returned, I’d ask each of them to take two sticky notes. On one they’d write something they loved about their college courses. On the other, they’d jot down something that frustrated them. The TAs and I would then stand at the whiteboard and arrange the notes into a handful of common themes. We’d ask everyone to gravitate toward whatever theme interested them most, gather with whomever they met there and then chat for a while about ways to augment the good and eliminate the bad. I’d sweep in toward the end to find out what everyone had come up with.

So, what did I learn? Well, first off, I learned to temper my optimism. Although 50 students selected Path A, only 40 showed up for the discussion. And then about half of those folks opted to leave once they were entirely convinced that they could not earn additional points by remaining. To put it in starker terms, I learned that—in this instance—only about 15 percent of my students were willing to attend a regularly scheduled class if doing so didn’t present some specific opportunity for earning points toward their grades. Which is also to say that more than 85 percent of my students were content to receive points for doing absolutely nothing.

There are many reasons why students may or may not have chosen to come back. The size of this sample though convinces me that college instructors are contending with dire problems related to how a rising generation of students understands learning. These are not problems that can be beaten back with new educational apps or by bemoaning AI. They are rather problems concerning citizenship, identity and the commodification of everything. They reflect a collapse of trust in institutions, knowledge and the self.

I don’t fault my students for mistrusting me or the systems that we’ve come to rely on in the university. I too am skeptical about the integrity of our nation’s educational landscape. The real problem, however, is that the impossibility of trusting one another means that I cannot learn in any reliable way what the Path B students need for this situation to change.

I can, however, learn from the Path A students, and one crucial lesson is that they exist. That is very good news! I learned, too, that the “good” students are not always the good students. The two dozen students who stuck it out were not, by and large, the students I expected to remain. I’d say that just about a third of the traditionally high-performing students came back without incentive. It’s an important reminder to all of us that surviving the classroom by teaching to only those students who appear to care is a surefire way to alienate others who really do.

Some of what the Path A students taught me I’ve known for a long time. They react very favorably, for instance, to professors who make content immediate, interesting and personal. They feel betrayed by professors who read from years-old PowerPoints and will sit through those courses in silent resentment. Silence, in fact, appeared as a theme throughout our conversation. Many students are terrified to speak aloud in front of people they do not know or trust. They are also unsure about how to meet people or how to know if the people they meet can be trusted. None of us should be surprised that trust and communication are entwined. Thinking more fully about how they get bound up with the classroom will, for me, be a critical task going forward.

I learned also that students appreciate an aspect of my teaching that I absolutely detest: They love when I publicly call out the disrupters and the rule breakers. They like it, that is, when I police the classroom. From my standpoint, having to be the heavy feels like a pedagogical failure. My sense is that a well-run classroom should prevent most behavior problems from occurring in the first place. Understandably, committed students appreciate when I ensure a fair and safe learning environment. But I have to wonder whether the Path A students’ appetite for schadenfreude reflects deeper problems: an unwillingness to confront difficulty, a disregard for the commonwealth, an immoderate desire for spectacle. Teaching is always a performance. But maybe what meanings our performances convey aren’t always what we think.

By far, though, the most striking and maybe most troubling lesson I gathered during our unconference was this: Students do not know how to read. Technically they can understand printed text, and surely more than a few can do better than that. But the Path A students confirmed my sense that most if not a majority of my students were unable to reliably discern key concepts and big-picture meaning from, say, a 20-page essay written for an educated though nonspecialist audience. I’ve experienced this problem elsewhere in my teaching, and so I planned for it this time around by starting very slow. Our first reading was a short bit of journalism; the second was an encyclopedia entry. We talked about reading strategy and discussed methods for wrangling with difficult texts. But even so, I pretty quickly hit their limit. Weekly reading quizzes and end-of-week writing assignments called “connect the dots” showed me that most students simply could not.

Concerns about declining literacy in the classroom are certainly not new. But what struck me in this moment was the extent to which the Path A students were fully aware of their own illiteracy, how troubled they were by it and how betrayed they feel by former teachers who assured them they were ready for college. During our discussion, students expressed how relieved they were when, late in the semester, I relented and substituted audio and video texts for planned readings. They want help learning how to read but are unsure of where or how to get it. There is a lot of embarrassment, shame and fear associated with this issue. Contending with it now must be a top priority for all of us.

I learned so much more from our Path A unconference. In one of many lighthearted moments, for instance, we all heard from some international students about how “bonkers” they think the American students are. We’ve had a lot of laughs this semester, in fact, and despite the challenges, I’ve really enjoyed the work. But knowing what the work is, or needs to be, has never been harder. I want my students to see their world in new ways. They want highly individualized learning experiences free of confrontation and anxiety. I offer questions; they want answers. I beg for honesty; they demand points.

Like it or not, cutting deals for points means that I’m stuck in the same structures of profit that they are. But maybe that’s the real lesson. Sharing something in common, after all, is an excellent first step toward building trust. Maybe even the first step down a new path.

Seth C. Bruggeman is a professor of history and director of the Center for Public History at Temple University.

Source link

January 14, 2025
Post-Levelling Up: A New Agenda for Regional Inequality in Higher Education

***It’s not too late to register for HEPI’s events this week: ‘Earning and learning: What’s the reality for today’s students?‘ webinar with Advance HE at 10am, Tuesday 14 January and ‘Who Pays? Exploring Fairer Funding Models for Higher Education‘ Symposium at Birkbeck, Thursday 16 January 10am to 5pm.***

By Professor Graeme Atherton, Director of the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) and the Vice-Principal of Ruskin College, Oxford.

In the post-levelling up era, the debate about regional inequality and what it constitutes continues. Insofar as higher education progression is concerned, regional differences were a constant theme of widening access work well before levelling up. On an annual basis, we have seen progress in the percentage of younger learners from low-participation neighbourhoods progressing to higher education.

However, the situation regarding those progressing to higher education from free school meal (FSM) backgrounds is more complex. Our new report, ‘Access to Higher Education and Regional Inequality: who is missing out? ’, released today, is our second in-depth analysis of the Department for Education’s annual data set on progression to higher education by those from FSM and non-FSM backgrounds in England.

When these data were published last October, the media focused on the fact that, for the first time since the data were first produced in 2005-06, the percentage of learners from FSM backgrounds progressing to higher education by age 19 fell year on year, from 29.2% in 2021-22 to 29% in 2022-23. But as Figure 1 shows, while the rate has dropped, the number of FSM learners has increased between 2021-22 and 2022-23 by 2,754 (from 19,443 to 22,197). This is the biggest annual increase since 2005-06. The national rate was dragged down by a significant increase in the number of FSM-eligible learners. While more FSM learners are going to higher education, the number of non-FSM learners has increased even more, meaning the national gap has widened.

Looking at these data in detail also reveals considerable variation in progression across regions and areas. A report has already been published in 2025 predicting a gap in graduates between London and other regions of up to 40% by 2035. There is a near-20-percentage point gap in the progression of FSM learners between London and the next region – a gap that has increased over the last 10 years.

So strong is London’s performance that it masks some of the challenges across England. At the local authority level, as shown in Figure 2, nearly 70% of areas are below the national average FSM progression rate of 29% and a quarter are at less than 20%.

However, while some of these areas may still be below the national average, over the past 10 years these areas have made the most progress. Understanding more about why they have improved while others with ostensibly similar characteristics have not would be a valuable exercise. In contrast, London, while remaining far ahead of anywhere else, has somewhat plateaued.

As argued above, focusing on geographical differences in higher education participation between different areas of England is not new. This year sees the 21st anniversary of the Aimhigher programme, the first national, locally-focused collaborative outreach initiative for widening access. A string of similar programmes followed, most recently the Uni Connect initiative. Despite the continual chopping and changing of these programmes, they have been effective in contributing to the increases in progression to higher education from low-participation neighbourhoods referred to above, as this is what they have been told to focus on. While FSM as a measure has its well-documented limitations, it is the least worst option when compared to a neighbourhood measure which does not take into account the backgrounds of individual learners. It is now time for a new, rejuvenated collaborative outreach programme that focuses on inequalities in higher education participation as measured by the FSM progression data.

The Office for Students recently announced its support for a new collaborative outreach programme and this is welcome. But any new programme, as well as focusing on the progression of FSM learners, must be sufficiently resourced. This could potentially happen through, at least in part, higher education providers pooling their efforts across a given area at pre-16 and being effectively co-ordinated at the national level, which has not been the case in previous iterations of such programmes. It must also be a part of the government’s forthcoming post-16 education strategy and any shifts to a broader more collaborative, ‘tertiary’ approach with regional dimensions.

Finally, it is already becoming apparent that Labour, while right to jettison levelling up, is lacking a replacement policy agenda to address regional inequality. Levelling up, while a damp squib in terms of impact, voiced what many in the country feel about their lives, where they live and what inequality means to them. It didn’t though include inequalities in access to higher education. This can and must change.

Source link

January 14, 2025
Widening access needs more flexibility

It has been reported that decision to lower the fee cap on foundation year fees may lead some providers reluctantly to withdraw from that provision, while others will continue to offer those courses at a loss.

In November, the Office for Students’ Director for Fair Access and Participation announced that the access mission would renew its focus upon “ensuring universities and colleges can play their part in giving all aspiring students the opportunity to gain the knowledge, skills and experiences they need to be confident in the choices they make on their pathway to achieving their aspirations, at multiple points along their journey”.

There is clearly a strong appetite among providers, policymakers and regulators to enhance efforts to promote access in line with the Secretary of State’s emphasis on the importance of widening participation as an instrument of social mobility.

During 2024, we at QAA published a range of resources and policy papers supporting this access agenda, including work on degree apprenticeships, lifelong learning, awarding gaps and credit transfer. We also in 2024 celebrated the registration of the millionth student onto an Access to Higher Education Diploma (AHE) course since we started managing the scheme for the recognition and quality assurance of this provision in 1997.

All about access

This qualification is widely recognised in universities’ entry criteria as an alternative to more traditional Level 3 qualifications such as A Levels and BTECs. It is designed to cater for learners from diverse educational and socioeconomic backgrounds and to offer degrees of flexibility to suit the lifestyles of these returners to learning – who often devote their time and energies to family and work commitments on top of their studies.

AHE provision makes a significant contribution to widening participation. Each year around five per cent of all UCAS applications come from AHE students. More than 36,000 students are currently registered on AHE courses.

The latest figures show that 19,320 AHE students were accepted for entry into higher education in 2023. Nearly a quarter of those progressed to nursing and midwifery courses, and another 23 per cent to programmes in health and social care.

Twenty-four per cent of 2023’s cohort of AHE students entering higher education came from areas of disadvantage – compared with only 11 per cent of students with other Level 3 qualifications entering HE. Fifty-two per cent of that Access cohort entering HE were over 25 years old, compared with just 11 per cent of students with other Level 3 qualifications. These people have overcome barriers to participation in practice and in droves.

Understanding the barriers

We recently conducted a survey of more than 700 Access students. We asked what barriers they had perceived when considering applying for their course. Our research revealed their concerns had often focused on the amount of time they would need to devote to their studies. Those aged 20-34 identified the cost of living as having been a key consideration, while those aged over 35 were more worried about the impact their studies would have on their families and their family lives.

New research conducted by Laser Learning Awards has found that 48.3 per cent of 116 of their own AHE students surveyed saw family commitments as a barrier to learning, and 31.3 per cent identified carer responsibilities – while 63.2 per cent flagged work scheduling issues.

These findings chimed with a recent Open University study which found that, although nearly two-thirds of mothers aspire to retrain for new careers, anxieties about money, time and parental responsibilities tend to hold them back. As about three-quarters of AHE students are female, it seems likely that they experience similar barriers.

Flexibility is key

It is increasingly vital to address these barriers to widening participation: not simply by offering access routes but by ensuring that those routes are sufficiently flexible to be viable for aspiring learners. These flexibilities may, for example, take place through varying modes, paces and dates of delivery.

The Covid-19 crisis taught providers across the tertiary sector ways to deliver programmes online. Now, online engagement can free learners with busy schedules and finite resources from time-constraints and from the costs of travel. Remote and hybrid study modes have proven increasingly popular with AHE students.

Part-time study can also help to overcome barriers facing non-traditional learners. In 2018-19, only 16 per cent of AHE students were studying part-time. But in the three years following the 2020 lockdown the proportion of part-timers increased from less than a third to more than half of all AHE learners.

During 2023-24, 54 per cent of AHE students paced their learning over more than a single academic year, often spreading their studies over about 18 months. The proportion of part-time Access learners peaked at this point – right at the height of the cost-of-living crisis, a period during which learners often needed to increase their working hours and to limit their childcare costs. This current academic year, with inflationary pressures somewhat diminished, our proportion of part-time learners has settled at 42 per cent – the same level as two years ago – and more than two-and-a-half times what it was six years ago.

AHE providers have found value in offering January start-dates, affording part-time learners the opportunity to synchronize with traditional autumn starts as they progress into higher education. Of approximately 1,300 AHE courses running this year, 180 are currently open to new registrations commencing in early 2025.

As we continue to learn the value of flexibilities in overcoming the barriers to widening participation, we hope such lessons will help to inform the development of policies and strategies designed to promote higher education’s value as a key driver of social mobility and to transform learners’ lives.

Source link

January 14, 2025
Freshman enrollment up this fall; data error led to miscount

Freshman enrollment did not decline this fall, as previously reported in the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s annual enrollment report in October. On Monday, the NSC acknowledged that a methodological error led to a major misrepresentation of first-year enrollment trends, and that first-year enrollment appears to have increased.

The October report showed first-year enrollments fell by 5 percent, in what would have been the largest decline since the COVID-19 pandemic—and appeared to confirm fears that last year’s bungled rollout of a new federal aid form would curtail college access. Inside Higher Ed reported on that data across multiple articles, and it was featured prominently in major news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

According to the clearinghouse, the error was a methodological one, caused by mislabeling many first-year students as dual-enrolled high school students. This also led to artificially inflated numbers on dual enrollment; the October report said the population of dually enrolled students grew by 7.2 percent.

“The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center acknowledges the importance and significance of its role in providing accurate and reliable research to the higher education community,” Doug Shapiro, the center’s executive director, wrote in a statement. “We deeply regret this error and are conducting a thorough review to understand the root cause and implement measures to prevent such occurrences in the future.”

On Jan. 23, the clearinghouse will release another annual enrollment report based on current term estimates that use different research methodologies.

The Education Department had flagged a potential issue in the data this fall when its financial aid data showed a 5 percent increase in students receiving federal aid. In a statement, Under Secretary James Kvaal said the department was “encouraged and relieved” by the clearinghouse’s correction.

Source link

January 13, 2025
China’s censorship goes global — from secret police stations to video games
Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. The previous entry covered Australia’s ban on teen social media, South Korea’s martial law decree, and more. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

China’s censorship in the news — and in the U.S.
- Late last month, a New York man pleaded guilty in Brooklyn Federal Court to his role in running a secret Chinese government police station in Manhattan. The Chinese government is accused of setting up over a hundred such stations worldwide and using them to surveil, threaten, and silence dissidents outside its borders. His prosecution is the latest in a series of Department of Justice efforts to combat foreign governments’ targeting their critics within U.S. borders.
- On a related note, President Joe Biden established a “China Censorship Monitor and Action Group” in December. The group’s mission is to “monitor and address the effects of any efforts by the PRC to censor or intimidate, in the United States or in any of its possessions or territories, any United States person, including a United States company that conducts business in the PRC, exercising its freedom of speech.”
- If you’re a gamer, you might be excited about the popular new video game “Marvel Rivals.” But you may be disappointed to learn that the game comes with some strings attached — namely, users cannot make political statements that the Chinese Communist Party dislikes. The game, created by Marvel and Chinese developer NetEase, blocks users from typing phrases in the chat function including “Tiananmen Square,” “free Taiwan,” “free Hong Kong,” “free Tibet,” and “Taiwan is a country.” What is allowed? Negative commentary about Taiwan.
On a somber anniversary, a glimmer of hope for blasphemers

Sign reading Je Suis Charlie at a memorial for the victims of the Charlie Hebdo magazine terror attacks in 2015. (conejota / Shutterstock.com)

Jan. 7 marked the tenth anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, in which cartoonists and staff from satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo were killed by gunmen over the magazine’s depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. The magazine commemorated the date with a contest for the “funniest and meanest” depictions of God.

As I wrote about the anniversary, we have failed to protect blasphemers since the killings and, in some ways, the legal realities are getting even worse for those accused of transgressing against deities. But there are a couple of bright spots in the wake of the commemoration.

WATCH: UK to create blasphemy laws?

A BBC report released on the anniversary itself announced that Nigerian humanist Mubarak Bala was set free from prison after a nearly five year legal battle. Bala was initially sentenced to 24 years in prison for blasphemous Facebook posts. His sentence was reduced last year, and although he has now been released, he is not exactly free. Bala is in hiding in a safe house, due to concerns that he will be attacked by vigilantes or mobs.

And, now, Spain is looking to set a good example, with the Socialist party’s introduction of a bill that would, among other things, repeal the country’s blasphemy law that hands out fines to offenders. This law “rarely achieves convictions and yet it is constantly used by extremist and fundamentalist organisations to persecute artists, activists (and) elected representatives, subjecting them to costly criminal proceedings,” the party’s spokesperson said.

The legislation was prompted by a lawsuit “brought by Abogados Cristianos (Christian Lawyers) against comedienne Lalachus after she, in a state television appearance during New Year’s Eve celebrations, brandished an image of Jesus on which the head of the cow mascot for a popular TV program had been superimposed.”

The latest in speech rulings and regulations

From the UK to Germany to Singapore: Police are watching what you post

Blog

Police detained a pro-Palestinian activist in London under the UK’s Terrorism Act for, as the arresting officer put it, “making a hate speech.”

Read More
- Lithuania’s Constitutional Court ruled as unconstitutional a provision in the country’s Law on the Protection of Minors from Negative Effects of Public Information, which stated that information about non-traditional families was harmful to minors and could be restricted.
- Irish media regulator Coimisiún na Meán released a decision last month warning Meta to take “specific measures” to reduce the “dissemination of terrorist content” on Facebook and report its progress. The nature of the “terrorist content” remains unclear.
- The UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal issued a ruling finding that an “undercover surveillance operation” by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Metropolitan Police to identify journalists’ sources was “disproportionate” and “undermined” media protections
- Albania announced a one-year ban on TikTok, with the country’s prime minister blaming the app for violence among young people, including the recent stabbing death of a 14-year-old. (The Supreme Court is deliberating the TikTok ban here in the United States, a ban FIRE opposes as a First Amendment violation.)
- On Christmas Day, Vietnam enacted a new decree requiring social media users to verify their identity, a tool that’s ripe for abuse in a country known for its crusade to silence online government critics.
Maker of infamous Pegasus spyware loses to WhatsApp in California court

NSO Group Technologies is a cyber-intelligence firm known for its proprietary spyware Pegasus. (poetra / Shutterstock.com)

Meta’s WhatsApp won a major victory in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the NSO Group, an Israel-based spyware company. The NSO Group was accused of exploiting WhatsApp to install its infamous Pegasus spyware program into over a thousand phones.

Pegasus, sold to governments around the world by NSO Group, became the center of blockbuster reporting in recent years over its use to target human rights activists and journalists — and the wife of Jamal Khashoggi, the U.S. based journalist who was brutally murdered in the Saudi consulate in 2018.

Deepening repression continues into 2025

The new year unfortunately doesn’t mean an end to repressive trends around the world, some of which have been building for years or even decades.
- Hong Kong is once again attempting to punish its exiled pro-democracy activists. Late last month, Hong Kong police offered large rewards for information assisting in the arrest of activists now in the UK and Canada who are accused of national security law violations. Then the city’s government canceled the passports of seven activist “absconders,” including some based in the U.S. “You will become a discarded soldier, you will have no identity,” Secretary for Security Chris Tang said at a press conference. “After I cancelled your passport, you cannot go anywhere.” And early this week, police raided a pollster’s home and office over claims he assisted a “wanted person who has absconded overseas.”
- Meanwhile, critics are still being punished regularly within Hong Kong. A 19-year-old student is battling charges that he insulted China’s national anthem by turning his back while it played at a World Cup qualifier. He pleaded not guilty this month.
- A teenage girl spent the holidays in pre-trial detention in St. Petersburg, Russia, after being detained on charges of “public calls for committing terrorist activities or public justification of terrorism.” The 16-year-old allegedly put on her school’s bulletin board flyers celebrating “Heroes of Russia” — Russian troops who defected to fight for Ukraine.
- It’s difficult to imagine any more ways the Taliban could dream up to suppress the expression and presence of women of Afghanistan, but they found another. A government spokesman announced that existing buildings and new construction would be required to obscure or eliminate windows showing “the courtyard, kitchen, neighbour’s well and other places usually used by women,” as the sight of them could “lead to obscene acts.”
- Human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa, whose repeat and unjust prosecutions I’ve discussed in previous Dispatch entries, has once again been sentenced to prison for his commentary about Thailand’s monarchy. This time he’s been sentenced to nearly three years in prison over an anti-monarchy Harry Potter-themed 2020 protest. In total, that puts him at almost 19 years in prison.
- Apple and Google pulled VPNs from their app stores in India in response to an order from the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, an act that “marks the first significant implementation of India’s 2022 regulatory framework governing VPN apps.” These regulations require VPN providers to keep for five years records of users’ names and identifying information.
- A Uyghur woman was sentenced to 17 years in prison for engaging in “illegal underground religious activity” by teaching about Islam to her sons and neighbor.
- Kenya’s president claimed for months that allegations of forced disappearances of activists connected to a youth protest movement were “fake news” but now appears to admit the government’s responsibility and promises an end to the kidnappings. “What has been said about abductions, we will stop them so Kenyan youth can live in peace, but they should have discipline and be polite so that we can build Kenya together,” president William Ruto said last month.
- This month, Vietnamese lawyer Tran Dinh Trien went on trial for “infringing upon the interests of the state” in three Facebook posts criticizing the chief justice of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam. He’s potentially facing up to seven years in prison.
- And last week, María Corina Machado, opposition leader against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, was “violently intercepted” and arrested after exiting a protest in Caracas. Machado had previously been in hiding from an arrest warrant issued against her. She’s since been released but her team alleges that she “was forced to record several videos” before being set free.
Recently unbanned Satanic Verses is popular in India’s bookstores — for now

Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses” speaks at the 75th Frankfurt Book Fair on Oct. 21, 2023.

In November, I noted that India’s ban on Salman Rushdie’s controversial bestseller “The Satanic Verses” was ending for an absurd reason: No one could find the decades-old order from customs authorities banning its import.

The book is now available in the country’s shops and appears to be a hit. One store manager said he was selling out of copies, despite the book’s higher-than-average cost. But not everyone is thrilled by its popularity. Groups calling for a reinstatement of the ban include the Forum Against Blasphemy and the All India Muslim Jamaat, whose president said, “No Muslim can tolerate seeing this hateful book on any bookstore shelf.”
Source link
January 13, 2025
A Response to ‘Online Degrees Out of Reach’

A Response to ‘Online Degrees Out of Reach’

Susan H. Greenberg

Mon, 01/13/2025 – 03:00 PM

An ed-tech consultant writes that a recent article about online completion rates “shows a disturbing disregard for the complexities of education outcomes.”

Byline(s)

Letters to the Editor

Source link

January 13, 2025
Welcome Visible Body to Cengage

Reading Time: 2 minutes

At Cengage, creating quality learning experiences is a priority. Our goal is to put the learner at the center of these experiences to help them prepare for the future, especially in much-needed fields like health care, biology and life sciences.

And so, to enhance learner engagement and deepen students’ understanding of key science concepts, we’re excited to welcome Visible Body to Cengage and our science offerings.

Introducing Visible Body

Visible Body is a leading provider of interactive apps and software used by over a million students, educators and health care/biomedical professionals around the world. Visible Body provides highly detailed 3D visuals, micro-lessons and game-like interactivity to make studying anatomy and biology easier and more engaging.

Cengage and Visible Body deepen science learning

By teaming up, we can provide expanded science offerings to more learners and educators — boosting engagement, improving problem-solving skills and strengthening students’ grasp of key science concepts.

Visible Body adds to the variety of ways we can support learning. For science courses like anatomy and physiology and biology, it is vital that students gain a deep understanding of the human body and are given a hands-on way to engage with the concepts and processes.

With accurate visual representations, anatomically correct 3D models and immersive activities, learners can master the concepts quickly, while gaining access to real-world scientific experiences and practicing essential skills for the workforce. AR and mixed reality bring learning to life, enabling students to engage with scenarios typically limited to lab environments. This approach empowers institutions, especially those strained for resources, to deliver high-quality, engaging education without labs.

What’s in the future for science teaching and learning?

Visible Body will be available with Dr. Liz Co’s “Anatomy & Physiology” later this spring with plans to add it to even more Cengage higher ed and K-12 science resources soon.

Interested in learning about Liz Co’s “Anatomy & Physiology” — along with the addition of Visible Body? Fill out the form to find out more.

Source link

January 13, 2025
High schoolers: Become a voice for tomorrow, today!
Free speech is more than just a constitutional right — it’s the cornerstone of democracy and social progress. In today’s divided political climate, defending this right has never been more important. That’s why FIRE’s Free Speech Forum is bringing together passionate young leaders who are ready to become tomorrow’s defenders of free speech.

The Free Speech Forum isn’t just another high school summer camp. It’s an immersive, week-long experience designed for rising 10th through 12th graders who are passionate about free speech and learning about the First Amendment. Held at American University in Washington, D.C. from June 22-28, this unique forum is a launchpad for students eager to learn from experts, connect with like-minded peers, and build the skills needed to advocate for these vital democratic values — on campus and beyond.

Free Speech Forum

Page

FIRE is bringing together the next generation of free speech leaders at American University in Washington D.C. from June 22 to 28.

Read More

What to expect:
- Interactive workshops led by free speech experts
- Field trips to key sites in Washington, D.C.
- Skill-building activities to help you better advocate for free speech in your community
- Networking opportunities with advocates, policymakers, and fellow students
This is a chance to join 200 student leaders for an unforgettable week of learning and career development, all right in the heart of one of America’s greatest cities.

Who should apply? The forum is open to college-bound students who:
- Have a passion for free speech and advocacy
- Rising 10th to 12th graders at the time of application
- Are able to attend the entire program
What does it cost? It’s completely free! FIRE covers registration, housing in the American University dormitories, and meals. Students are responsible for their own travel arrangements to and from Washington, D.C., but FIRE will provide free transportation between Ronald Reagan National Airport or Union Station and the university.

What if I can’t afford the cost of travel? A limited number of need-based scholarships are available to help with travel expenses to and from Washington, D.C. Students will be notified about the scholarship application process after they are accepted into the program.

How do I apply? Applications are now open! The application deadline is March 30, 2025. Due to the competitive nature of the program, we recommend applying early.

This is your chance to dive deep into the First Amendment, explore the history of free speech, learn from the experts, and develop the skills you need to become an advocate for free expression.

Questions? For more information, email [email protected].

We can’t wait to see you in D.C. this summer!

Apply Now
Source link
January 13, 2025
College Financials 2022-23 | HESA
StatsCan dropped some college financial data over the XMAS holidays. I know you guys are probably sick of this subject, but it’s still good to have some national data—even if it is eighteen months out of date and doesn’t really count the last frenzied months of the international student gold rush (aka “doing the Conestoga”). But it does cover the year in which everyone now agrees student visa numbers “got out of control,” so there are some interesting things to be learned here nonetheless.

To start, let’s look quickly at college income by source. Figure 1, below, shows that college income did rise somewhat in 2022-23, due mainly to an increase in tuition income (up 35% between the nadir COVID year of 20-21 and 22-23). But overall, once inflation is taken into account, the increase in college income really wasn’t all that big: about a billion dollars in 2021-22 and about the same again in 2022-23, or about 6-7% per year after inflation. Good? Definitely. Way above what universities were managing, and well above most sectors internationally? But it’s not exactly the banditry that some communicators (including the unofficial national minister of higher education, Marc Miller) like to imply.

Figure 1: College Income by Source, Canada, 2017-18 to 2022-23, in Billions of $2022

Now I know a few of you are looking at this and scratching your heads, asking what the hell is going on in Figure 1. After all, haven’t I (among others) made the point about record surpluses in the college sector? Well, yes. But I’ve only ever really been talking about Ontario, which is the only province where international tuition fees have really taken flight. In Figure 2, I put the results for Ontario and for the other nine provinces side-by-side. And you can see how different the two are. Ontario has seen quite large increases in income, mainly through tuition fees and by ancillary income bouncing back to where it was pre-COVID, while in the other nine provinces income growth is basically non-existent in any of the three categories.

Figure 2a/b. College Income by Source, Ontario vs Other Nine Provinces, 2017-18 to 2022-23, in Billions of $2022

(As an aside, just note here that over 70% of all college tuition income is collected in the province of Ontario, which is kind of wild. At the national level, Canada’s college sector is not really a sector at all…their aims, goals, tools, and income patterns all diverge enormously.)

Figure 3 drills down a little bit on the issue of tuition fee income to show where they have been growing and where they have not. One might look at this and think its irreconcilable with Figure 2, since tuition fees in the seven smaller provinces seem to be increasing at a rate similar to Ontario. What that should tell you, though, is that the base tuition from which these figures are rising are pretty meagre in the seven smallest provinces, and quite significant in Ontario. (Also, remember that in Ontario, domestic tuition fees fell by over 20% or so after inflation between 2019-20 and 2022-23, so this chart is actually underplaying the growth in international fees in that province a bit.)

Figure 3: Change in Real Aggregate Tuition Income by Province, 2017-18 to 2022-23, (2017-18 = 100)

Now I want to look specifically at some of the data with respect to expenditures and to try to ask the question: where did that extra $2.2 billion that the sector acquired in 21-22 and 22-23 (of which, recall, over 70% went to Ontario alone) go?

Figure 4 answers this question in precise detail, and once again the answer depends on whether you are talking about Ontario or the rest of the country. The biggest jump in expenditures by far is “contracted services” in Ontario—an increase of over $500M in just two years. This is probably as close a look as we will ever get at the economics of those PPP colleges that were set up around the GTA since most of this sum is almost certainly made up of public college payments to those institutions for paying the new students had arrived in those two years. If you assume the increase in international students at those colleges was about 40,000 (for a variety of reasons, an exact count on this is difficult), then that implies that colleges were paying their PPP partners about $12,500 per student on average and pocketing the difference, which would have been anywhere between about $2,500 and $10,000, depending on the campus and program. And of course, most of the funds spent on PPP were spent one way or another on teaching expenses for these students.

Figure 4: Change in Expenditures/Surplus, Canadian Colleges 2022-23 vs 2020-21, Ontario vs. Other 9 Provinces, in millions of 2022

On top of that, Ontario colleges threw an extra $300 million into new construction (this is a bit of an exaggeration because 2020-21 was a COVID year and building expenses were abnormally low), and an extra $260 million (half a billion in total) thrown into reserve funds for future years. This last is money that probably would have ended up as capital expenditures in future years if the feds hadn’t come crashing in and destroying the whole system last year but will now probably get used to cover losses over the next year or two instead. Meanwhile, in the rest of Canada, surpluses decreased between 2020-21 and 2022-23, and such spending increases as occurred came mostly under the categories “miscellaneous” and “ancillary enterprises.”

2022-23 of course was not quite “peak international student” so this analysis can’t quite tell the full story of how international students affected colleges. We’ll need to wait another 11 months for that data to show up. But I doubt that the story I have outlined based on the data available to date will not change too much. In short, the financials show that:
- Colleges outside Ontario were really not making bank on international students.
- Within Ontario, over a third of the additional revenue from international students generated in the 2020-21 to 2022-23 period was paid out to PPP partners, who would have spent most of that on instruction.
- Of the remaining billion or so, about a third went into new construction and another 20% was “surplus,” which probably meant it was intended for future capital expenditure.
- The increase in core college salary mass was miniscule—in fact only about 3% after inflation.
If there was “empire building” going on, it was in the form of constructing new buildings, not in terms of massive salary rises or hiring sprees.
Source link
January 13, 2025